The Little Black Dress: Gender, Judaism and the symbolism of dress

(Author: Bev May, Vol. 69, No. 1, Pesach 2014)

 

La mode n’est pas quelque chose qui existe dans les robes seulement. La mode est dans le ciel, dans la rue, la mode a à voir avec les idées, notre façon de vivre, ce qui se passe.

“Fashion is not something that exists in dresses only. Fashion is in the sky, in the street, fashion has to do with ideas, the way we live, what is happening”.

Coco Chanel

 

Throughout history, fashion and style icons have reflected prevailing societal views of women’s roles. The Little Black Dress (LBD) is one example and since its birth in 1926 has accompanied women on their journey from traditional, home-based roles, to active roles in the economy.

Using the symbol of the LBD as a visual marker of the emergence of the feminist movement in the early 1900s, this article will also examine the theory that views of gender equality in traditional Jewish religious practice and those of secular society result in confusing choices for women. Do women, as a result, acknowledge models of womanhood provided by their religious custom while participating in divergent roles presented by secular society?

It is not the intention to examine a woman’s role from a Jewish religious perspective, but rather to focus on the relationship between secular society and religion, and to discuss the results of their intersection with respect to the equality of women. This article will present the theory that in this respect, religion and society have both moved in synchronisation with each other and have also taken divergent paths through the course of history.

The birth of the LBD

During the First World War, when large numbers of men were serving in the armed forces, women had to step forward to take their places in the factories and farms; after the war, they had to do so for those men who never came back. Men could see that the ‘weak’ Victorian women whose role had been in the home were fully capable and responsible enough to do work previously thought to be the preserve of the stronger sex. Not only did women feel empowered, but their dress needs had to change. Full-length, wide sweeping skirts with leg-of-mutton sleeves, voluminous material, corsets and girdles tightened to create small waists which restricted movement were impractical and dangerous amongst factory machines and farm tools. Women also needed to dress practically in order to have freedom of movement to work. In addition, a reduction in the amount of material and the use of black dye saved on the cost of dresses.1

In paintings of women wearing this style of clothing before World War I, it is not uncommon to see a vial of smelling salts, often attached to a tie at the waist, for purposes of reviving women who fainted (probably caused by an inability to breathe properly due to their restricted rib-cages). This propensity to faint further inculcated the notion that women were physically weak. Writes Prof. Rachel Elior, “when women no longer had to wear corsets and clothing which immobilised them, women realised that they could do anything!”2 In addition to this change brought about by fashion, she continues, women’s ability to choose also added to the progress of their emancipation.

The design of the LBD was embraced as it met the functional and economic requirements of women who were entering the work place as a result of the dire economic straits that prevailed in the US and Europe during the early 1900s. These economic hardships were also felt in South Africa, and led to liberated women’s wear at the University of the Witwatersrand; a letter dated 15 October 1942 addressed to all Heads of Departments dealt with the problem presented by a shortage of stockings (nylon tights), by giving certain categories of female students and all female members of staff permission to wear slacks or dungarees at lectures. The students were, however, cautioned to ensure that these items should be of a “quiet and business-like, tailored cut”.3

This incident is also illustrative of the prevailing view of women’s roles. Pertinent to this discussion, the evolution of women has undergone change to such an extent that this permission and caution with respect to dress, if dispensed to women in a South African university in 2014, would be regarded as outrageous.

Women excluded from religious and secular history

Is it possible to theorise that at some point in history, some religions excluded women from their narrative and from participation in leadership and religious practice, and societies followed suit so that women also disappeared from the pages of secular history?

Although works of fiction cannot be given serious credence in this type of discussion, some of the ideas about the position of women in the early Christian church presented in Dan Brown’s book, The Da Vinci Code, are nevertheless interesting, as are those in Reza Aslan’s The Zealot and Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino’s Search for the Jesus Family Tomb. These hypothesize that women were deliberately excluded from the history of early Christianity. These ideas are not new and are supported in the writings of biblical historians.

A la Da Vinci Code, is it possible that the painting of the Last Supper (a Pesach Seder) holds clues about the status of women in early Christianity – could the figure on Jesus’ right be Mary? With no evidence that Leonardo Da Vinci deliberately painted a woman at the right hand of Jesus, it is nevertheless an interesting notion. There is also speculation about the hand close to “Mary’s” throat and a barely concealed knife, both of which represent a veiled threat to her person.

