Defining the Individual

In marking a distinction in halachic practice based upon gender, the Halacha is effectively formulating the existence of differing groupings amongst adherents to the system. Within the group of adherents, there are men and there are women – and, with practical consequences, they are distinguished as such. Of course, the Halachic system is full of such distinctions; the very fact that the full Halacha of Taryag mitzvot applies to Jews and not non-Jews is another example of the formulation of such a “group category”. Such “group/categories” are, in fact, replete throughout humanity. Family, nation, labour union are all formulations of distinctions between different human beings, based upon different criteria but all serving the function of categorizing individuals into differing groups. The result is thereby we relate to individuals in different manners based upon their group identity and definition.

It should not be assumed, though, that group identities are simply fabrications, created for pragmatic purposes, but not inherent. It is often the group identity, over the individual identity, that reflects a specific truth. For example, if each individual was seen as unique, the science of medicine would be an impossibility. It is the very fact that we can perceive human beings not as individuals but as elements within a category, that enables us to develop methods of treatments for the members of this group. Of course, the individual exceptions in medicine remind us of individual uniqueness and thus demonstrate the tension in categorization and non-categorization. Fundamentally, any entity can be seen as a unique entity onto itself. We can state that no snowflake is alike. Yet we can see entities as part of a greater group. It is this dynamic, between these two poles, that drives any issue of categorization including the question of gender/women in Judaism.

The dynamic, of course, is not solely between the two poles. At one is extreme is the most general statement of human being which is that we are part of Creation. All creation is part of one category and, indeed, we do see a category of this type emerge in reflecting a specific relationship with God. Our liturgy is full of compositions that reflect the praise of all Creation, as one entity, for the Creator. At the opposite extreme is the singular being, the individual, separate being. In between these two poles are numerous sub-groupings, each with its own identity structure. It is the distinction between these groupings and the interaction of each form of definition that demands our attention. The issue extends beyond the issue of gender while it most certainly is fundamental to the issue of gender. How heavy we draw the lines between groups effects our entire understanding of the greater group and the sub- group that is part of this greater group. The Jewish nation is part of humanity (which in turn is part of the animal kingdom). How does one perceive this differentiation? If one perceives this line that separates the Jewish nation and humanity to be powerful, reflecting substantial qualitative differences – an opinion reflected in the Tanya, for example – one will approach the nature of the groups in one way. If, however, one perceives this line to be somewhat lighter, reflecting a view of the Jew is more connected to general humanity – an opinion reflected in the works of Rambam, for example – one will approach the nature of these groups in a different fashion. Whenever a distinction is made, how one looks at the factors that formulate the distinction will have a great effect on the nature of the distinction and the groupings that ensue. This is just as true in the case of Gender/Women in Judaism. The nature of group distinctions in general, as such, must be the first area of study.