THE WORD torah, or “teaching,” can mean different things in different contexts. In Proverbs 6:20, which states “do not forsake your mother’s torah,” the term denotes human wisdom in general. Elsewhere in the Bible, the word refers to particular divine precepts (see Exodus 13:9), certain priestly instructions (see at Leviticus 6:2), or the core of the book of Deuteronomy (see at Deuteronomy 31:9).
While in the Bible the word torah (translated variously as “Teaching,” “Instruction,” “ritual,” or “Law”) refers to a number of different kinds of teachings, in time “the Torah” came to mean the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy (in Hebrew: B’reishit, Sh’mot, Vayikra, B’midbar, and D’varim). Together, those five books constitute the first of the three parts of the Jewish Scriptures, or the Hebrew Bible, namely: Torah, Prophets, and Writings (or Torah, N’viim, and K’tuvim, which combine to produce an acronym that is pronounced Tanach). A common Jewish name for any published volume of the Torah is Chumash, which is related to the Hebrew word for “five.” The term “Pentateuch” (from the Greek word for “five”) is commonly used as well, especially in scholarly circles.
The word “Torah,” then, refers to the foundation of authoritative teachings in Judaism and the repository of God’s teachings for Israel. From antiquity, Jewish (and subsequently Christian) traditions typically considered the Torah—in the sense of the first five books of the Bible—to have been written by Moses and to represent a record of God’s words to Moses; hence the customary reference to “the Five Books of Moses.” However, this title is misleading, because nothing in the Torah claims that Moses wrote the entire collection. Genesis and Exodus mention no author; and although most of Leviticus and major parts of Exodus and Numbers purport to represent God’s words to Moses or Israel, only Deuteronomy claims to quote Moses extensively and states that he wrote those sections.
Some Rabbis noted early on that certain statements in the Torah could not have been written by Moses (such as the report about his death in Deuteronomy 34). Nevertheless, a widespread presumption that Moses wrote the whole Torah at God’s dictation prevailed until the modern era.
In the modern era, academic scholars began to challenge the view of the Torah as the unified work of Moses. The theory that became most widely accepted in scholarly circles, beginning in the 19th century, claims that the Torah is composed of four major sources that were combined gradually over many centuries. In general, this “Documentary Hypothesis” (associated with the German biblical scholar Julius Wellhausen) posits that the source labeled “J” (or “Yahwist,” marked by the prominence of God’s name, YHVH) was the earliest (10th or 9th century B.C.E.) and represented the interests and traditions of the kingdom of Judah. (Prior to that time traditions were transmitted orally.) Source “E” (or “Elohist,” distinguished by its preference for referring to God as Elohim) represented northern traditions, that is, the kingdom of Israel, from about a century later. Source “D” (or “Deuteronomist”) refers primarily to the book of Deuteronomy, a work that becomes influential in the 7th century B.C.E. Finally, the “P” (or “Priestly”) source represented the concerns of the priests from the period when Israel was exiled in Babylon or shortly after, in the post-exilic period of the 6th to 5th centuries B.C.E.
Proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis describe the particular literary characteristics and concerns of each source; and some have sought to identify the actual authors as well. Harold Bloom and David Rosenberg speculated that the author of J was in fact a woman living in King David’s court (The Book of J, 1990), an idea that Richard Friedman first proposed in Who Wrote the Bible? (1987, p. 86). However, the speculation that J was a woman has not been widely accepted for a number of reasons. First, while the idea that women had a role in the composition of the Torah (or other parts of the Bible) remains theoretically possible, the very notion of a single individual author of J is no longer accepted. Second, Bloom’s criteria for what he identifies as a woman’s voice are highly flawed (even sexist). Third, as scholars in a variety of fields demonstrate, identifying the gender of an author even in a modern setting is extremely difficult; how much more so in an ancient setting when we have no supporting evidence! Therefore, most scholars question our ability to recover such precise information about the origins of the sources.
The Documentary Hypothesis maintains that the entire Torah as we know it only came into being in the 5th century B.C.E. with the work of Ezra the priest and scribe. Nehemiah 8 depicts the dramatic moment when Ezra reads the book of the Torah (sefer ha-torah) in Jerusalem in the presence of all the people, “men and women and all who could listen with understanding” (8:2). Some regard the enthusiastic affirmation of the Torah by the entire community at the time of Ezra as a “second Sinai.” For many scholars, this moment represents the time that the Torah was finally complete.
Many aspects of the Documentary Hypothesis no longer represent scholarly consensus; others remain influential. Its enduring contribution is the claim that the Torah is the fruit of a long process and contains diverse sources, often shaped by responses to new crises. This conclusion continues to be important and often guides scholarly interpretation, but along lines that differ from the Documentary Hypothesis itself. Moreover, two of the sources, J and E, no longer seem to be widely recognized. References to P, the distinctive priestly traditions, remain useful insofar as such material has a coherent world view (as in Genesis 1) and often focuses on the sanctuary and its personnel, as well as on genealogies. But some scholars now distinguish between two types of priestly writings: one priestly school labeled “P” and another whose work is referred to as “H” (for the Holiness Code; see the introduction to Leviticus 19:1–37.
