Pinkhos and the Feminist case against Traditional Egalitarianism / פּינחס און דער פֿעמיניסטער ענין קעגן טראַדיציאָנאַלע עגאַליטאַריאַניזם

This is a weekly series

of parsha dvarim (Tōrah commentaries) written by a frum, atheist, transsexual anarchist, with guest posts from comrades. It's crucial in these times that we resist the narrative that Zionism owns Judaism. Our texts are rich—sometimes opaque, but absolutely teeming with wisdom and fierce debate. It's the work of each generation to extricate meaning from our cultural and religious inheritance. I aim to offer comment which is true to the pshat (i.e. engages with the plain meaning of the text, especially when it's difficult) and uses Tōrah like a light to reflect on our modern times.

An appeal

My friend Kamal needs help to leave Gaza. He is trying to immigrate to Greece to search for his missing son, who in desperation took a small and dangerous lifeboat across the Mediterranean. Please donate what you can.

Content note

Misogyny

Summary

Last week's parsha ends with Pinkhos—the namesake for this week's parsha—killing Zimri (an Israelite man who exemplifies Jewish sin by openly doing idol worship) and Kozbi (Zimri's consort) with a spear through their bellies. This week, Hashem praises Pinkhos for his zealous "passion" and suggests that He would have killed everyone (again) had it not been for Pinkhos' violent intervention. Pinkhos is rewarded with the priesthood.

Hashem tells Mōshe Rebeynu and Eliozor to take another census of military-aged men, and land is allotted to each tribe based on this count. The daughters of Tslofkhod—Makhloh, Nōoh, Khogloh, Milkoh, and Sirtsoh—come forward asking for their father's portion: he died and left no sons, so their family has no land because only men count in the census. Hashem declares that the daughters' case is just and He gives us more detailed inheritance laws that not only sons but daughters, brothers, uncles, or the nearest relative can inherit.

Hashem tells Mōshe to prepare to die and appoints Hōshua as the next community leader. The parsha ends with details about the sacrifices we're to offer on the yom tōvim (major holidays).

This parsha makes an excellent argument for gender equity: Hashem rules that all kin, not just sons, are entitled to inherit property. Divine law is amended to include women through the vehicle of human reasoning and appeal. We must continue to use our faculties (and zeal) to advocate for ourselves and assert what we know as transfeminists to be right.

Gender equity and halakha

Bmidbar 27:4 (Misha Holleb)

0:00

/16.535499

1×

The case for egalitarianism is simple and compelling: de-gendering the space and the obligations makes participation equally accessible to all, and (theoretically) rights the wrongs of patriarchy.

Traditional Egalitarianism (and its arguably more traditional off-shoot, "halachic egalitarianism") is a relatively new movement which advocates egalitarian adherence to halakha: every Jewish adult is obligated in the positive time-bound mitsves regardless of gender. There is no mekhitse: the seating is mixed-gender. Everyone's voices are heard by everyone else (no "kol isha"). The Rabbis and lay-leaders might be women, men, or any other gender, and anyone can receive an aliyah. Every adult Jew counts in the minyon. Everyone is equal.

Traditional Egalitarianism is ostensibly invested in halakha. But in practice, most TradEgal people that I know don't try to fulfill the positive time-bound obligations. They don't lay tefilin, or daven thrice daily, or wear tsitsit, or count the Ōmer, or hear the shōfar every weekday of Elul, or shake lulav and dwell in the sukkah during the yontif. They're also not so bothered about gender-neutral mitsves like kashrus or keeping Shabos, the two observances which (in addition to daily davening) distinguish "traditional" Judaism from what is called liberal Judaism in America. ("Liberal" here refers to a liberal relationship with halakha, not a political orientation.)

The lack of halakhik observance among TradEgal congregants is, I believe, a function of the unsustainable expectation that everyone fulfill the time-bound mitsves, and the lack of social infrastructure to support such an observant lifestyle.