Bernice Kaplan discussed the exclusion of women in both Biblical and secular history.4 She observes that “the few women who appear in the Biblical narrative are females whose identity has largely been lost because males controlled the canonical process” and that in order to be ‘noticed’ their achievements had to be particularly compelling. Hagith Sivan points out that: “Eve’s daughters obediently continue to fulfil their original function of procreation but …. their identity remains unknown”.5

One female figure who did survive in the Biblical narrative, although not without ambiguity, is Deborah. She was a judge, successful military leader and a prophetess. She was also a decisive, courageous leader who displayed initiative and ‘perfect faith’. Writes Shulamith Kagan, “Deborah was chosen by God to fulfil a mission. This she did with talent, enthusiasm and faithfulness. She led her people to great victory. In the annals of the Hebrew nation she must surely rank second only to Joshua himself”.6 The image of Deborah, however, has not come down the ages unscathed; “the glaring contradiction embodied by Deborah”, presented a problem for a patriarchal view of the world and “they change her from a legislator and issuer of verdicts to a nurturing educator”.7

Another female figure who survives is Miriam. However, although she is called a prophet and is one of the three leaders of the Exodus, she is mentioned in only five passages in the Torah.8

The pattern of feminine diminution is different in secular history, which documents strong women leaders from approximately 1000 BCE, e.g. Queen Zenobia of Palmyra, Queen Cleopatra of Egypt, the Queen of Sheba, Boadicea of the Iceni. These strong women are acknowledged in the historical record at a time when the biblical narrative is almost silent in this regard. Thereafter, however, there is a relative historical silence about strong women until the birth of the LBD and the feminist movement in the early 1900s, when religion and society take on opposing views on female empowerment.

Women enter professions, business and politics

“You can’t be shining lights at the Bar because you are too kind. You can never be corporation lawyers because you are not cold-blooded. You have not a high grade of intellect. I doubt you could ever make a living.”

(Clarence Darrow to a group of women lawyers, 1895)9.

By the early 1900s, men were forced to recognize the necessity of the entry of women, accompanied by the LBD, into professions, politics and business.

In 1872, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the Supreme Court of Illinois’ decision that had denied Myra Bradwell admission to the state bar. In its judgement, the Court noted: “The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfil the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator. And the rules of civil society must be adapted to the general constitution of things, and cannot be based upon exceptional cases”.10 In 1873, a time when society was prepared to a large extent to be guided by religion, invoking the ‘law of the Creator’ provided authority enough.

As late as 1930 these views prevailed in South Africa, where the Dutch Reformed Church believed that the enfranchisement of women was in direct conflict with the word of God. It was argued in a 1930 Parliamentary debate that scientific evidence proved what every man knew – that women had smaller brains.11

Clara Shortridge Foltz, the mother of five children, eventually became the first woman admitted to the bar in the United States in 1878. In South Africa the first woman admitted to the bar was Irene Antoinette Geffen, in May 1923.12Some early Jewish women lawyers were Bertha Solomon, Feodora Clouts, Maggie Oblowitz and Ruth Hayman.

After twenty-seven years of lobbying for women’s rights in South Africa Bertha Solomon, during her tenure as a Member of Parliament, was instrumental in the passing of the Matrimonial Affairs Act (1953) which, for the first time, gave women legal rights to their property, their income and their children in civil courts. It is interesting to note that one of those who spoke in support of the Bill was newly elected MP Helen Suzman during her maiden speech. Bertha “then turned her attention in 1963 to the equality of women under Jewish law. Here she was not successful and the battle continues.”13

The present day scenario is a very different one; the legal landscape has seen an increase of women lawyers, advocates and judges. At the time of writing there are six women Supreme Court of Appeals judges in South Africa. The same could be said about international female leadership as there are many examples of women who have led nations since the arrival of the LBD. They include Angela Merkel (Germany), Julia Gillard (Australia), Golda Meir (Israel), Margaret Thatcher (United Kingdom), Benazir Bhutto (Pakistan) and Indira Gandhi (India).

