Treatment of Female
in Jewish Sacred Text
in the Jewish Interpretative
Oral Tradition (Midrash)
We know very little about what the
feelings or the internal world of the women in the Bible. Indications of
what they might have felt are very delicate, and all the more precious for
For example, the great biblical
romance of Yaakov and Rachel is mainly Yaakov's love story. He left the Holy
Land with his bridal clothes on, says the Zohar, only stopped to have his
wonderful vision of the Ladder reaching from earth to heaven, with angels
going up and coming down, and continued on like a mythological sungod into
the kingdoms of the night until he came across a well which for him was an
indication that there (like his parents before him) he would meet his
predestined bride. As soon as he set eyes on Rachel coming towards him with
her sheep he rose up and singlehanded lifted the stone that all the
shepherds gathered in the place could not remove allowing the waters of the
well to flow free. And the waters of the well rose towards him, a sign of
affinity with the woman about to come on scene. Rachel was beautiful of form
and lovely to look at. And Yaacov loved Rachel so much that he was prepared
to work seven years for her father to obtain permission to marry her.
In all this we have no indication at
all what Rachel was feeling but can only suppose since there is no mention
of her fending off the kiss with which he greeted her, that she was happy
with the attentions of the newcomer. The Maharal asks why Rachel cries more
than the other matriarchs. Where do we see that she did? While Jacob and
Leah are both overcome with tears at various points in the story, and while
the angels cried tear into the eyes of Yitzhak when he lay bound on the
altar awaiting sacrifice, tears are not associated with Rachel. On the
contrary, she is a figure of joy. Both sisters were equally beautiful, says
in Midrash Rabbah, but Rachel, Yaakov's fiancée, radiated joy, when she
heard all the wonderful qualities of her future husband, while Leah who was
engaged to Esau, cried her eyelashes and beauty away when she sat at the
crossroads and listened to gossip about his crimes.
When the Baal Shem asked Reb Nachum
Mendel of Tchernobyl which sister he preferred, Rachel or Leah, the latter
answered evasively: One can downgrade neither, since both are numbered among
our matriarchs, so he had to be diplomatic. Therefore he said: "What Leah
effected with her tears, Rachel attained with her joy."
"For more are the children of the
desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord."(Isaiah
In the Bible narrative a kind of
silent subversion is very often going on. More often than not it is the
younger who gains precedence; therefore in this case, when the younger
daughter of Laban (Rachel) was engaged to the younger son of Laban's sister
Rivkah, she was the more legally entitled, (and therefore the more
complacent). One might have thought, by double subversion then that the
elder, being "desolate" and unloved, might have won the prize. And that is
indeed what happened. For most of her short life, Rachel remained joyous by
nature, whereas Leah's tears got her places, opening doors of compassion in
Rachel's heart and in God's.
A Midrash says: "When God in the
aspect of mercy saw Jacob's unloving
attitude to Leah, He said: "There is
no cure for this but sons. Sons will make him desire her."
Thus Leah, fated to marry Esau,
unloved by Jacob "cried", and here tears mean prayer of such intensity that
God in the aspect of Mercy, transformed destiny for her sake. Not only did
she marry Jacob, but she had the majority of the Tribes. She made such a
fuss so that the whole world moves in her direction. She "took precedence
even over her sister" Yaakov's predestined wife and mother of the Tribes.
The priesthood was hers; royalty was hers; and she was fit to sleep beside
her husband in the burial ground of the Couples.
Once the "desolate" wins through to
children and marital happiness, however, and the barren Rachel is in danger
of being handed over as a sop to the lustful Esau, who then has that
privileged position of outcast and brokenhearted whose prayers God listens
From the outset Rachel had been
gifted with such grace that simply by virtue of walking on stage she won
Yaakov's heart. Unlike her mother Rivkah at a similar scene by the well, she
doesn't have to do anything to win Yaakov's heart, and therefore prizes it
the less. Here she only seems to have the advantage, however. In fact
Rachel, Jacob's beloved, does not get her opening for selftransformation out
of that relationship.
"And when Rachel saw that she had
borne no children to Jacob, then she became jealous of her sister." She had
taken her position as principal in Jacob's heart for granted, therefore
could share him without a pang, until she saw that she was losing out
completely and the fate she had tried to save her sister from (of marrying
the lustful Esau) might be her own. Rachel only started to taste the
bitterness of envy when she saw that while her sister was producing son
after son, she remained childless. This is the first feeling we see in her,
a quickening of her own nature and capacity to feel. And in that sense it is
a good thing. Before it was only Jacob who "saw", Leah who washed out her
eyes and beauty with tears at her engagement to Esau, while Rachel was only
the adored object of contemplation. But suddenly at the birth of Leah's
Messianic fourth son, Rachel was jolted into life as she viewed her
situation and did not like what she saw. Then and not before.