What is "traditional"

Despite being a nearly 200 year old tradition, Reform Judaism is never referred to as "traditional", because tradition isn't about age: it's about addition, rather than subtraction or negation.

Traditional Egalitariansim follows this approach with regards to its liturgy, which is "complete"—not making subtractions as liberal congregations do. Rather than removing mention of the patriarchs, TradEgal congregations add in the martriarchs. They also daven almost entirely in Hebrew (sometimes English sneaks in for prayers for the hostages, the state of Israel, or a Debbie Friedman rendition of mi sh'berakh).

Following the tradition means we can't throw out the pieces we don't like—we must wrestle with them.

I stress that we shouldn't wait for good halakha before doing what's right. Halakha can and should catch up with Jewish practice and human reasoning, as it has before—as it is has, in fact, in this very parsha. Pinkhos encourages us to take the law into our hands and the disenfranchised sisters bas Tslofkhod teach us to advocate for ourselves and what we deserve. This requires halakhik creativity to support what we know is right (gender equity and support for queer Jews), which requires sympathetic halakhik scholars.

As someone with one foot in the TradEgal world and the other in the frum world, I am disgruntled with both. The misogyny in orthodoxy is repulsive and unacceptable. And, a "gender-blind" approach to feminism fails to address the material practicalities of strict halakhik observance.

Who is doing the dishes?

What does the TradEgal movement mean when it says that all adult Jews are obligated in all the mitsvos? The most popular halakhik argument for egalitarianism is the Hadar model: there is one human gender ("man") and the lower socio-religious category of "woman" is outdated and discarded. It's insulting to everyone involved.

The mental gymnastics of egalitarianism within the framework of halakha are interesting to me, but getting rid of "woman" as a gender is femicide, not liberation. Feminism shouldn't be an attempt at turning all (cis) women into men.

More materially, when everyone is equally obligated in everything—in spending so much time studying and davening in shul—who does the domestic labor? Who's making the kosher meals, watching the kids, cleaning the house, maintaining social relationships, and all the other unpaid women's work? This feminist liberation means either that Jewish women are now doing domestic and cultural/spiritual labor on top of their jobs; or the domestic labor is outsourced to a goyishe woman. Who can afford a housekeeper or nanny? I guess the same people who can afford to live on the Upper West Side and founded Hadar.

For the rest of us, something's got to give. In the case of the TradEgal community, the norm is to do less spiritual labor.

I don't say this to denigrate anyone's personal or communal practice—contrary to Pinkhos, I believe it's not my business to police how other Jews observe. I admit that, as someone who isn't a halakhik scholar, I don't have a simple solution to the problem of patriarchy in the tradition. Rather I'm seeking to problematize something that is taken as self-evident ("egalitarianism is good for women and also trans people").

I hasten to add too that "tradition" isn't about perfection regarding every mitsve—instead it's a practice that strives for perfect behavior. This combination of discipline, self-improvement, and refusal to assimilate is part of what appeals to me.

Against gender abolition

I am not suggesting that men belong in Yeshiva, women in the kitchen, and non-binary people anywhere but the bathroom. Rōsh Pinoh, the minyon I lead, has an essentially opt-in policy to obligation. I think there are unexplored paths to halakhikally allowing full participation to those who want it without flattening the experience of gender to "everyone is a man" and trying (failing) to get everyone to do every mitsve.

What does it mean to be a woman or a man? In the context of halakha, like everywhere else, gender is a social role and dress assigned based on a perception of biology. Everyone can become "halakhik men" when we redefine "ish" ("man") to mean "person". Alternatively, we can elevate women and the invisible work of women-and-trans-people-and-some-queer-men to be as privileged as men's work. What if we actually valued social and domestic labor to an extent that made men envious, so they actually participated in it? What if we elevated women's traditional liturgy (like tkhines) to the same station as men's? What if we restructured our families and communities to distribute reproductive labor? What if we stopped treat "man" as the gold standard to which everyone aspires? After all, only some of us are transsexuals that way.