The world’s financial sectors are generously populated with women leaders. The Reserve Banks of South Africa and Israel and the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States are currently headed by Jewish women (Gill Marcus, Karnit Flug and Janet Yellen respectively). In fact, Israel leads the world with respect to feminine control and management in the financial arena. In addition to Flug, women lead three of the top five Israeli banks, the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange and the Treasury. Lilach Asher-Topilisky is the CEO of Discount Bank, Smadar Berber-Tzadik heads First International and Rakefet Russak-Aminoach is the CEO of Leumi. Ester Levanon is the outgoing CEO of the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (as at November 2013) and Yael Andorn is the Director General of Israel’s Finance Ministry (the Treasury).14

Business too, is replete with women leaders, including Marissa Meyer (Yahoo!), Sheryl Sandberg (Facebook), Zhang Xin (SOHO China) and Meg Whitman ( Hewlett-Packard, previously eBay) to name a few.

Close to home, our community has produced many women business leaders. Examples include Kate Jowell who was the first woman to be appointed Director of the University of Cape Town’s Graduate School of Business (Surour, 2010). and Dr Hannah-Reeve Sanders who was the first woman CEO of Groote Schuur Hospital (1976 – 1986) and then Chief Director, Hospital and Health Services in the Western Cape; the highest post held by a woman in the Public Service at the time (1986 – 1992) 15.

The status of women in religion

If the LBD is a symbol of the emancipation of women, then it is also a stark reminder that some religions find themselves trailing secular society; women still may not vote in the Vatican City.

Within the realms of Jewish religious practice and Jewish law, two poles of gender equality for women exist. In Breslau in 1846, long before the appearance of the LBD, Progressive scholars and rabbis declared women to be the “religious equal of the male” with respect to obligations and rights.16 Perhaps the juxtaposition of the thoughtfulness and intellectual characteristics of Judaism, together with the determination to find the humanity in our religion, resulted in this anachronistic change, a change that preceded the rise of the secular feminist movement by more than fifty years.

In the modern era, Orthodoxy has also made strides towards gender equality. In 1917 the Bais Yaakov school for girls was opened in Poland, giving girls a formalized Torah education for the first time. In America, in the latter half of the 20th Century under the authority of Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik of the Maimonides School near Boston, Orthodox schools began offering girls the same Jewish education that was offered to boys. Before this, only boys were allowed to study Talmud.17 However, in 2013, orthodox Jewish religious practice still does not allow the equal participation of both genders; for example, women may not be counted in a minyan (quorum required for spiritual obligations) nor may they participate in mixed shul services, touch the Torah or read from the Torah during their batmitzvah.18

With respect to the administration of Jewish law, women may not serve as judges on an orthodox Beth Din. Witnesses to a Beth Din case must be must be free people who are not too young, deaf, mentally or morally unsuitable or – female.192021

The dissolution of a Jewish marriage is another source of inequity since the consequences of get -refusal are different for husbands and wives; a man who has not received a get from his spouse can have legitimate children with a new partner. This is not the case for a wife whose husband does not or cannot, give her a get. In this position of being unable to re-marry in a synagogue, with the accompanying negative implications, or to have legitimate children from a subsequent relationship, she finds herself a ‘chained woman’ – agunah.

The Gilded Cage

“Taught from infancy that beauty is woman’s sceptre, the mind shapes itself to the body, and roaming round its gilt cage, only seeks to adorn its prison”, Mary Wollstonecraft (1759 -1797).

Secular society has seen the diffusion of the power of a woman’s sexuality. Opinion on how a woman’s body should be covered has been relaxed – it is now accepted practice for ankles, knees and wrists to be exposed. This is another point of divergence; if beauty could be described as sceptre and a gilded cage for women in the secular world in the 1700s, then perhaps in Judaism, a woman’s sexuality is her gilded cage. Women are separated from men so that they are not distracted from their prayers by her physical presence and the various female sexual enticements – her singing voice or uncovered hair, are silenced and covered respectively.

The status of women in Jewish cultural organisations

If the above confirms that religion and society parted ways at some point in history, then it can also be argued that the Jewish religion and Jewish cultural organizations also took divergent positions on feminine empowerment around the advent of the LBD and in line with changes in society. The success of feminism also found expression within these organizations and the leadership and organisational abilities of Jewish women have been accessed and utilised for the benefit of the community throughout the last century.