Jealousy to Western eyes may not be
the most pleasant quality, yet in Rachel, who had lead a rather
superficially happy existence until then, it was precisely at the point of
denial, (a closed womb) that her eyes were opened to reality and she became
capable of enlarging her nature and therefore her destiny. Usually the way
to transformation and elevation of the personality does not open in what
comes easily to us, but in what is most difficult.
Everybody knows that our Father Jacob
turned himself into a hired servant only for Rachel. However, after the
birth of Leah's fourth son, when Rachel still remained childless, she began
to feel her position even with Jacob imperiled. The original arrangement -
Laban and Rivkah, brother and sister, the one had two daughters and the
other two sons. Elder to the elder and younger to the younger. But Jacob had
ended up marrying both.
What if Esau returned and demanded
his fiancée? What would Jacob do? Certainly he would not divorce the mother
of four sons, but she, who as yet had no children, who retained the figure
of an unmarried girl, who was Ilanit, without a womb, and who had not even
been ceremoniously married to Jacob, like it or not, he would have had to
satisfy his brother's claim with her instead.
To whom should Rachel turn? Her most
convenient resource was naturally her partner with whom she wanted to have
those children. While Leah uses children as a means to get close to her
husband, Rachel uses her favored position with her husband as a means to
obtain children. One of the rare dialogues between Jacob and any of his
women in which we actually hear the woman's voice is Rachel's desperate plea
for children: "Give me children or I am already dead!" (I have lost all
purpose in being alive.)
It is impossible to believe that
Yaakov had not prayed that he and Rachel would have children together. That
had been his initial dream. In her beauty, he visualized a supernal Twelve
Tribes incarnated. But when he saw what was actually taking place, that Leah
was giving him child after child, he became fatalist about what God was
meting out to him, which was easier for him to do since his need for
children had been met, and he only had to cope with the disappointment that
he was not having them with the woman he loved most. And since unlike his
father in a like circumstance, he had other resources, the anguish of his
beloved does not touch his heart.
Rather he blazes with anger against
her, singling her out and putting her to shame: "What do you want from me?
Am I instead of God who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb. From
you and not from me. I have my children...." What he is saying is, it is not
his fault; he is not infertile. Implication being, her lack had nothing to
do with him. It is her fault, and she must deal with it alone.
But Rachel actually sees the fault of
her barrenness as his; because of his excessive love, love of external
beauty, an obstacle has been created; God has closed her womb.
And does she not have a case?
Consider true love (ha ahavah she lo tluyah badavar), love which is not
dependent on any external factor, which abases its own need for reciprocity
to that of the beloved, even if it leads away from one's own gratification.
The kind of feeling Jonathan had for David, giving up to him the throne; the
love Hannah had for her husband Elkanah, Sarah for Abraham, encouraging them
to marry other women so that they should enjoy the pleasure of children,
despite the fact that in both cases theirs was a perfectly harmonious union.
And think of even Rachel's consideration for the pain of her sister, feeling
another's need as more important than her happiness.
If a beggar cries for bread, or if
anyone is in distress, how can one answer them by saying: "I am on a higher
spiritual plane than you as witnessed by the fact that God has given me
plenty to eat and I'm not sharing!!!! But Yaakov has dealt like this before.
When his brother cried out with hunger, he began bargaining rather than
immediately coming to his aid. And it was this that made his own brother
into an enemy unto death.
Exactly the same treatment he dealt
out to his sibling, he now metes out even to his own beloved Rachel, the
person in the world he claims to love the most! How far Yaakov has traveled
from the pristine vision of himself as knight errant springing to the succor
of the lovely shepherdess! The one who dreamed of Rachel as mother of all
his children, all cast in her mold and all of supernal beauty, has become a
realist at last! He has accepted their separate fates. What kind of love is
this? The same kind of love that permits Yaakov to mistake Leah for Rachel,
a love of externals that therefore can be masked and deceived, not empathy
with the emotions and suffering within.
In the one great lover's treatment of
his beloved in the bible we see no trace of the selflessness and devotion of
a Jonathan or a Rachel. Certainly Yaakov worked seven years in exchange for
Rachel, but that was an expansion of his own virility; he did not give seven
years to her. Working for Rachel energizes him and draws out his virility so
he can engage in feats of strength that magnify his own ego as her beauty
does when it also becomes his prize. Whereas love often means listening in
to the other's need, curbing one's own life energies to make room for a
totally different point of view, and submitting to a selfimposed restraint
in exactly the same way as mystics say God does to make room for the
"otherness" of creation. If this kind of selfrestraint for love's sake is a
"feminine" quality it is also divine! And it is one which Rachel has, rather
than Yaakov; if she does not yet have the gift of tears, she does experience
tears vicariously, and her heart is open to the suffering of her
And so immediately we come to the
story of the mandrakes. What were these magical fruits? Here there is a
parallel between Rachel and Esau; Esau bartered his birthright for a pot of
lentil soup and Rachel her love relationship with Yaakov forever and two
more Tribes for the sake of ... some delicious fruit. There is no Midrash
that puts Rachel's appetite for fruit on the same plane as Esau's greed for
soup. But several Midrashim do point out that some exchange was made. The
mandrakes are symbolic. Rachel wanted something. The rabbis deduce
backwards. Rachel wanted children. So the mandrakes must have been some kind
of fertility pill. But the word Dudaim means "love"; the fruit must have
been an aphrodisiac. No wonder, Leah grudges Rachel a share! It is Reuven
and Leah, not Rachel, who initially believe in their efficacy. Leah,
obviously more jealous than Rachel replies: "Is it not enough that you have
almost taken my husband away from me, but you want my mandrakes (that is, my
aphrodisiacs, which might help me win his love back) also!" A Midrash
explains: "You pull out a piece of my beard to stick into my beard."