Deuteronomy seems to have a separate history. For the purpose of this Commentary the discovery of the “book of the Torah,” which scholars equate with Deuteronomy, is particularly relevant. According to II Kings 22:8–20 (also II Chronicles 34:14–30), a book of the torah (sefer ha-torah) is found in the Temple during the course of renovations (at about 622 B.C.E.). When the king hears the book’s messages, he instructs his highest officials: “Go, inquire of יהוה…concerning the words of this scroll that has been found” (II Kings 22:13). The commissioned leaders then go to the prophet Huldah, wife of Shallum, who is sitting at the Mishneh section in Jerusalem. (The so-called Huldah Gates at the Temple’s southern wall excavation in today’s Jerusalem are named after her, probably because of a tradition that placed her in this location.) Huldah responds to the delegation by confirming the authenticity of the book’s messages. Her authority goes unchallenged. According to II Kings, her authentication of the book leads King Josiah to undertake major reforms. Since these reforms conform to Deuteronomy’s laws and not other biblical texts, many scholars maintain that the “book of the torah” found and implemented is actually a version of Deuteronomy. References in Deuteronomy to a torah written by Moses further strengthen this conclusion. If so, then this major book of the Torah assumed a prominent place in Israel’s sacred tradition because Huldah affirmed its reliability.
* * *
For most of its history, Jewish interpretation of sacred texts did not represent the knowledge and insights of women, for authoritative interpretation long remained the domain of men. (See “Women and Post-biblical Commentary”) A notable change—a landmark, really—can be found with the work of the English writer Grace Aguilar (1816-1847). Prior to her death at age 31, she wrote and published essays, novels, and poetry. Her magisterial book on women in the Bible and the Talmud (576 pages) was published in 1845, preceding by fifty years the celebrated Woman’s Bible of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a work usually credited as the first feminist interpretation of the Bible. The full title of Aguilar’s book amply describes her goals: The Women of Israel or Characters and Sketches from the Holy Scriptures and Jewish History Illustrative of the Past History, Present Duty, and Future Destiny of the Hebrew Females, as Based on the Word of God.
An English Jew of Converso/Spanish descent, Aguilar considered it her special task to encourage Jews, especially women, to go back to the Bible for sources of Jewish identity. She explicitly wanted to counter two troublesome issues: first, the view expressed in her time that “Christianity was the sole source of female excellence”; and second, the allegations that the Hebrew Bible shows how “the law of Moses sunk the Hebrew female to the lowest state of degradation.” Although Aguilar’s book is not technically a commentary, it examines all the major women in the Bible and also lingers on minor characters and obscure references to women. She hardly misses a note. For instance, she discusses the female workers of the Tabernacle (Exodus 38:8), Caleb’s daughter Achsah (Joshua 15:16–19; Judges 1:10–15), and laws concerning wives, widows, and female servants.
Aguilar cites the story about the Israelite slave girl who directs the foreigner Naaman to the prophet Elisha (II Kings 5) to advocate the training of Jewish women of all classes. After all, she argues, even lower-class women, such as this Israelite servant, were obviously educated religiously in ancient Israel! In her discussion of this episode as well as others, Aguilar’s attention to issues of class, religion, and gender is impressive and comports well with insights that are rediscovered today.
In the last forty years, Jewish women have become truly visible as biblical interpreters.
Aguilar was probably not the first Jewish woman to engage in the study of the Bible in a publicly influential way. From the Middle Ages, there is evidence of women scribes who copied biblical manuscripts, and some interpreters have suggested that Rashi’s daughters were important transmitters of his teachings. In addition, we know that in 1288, Paula Dei Mansi of Verona translated her father’s Bible commentaries from Hebrew into Italian, adding her own explanations as well (see JPS Guide to Jewish Women, 2003, p. III). But Aguilar is the first whose work is fully preserved and boldly made an impact.
In recent years, a book in Yiddish known as Tzenah U-r’enah (alternatively transliterated as Tsenerene, “Go Out and See”) has been touted as the first “feminist” Bible. The title alludes to the charge to women to go out and see (Song of Songs 3:11), thus suggesting that the intended audience was female; moreover the interpretations focus heavily on women. The book is a retelling of biblical tales. However, although the book frequently highlights stories concerning women, it cannot be claimed as an early feminist work or a “women’s Bible.” It aims to transmit and popularize selected traditional rabbinic teachings, and its author-compiler-translator was Rabbi Yaakov son of Isaac Ashkenazi, not a woman interpreter. Still, first published in the 16th century, this book became the most popular written source of Bible stories for the next two centuries, and it brought female characters in the Bible to the attention of generations of women and men who did not have access to texts in Hebrew.