Cape Town Jewish women in the early 1900s were almost invisible. Writes Gwynne Schrire (‘Women and Welfare in early 20th Century Cape Town’, Jewish Affairs, Vol. 48, 1993), “An examination of history books including Jewish history books reveals the (same) invisibility of women. …..Apart from sepia wedding photos, not much concrete evidence of their activities survives. Their views did not matter. Their role in society was considered too insignificant to be recorded.” Poignantly (continues Schrire), “there must have been some Jewish women because there was a Jewish wedding in 1844”.

The Union of Jewish Women (UJW) provided a place at this time, where women could operate within the parameters of the Jewish community with which they identified, and yet outside of the male dominated conservative religious establishment. In its early history, this organisation challenged the male domination of religion, including the issue of women’s rights in the synagogue. The first constitution of the UJW included the promotion of the social, educational, spiritual and moral welfare of the Jewish woman, the reform of discriminatory Jewish laws and the equality of status between men and women in the Jewish community. Previously, women were not allowed to vote, attend meetings or be eligible for election to any synagogue committee but by October 1932, the Cape Town Hebrew congregation was admitting them to full membership (albeit not to executive office). By September 1933, Jewish women were able to record their votes in all Jewish communal institutions.22 The UJW also worked for the equality of women outside of shul walls, obtaining representation for women on local communal organisations as well as addressing the discrimination of women in Jewish law.

In 2013 the SA Jewish Board of Deputies was headed by a woman (Mary Kluk) as was the Cape Board (Li Boiskin) and the Board of KwaZulu Natal Jewry (Linda Nathan), while the National Director was Wendy Kahn.

In defence of gender inequality in Judaism

It is becoming increasingly difficult for the unequal treatment of women in traditional Judaism to have resonance as secular culture has provided opportunities for women to explore their full potential as a result of the rise of the feminist movement. The arguments that women are spiritually more pure and, as a result, do not require the same level of liturgical participation, and/or that they do not require the obligation to perform time-based mitzvot (either as a result of their role in the family or because their spirituality is greater than that of men) are examples of this. On this, Rabbi S R Hirsch writes:

Clearly, women’s exemption from positive, time-bound mitzvot is not a consequence of their diminished worth; nor is it because the Torah found them unfit, as it were, to fulfil these mitzvot. Rather, it seems to me, it is because the Torah understood that women are not in need of these mitzvot. The Torah affirms that our women are imbued with a great love and a holy enthusiasm for their role in divine worship, exceeding that of man. The trials men undergo in their professional activities jeopardize their fidelity to Torah, and therefore they require from time to time reminders and warnings in the form of time-bound mitzvot. Women, whose lifestyle does not subject them to comparable trials and hazards, have no need for such periodic reminders”.2324

Commenting on this, Rabbi David Hartman notes that the “ultimate intent is clearly to justify Halacha in light of the egalitarian critique, not to transform it.”

This requirement for a woman to be released from time-based obligations is also proffered as an explanation for the prayer “Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the Universe, for not having made me a woman”.25 In this prayer, men thank their creator for blessing them with obligations to perform time-based mitzvot – if they were women, these obligations would not be required.

These defences of gender-based inequity can only add to the confusion for a woman who lives in the modern world where both men and women have similar time-based obligations and where women are faced with the same “trials and hazards” that accompany their professional activities.

The halachic gender-ethos that says that any action that may compromise a women’s role in the home as wife and mother, should be prohibited is another argument for gender inequity. This was advanced by Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, Israel’s first Chief Rabbi, in the 1920s, as a reason why women should not be allowed to vote.26 His responsum on the matter expresses concern that women’s suffrage would pose a threat to family harmony; “through the tempest of opinions and their divisions, the status of home peace is destroyed.”

“It’s too complicated” – there is no logic in this argument for a community that values intellectual pursuits, revels in analysis and has produced more Nobel Prize winners per capita than any other. The problem presented by agunot, for example, is surely not larger than our ability to solve it.

“But it’s always been this way.” This defence is commonly presented; as custodians of ancient traditions that have served to protect our communities through the ages, we should not tamper with our heritage lest we are responsible for some alteration which (it then follows) could have negative consequences. This reasoning needs to be balanced against the negative consequences of maintaining the gender inequity against women.

In the South African context, our great concern about how to preserve our Jewish identity as fears of the blurring of boundaries that define us, drives us to maintain the status quo and to remain insular. The reasons for this may include the microcosm created by our country’s political isolation that also served to isolate and insulate our culture as well as our response to South Africa’s transformation. Our new, open, democracy has not resulted in our willingness to examine to new possibilities but has rather resulted in the community becoming more insular.27

Within Orthodox circles the feminism debate rages; Rabbi David Hartman explains that “Halachically, the exemption of women from Torah study segregates them into what might almost be considered a separate spiritual caste. It is not only that lacking direct access to the mechanisms of culture (i.e., the sacred tradition), women within traditional Judaism may never become active creators of culture. There is also the internal religious dimension, being deprived of exposure to the vehicles of personal and collective spiritual growth. Women within this framework cannot be initiators, conquerors, or builders – even of themselves”.

A way forward?

There is evidence that when necessary, Jewish laws have been changed to adapt to evolving times and takkanot are regularly issued for this purpose.

Takkanot that specifically apply to the position of women in Jewish society include the abolishment of polygamy in the 10th Century by decree of Rabbenu Gershom. This decree was precipitated by the changing position of women at the time. In Germany at that time, women became active in the economy while their husbands devoted themselves to the study of Torah. As their roles as breadwinners increased, their esteem was raised in the eyes of the Jewish community. In addition women themselves became conscious of their improved stature and began to agitate for more rights. “The easiest way to cow a woman into continuous submission to her husband’s will was by threatening to introduce a rival into the house”.28

In the Babylonian Talmud, a takkanah was issued in the 5th Century CE that ensured that if a woman was abducted and married against her will, a rabbi could annul the marriage.29303132Another was issued in the 13th Century CE, in Troyes, France, to ensure that property brought into a marriage by a woman could revert to the original owners on her death and not automatically be inherited by her husband.

A more recent example was a takkanah issued in 1944 in by the Chief Rabbinate in Mandatory Palestine that a man must maintain the widow of his brother until her release by means of chalitza. Previously if a brother-in-law did not perform chalitza (by design or default), his sister-in-law remained in limbo, unsupported and unable to re-marry.33 Civil society has also sought to redress gender inequality that results from religious law. The South African Divorce Act requires the removal of religious impediments to the re-marriage of either spouse (Divorce Act 70 of 1979). As a result a civil divorce can only be granted in South Africa when both spouses have provided a get which prevents the potential for get-extortion or get-recalcitrance. Similar legislation exists in Israel, Canada and some states in the US. In 2013, Rabbinic courts in Israel were given leave to imprison men for get-recalcitrance indefinitely.34

In June 2013, it was reported that Beit Hillel in Israel, headed by a woman, Rav Oshra Koren, issued a new halachic ruling that allows women to recite prayer in memory of their deceased parents (Brackman, 2013). The question of women saying Kaddish was first discussed in the 17th Century and although this complex issue has been reviewed several times in the last 300 years, there are few Orthodox communities which permit women to say Kaddish today.

The picture of gender equality in Israel reflects the gap between secular society and the Jewish religion under discussion here. Israel’s Declaration of Independence (14 May 1948) was one of the earliest constitutional documents in the world to include gender within a guarantee of equality in social and political rights. “The message was clear – Israel’s pre-state experience of discrimination and persecution had produced in the founders of the state a heightened sensitivity to the issue of group discrimination”.35 Subsequently, however, the principles of gender equity were not included in the Basic Laws of Israel as a constitutional right because religious political parties opposed the freedom of conscience and equality as it would undermine religious power over marriage and divorce. In 1951, the Women’s Equal Rights Law was passed, but neither this law nor the Declaration of Independence bestowed constitutional authority on the courts to cancel subsequent primary legislation, enacted by the Knesset.