Also from the Middle Ages there is evidence that Jewishly educated women in some prominent, learned families led other women in prayer and taught them songs and biblical passages; some wrote commentaries that were circulated privately among the family members but for reasons of modesty were not published.
Only since the last third of the 20th century, however, have Jewish women become truly visible in both the academic arena of biblical scholarship and in specifically Jewish circles. One need mention only Nehama Leibowitz and Sara Japhet—two Israeli scholars of unrivaled international reputation—to realize the great contribution that Jewish women have began to make to biblical studies. The late Nehama Leibowitz, widely acclaimed as one of the foremost Bible teachers in Israel, brought together classical rabbinic sources and traditional Jewish commentaries to help her students delve into Torah study (see her Studies in Bereshit—Devarim, 1976–1993). Sara Japhet’s impeccable biblical scholarship, especially her work on Chronicles and the Restoration Period, proved a milestone in the field of biblical studies, as recognized by the prestigious Israel Prize she was awarded in 2004. The impact of their work demonstrated the unquestionable quality and value of women’s contribution biblical studies and thereby opened the door for subsequent women scholars.
Neither Leibowitz nor Japhet identifies herself—or her approach—explicitly as feminist. Other scholars, such as the Israeli scholar Athalya Brenner, who edited 19 volumes of the Feminist Companion to the Bible (1993–2001), write as feminists but do not typically identify a specific Jewish agenda. Some, like the late Tikva Frymer-Kensky, explicitly combine both feminist and Jewish perspectives. The contributors to this Commentary reflect these different approaches and others as well.
Feminist scholars also vary in their perception of the Bible’s presentation of women and women’s interests. The first influential feminist study of the Bible in the late 20th century was “Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation” by the Protestant scholar Phyllis Trible (1973). Trible argues that key biblical texts do not promote patriarchal subordination of women but that later (mis)interpretations of them imposed such meanings on the Bible. She uses a literary approach that has since become widespread in biblical scholarship as a whole, influencing Jewish and feminist studies. The Jewish scholar Carol Meyers has employed a different approach to feminist scholarship, using her expertise in Bible and in archeology. Her groundbreaking work (which began in 1978 with “Roots of Restriction” and includes Discovering Eve: Israelite Woman in Context, 1988) incorporates social-scientific methodologies in order to uncover the roles and status of women in ancient Israel (see her introduction “Women in Ancient Israel—An Overview”). Her research suggests that in many respects the Bible reflects a high regard for women. Indeed, some interpreters argue that the Bible should be lauded as a resource for feminism and for women in general. In contrast, others argue that the Bible is detrimental to women and is best disregarded or opposed as a resource for women. In between these two perspectives, one finds a spectrum of views that acknowledge some problems in the Bible when it comes to the depiction and treatment of women and offer an array of responses for addressing those problems. (For a good survey of such positions, see Alice Ogden Bellis, Helpmates, Harlots, and Heroes: Women’s Stories in the Hebrew Bible, 1994.)
Interpreters of the Bible for whom this text carries defining authority, Jews and non-Jews alike, have developed a number of ways of responding to the seeming tension between feminist concerns and the Bible. In facing certain problematic passages, some interpreters hold the major messages of the Bible as key for determining the text’s authority; that is, central teachings are given greater weight over peripheral ones. For example, the story of the Exodus illustrates that God opposes the oppression of Israelites. Given that the Exodus story is foundational to Israel’s identity, those biblical teachings that conflict with the message of the Exodus by calling for the oppression of members of society are considered less authoritative. Thus, the command to love the resident alien because of the experience of slavery in Egypt (Leviticus 19:33–34) is used to challenge teachings elsewhere that disadvantage non-Israelites.
When confronting various troubling texts, some interpreters place the Bible in its own historical context and evaluate its perspectives in light of the ancient world to which the Bible responds. This approach thus distances those teachings from contemporary circumstances in which they may no longer seem to make sense. For instance, comparisons with other ancient Near Eastern legal collections provide perspective on the numerous laws about slavery in the Bible (see at Exodus 21:2–11). Likewise, evidence about surrogate motherhood in the ancient Near East helps the reader understand Sarah’s attempt to have a child through her handmaid and her subsequent treatment of Hagar (see at Genesis 16:1–6).
Others use contemporary modern or postmodern values to prioritize women’s experiences as a criterion to adjudicate between teachings that deserve allegiance and those that do not. Such an approach means that the interpreter refuses to grant authority to teachings that appear to degrade women or other persons. (See, for example, how Judith Plaskow responds to certain laws about sexuality and sanctity in her Contemporary Reflection on parashat Acharei Mot.)
In reproducing the variety of Torah interpretations, past and present, we envision our readers joining the centuries-old dialogue through their own personal and communal study. We hope that The Torah: A Women’s Commentary will inspire and invigorate a lifelong exploration that will go beyond these pages and will shape women and men in our communities well into the future. In this way, all of us will rightly pay tribute, at last, to the torah of our mothers and fathers.
—Tamara Cohn Eskenazi
Andrea L. Weiss