In the Knesset, every legislative proposal for a constitutional bill of rights was obstructed by the Jewish religious political parties, largely on the grounds that the principle of equality for women must be subordinated to the predicates of Judaism in all matters of personal status. On this, Professor Frances Raday, Chair of Labor Law, Hebrew University, writes, “The Israeli legal system is marked by a deep dichotomy between traditionalist preservation of patriarchy in matters related to religion, on the one hand, and progressive and even radical legislative and judicial policy on matters of gender equality not related to religious norms, on the other. This dichotomy is also apparent in the gap between the high level of women’s education and their high level of representation in professional life, especially in the legal system itself as lawyers and judges, and the comparatively low level of women’s political representation, as ministers in the government or members of Knesset”.

Conclusion

Both secular society and religion have embraced modernity – appliances that free us from boredom and drudgery or information technology that improves our lives. If the aim is to prevent the evils that accompany modernity from bleeding into our culture, there are probably more deserving candidates than feminism for stringent Halachic attention. Many modern inventions, such as the Internet, have the potential to be an unrestricted portal of subversive, immoral material and yet have escaped rigorous religious legislation while laws pertaining to the unequal treatment of women, enshrined thousands of years ago, persist.

As time separates us from ancient legislation instituted in different circumstances and shaped by a view of women characterized by subservience, at a time when many women would not even be entitled to an education, younger generations of both men and women will find it more and more difficult to align religious views of women and those of secular society. Cognitive dissonance results as experiences in synagogue and daily life become irreconcilable. The gap between daily life in a secular world that has removed boundaries for women, and a religious world that applies restrictions to their spiritual and daily lives, can only widen as the modern age moves inexorably forwards and the genie that is feminism remains firmly outside the bottle.

It may be possible to stretch the argument and find empirical evidence in our local community that young people are not finding relevance in their heritage by, for example, joining communal organisations. Dan Brotman asks where the young people in our community are: “There are too few young adults sitting around Cape Town Jewish community board room tables and attending communal functions”.36

However, contrary to this assumption, are the results of a recent independent survey of American Jews conducted by the Pew Research Centre (2013). With respect to Orthodox retention by age (among those raised Orthodox Jews by religion), the survey found that Orthodoxy in the US experiences the highest retention rate for young people – in the age group 18 to 29 years old, the retention rate is 83% while only 22% for age group 65 years and older. Denominational affiliation by age for Orthodoxy returned the same pattern – 11% for 18 to 29 year olds and 6% for Jews older than 65. For the purpose of this discussion, Jewish denominations in the United States who embrace gender equality, i.e. Reform and Conservative streams, demonstrate the reverse pattern: 29% of Reform Jews and 11% of Conservative Jews are between 18 and 29 years of age and 38% and 24% respectively for Jews older than 65.

A survey conducted in South Africa in 2005 found that in Cape Town, 5% of Jews identified as strictly Orthodox and in Johannesburg, 17%. As in the Pew figures, the total figure for both Cape Town and Johannesburg is higher for younger people (28%), aged between 25 and 34 years. These figures notwithstanding, it is difficult to assess how many Jewish women who identify as Orthodox accept the gender imbalance inherent in their religion. Evidence of the involvement of women in Jewish cultural organisations as discussed, together with empirical evidence from our communities suggests that a silent majority of women have quietly shrugged off the patriarchal ethos of their religion while still claiming their Orthodox heritage.

The longevity of the Little Black Dress attests to the empowerment of women in modern society and the continued divergence of religion and society throughout the 20th Century. Perhaps it will also accompany women as they seek similar empowerment within their religion in the 21st but patriarchal control in religious structures ensures that only men have the power to give women spiritual and legal equality within Judaism.

For those women who chose the tradition of gender-segregated religious and Jewish legal practice, this choice should be respected and protected. For those however, who may find themselves being treated unfairly by Jewish law, and/or would like to participate in religious ritual to the same extent as their male counterparts, let’s speak truth to power – we should be able to redress the gender imbalance. Justifications for gender inequity may only serve to ensure that religious equality for women remains illusory and while the belief exists that this state of affairs can be rationalised, it will also remain elusive. Pivotal to any discussion on Jewish feminism should also be the consideration of the effect of a patriarchal ethos on the outcome of or daughters’ lives. Are the options for our girl children limited by the inherent gender inequality of our traditional culture? Are our young women still encouraged to be lawyers in civil society, knowing that they can never serve as judges in a religious court? The smallest limitation to our girls achieving their fullest potential should be eradicated from their thinking. There should not even be a whisper of doubt as to their ability to explore any avenue of life that they choose. Let’s cheer them on to greatness and then benefit from their contributions to our community and to the wider world.

 

Bev May has an MBA from UCT, specialising in economics and finance, and since 2000 has been running her own investment business in Cape Town. Prior to this, she worked for many years as a Medical Technologist and Medical Researcher at UCT Medical School. She completed her Progressive Jewish conversion in 2004.

 

NOTES

1. Edelman, A. (1998). The Little Black Dress. Arum.
2. Elior, P. R. (December 1997), ‘Do you hear my voice’, lecture for WIZO Bible Day Booklet.
3. Raikes, H. (1942, October 15). WITSReview, October 2013, Volume 26.
4. Kaplan, B, ‘Written Out of History. Disempowering the Jewish Woman’, Jewish Affairs, Volume 48, No. 2, 1993.
5. Sivan, H, ‘Interrogating the Beginning – Adam, Eve and the Rib’, Jewish Affairs, Volume 48, No 2, 1993.
6. Kagan, S, ‘Deborah ‘A Mother in Israel’’, Jewish Affairs, Volume 48, No. 2, Winter 1993.
7. Hartman, R D, The God Who Hates Lies: Confronting and Rethinking Jewish Tradition, Jewish Lights Publishing, 2010.
8. C Ochs, a. K. (1997). Jewish Spiritual Guidance: Finding Our Way to God. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers
9. Morello, K. B. (1983). Bar Admission was Rough for 19th Century Women. New York Law Journal, 189, 19.
10. Bradwell v Illinois, 83 U.S. 130, 141-42 (United States 1873).
11. Solomon, B, Time Remembered: The Story of a Fight,Cape Town: Howard Timmins, 1968.
12. http://ancestry24.com/status-of-women-in-south-africa. (2013, November 21). http://ancestry24.com/status-of-women-in-south-africa. Retrieved from www.ancestry24.com
13. Schrire, G, ‘The Cape SAJBD, the Silver Salver and Bertha’s Bill’, Jewish Affairs, Chanukah, 2013. Volume 68, No. 3.
14. http://israel21c.org/headlines
15. Rosh Hashana Annual 2013, Cape Town Progressive Jewish Congregation – 5774.
16. Jacobs, R. (2013, June 24). Israel must grant equality to women – Op Ed piece. Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
17. Heilman, Uriel, ‘Tefillin policy just the tip of the iceberg for Orthodox women’, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 23/1/2014.
18. Schrire, G, Reisenberger, A, ‘Balancing the Tradition and Transition – Jewish Women’s Search for Affiliation’, in Reisenberger, A, (ed.), Women’s Spirituality in the Transformation of South Africa. Munster: Waxmann. Religion and Society in Transition Series #2 2002.
19. Deuteronomy 17:6
20. Maimonides, Laws of Evidence 9:2.
21. Laws of the study of Torah 1:13.
22. Strauss, T. (n.d.). The Child of My Heart and My Mind – the History of the Union of Jewish Women, Cape Town, 1932-1997.
23. Hirsch, S. R. (1989). Hirsch Commentary on the Torah.Brooklyn: Judaica Press.
24. Leviticus, 23:43.
25. Shachcris, Artscroll Siddur. (n.d.).
26. Hartman, T, Feminism Encounters Traditional Judaism.Waltham, Massachusetts: Brandeis University Press, 2007.
27. Herman, Chaya, ‘The Jewish community in the post-apartheid era: same narrative, different meaning’, 2006,http://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/5090/Herman_Jewish(2007).pdf?sequence=1.
28. Bonner, L, ‘Rabbenu Gershom and the Jewish Woman’, Jewish Affairs, December 1960.
29. Gittin 33a
30. Ketubot 3a
31. Gittin 73a
32. Yevamot 110a
33. Encyclopaedia Judaica Vol 15 1972:727-728.
34. Zeiger, A, The Times of Israel, 9/4/2013.
35. Raday, P. F. (2006). Equality Religion and Gender in Israel. Retrieved from Jewish Women’s Archive.
36. Brotman, D, ‘Where are the Youth’, Cape Jewish Chronicle, November, 2012.