Obviously it was Leah and Reuven who believed in the magical property of
this fruit, whereas Rachel did not want or have any need of Dudaim. She did
not need an aphrodisiac. Yaakov had only to look at her and it was enough!
She wanted children. Immediately after Yaakov, her great love, had spurned
her request for prayers for children, she saw Leah's first born son, Reuven,
return from the field with aphrodisiacal mandrakes for his mother, and she
was moved and lonely because of the empathy Reuven had to stand up for his
mother's real need. While there was no man, neither husband nor son,
certainly not Yaakov, to say as Elkanah said to Hannah lovingly and with his
whole heart: "Amn't I better to you than 7 sons!" And that is what she asked
for - "Dudai Benech." The love gifts and honor and consideration of
Leah's refusal: "Is it not enough
that you have taken away my husband; now you also want my mandrakes," is
plainly outrageous. For who took away whose husband? But it's so absurd that
Rachel is not even angry. She knows what her sister said is the opposite of
the truth, but, instead of being angry, realizes her sister could only have
said such a thing if it was true for her. Her sister said it; her sister
feels it, so in a way it is true. It is a plain expression of her sister's
pain even after the birth of Yehudah, at being unloved. For a moment Rachel
experiences the marriage through her sister's eyes, and feels what she
feels, and the unfairness of it.
So instead of being quick to anger
(like Yaakov with the needs of his own beloved) she responds: "Yes you are
right. So you can have him tonight. If that is what you feel."
Many commentators take Rachel to task
over this barter of conjugal rights with her sister as a contempt for "that
righteous man." And see her punishment in that for the one night she gave
up, she lost him for eternity. An exchange was made at that time. One lost
the mandrakes and got the husband, the burial plot, the birthright .....,
the other lost the husband, the burial plot, the birthright and got ....
"Leah, the elder sister, had the
priesthood forever, in her portion, the kingdom forever, as her right,
whereas Rachel, the younger, had the priesthood for a time and the kingship,
Messiah the son of Joseph, temporarily." Biologically, she became an
But something else was going on
during this heart to heart between sisters. True at that moment Rachel was
not at all thinking of Yaakov. Compassion moved her more than love. Her
sister's pain and need was all involving and immediately she jumped to help
her and give to her. "Yes. You are absolutely right. Therefore you can have
him tonight, and tomorrow night and the night after that" and the Tribes and
.... And what did she get in exchange for her generosity? In exchange she
got "Dudai Benech."
Sing O barren, thou that did not
Break forth into singing and cry aloud.,
You that did not travail with child.
For more are the children of the
Than the children of the married wife, says the Lord.
From that time on, she gradually and
with great agony and sacrifice, achieves what she wants. First in her short
life span, "The love-apples of your son." She yearned above all for children
who would stand up for her honor as Leah's did. And she got what she wanted.
Not only did Rachel overcome
barrenness, and become a mother, but she gave birth to Yaakov's firstborn of
intention and desire (Joseph) who leapt to protect his mother from the
lascivious gaze of Esau. And she also brought all the Twelve Tribes to
completion. Now when Rachel was moved to name her son Joseph, saying, " The
Lord has gathered in my reproach. May the Lord add to me another son", Jacob
knew that it was she that was destined to complete the number of the tribes,
and that she herself would not survive.
However, though her sister had
produced the bulk of the Twelve Tribes, symbolically at least, by having
given birth to both the first and the last, she could be regarded as true
mother of all of them.
Not until the very end of her life,
and beyond does Rachel learn the gift of tears? Yet the Maharal sees a germ
of it already there, in the very first meeting of the lovers.
According to the Zohar the rising of
the waters at their first encounter spelled out the perfect affinity of male
and female and there was perfect unity between them comparable only to the
perfect union of God with the Shekhinah before He created the world. The
moments of time were telescoped and became as one before such an ideal
coming-together. When Jacob kissed Rachel and burst into tears, presumably
he was not the only one to cry and there was an ocean of tears (what had
originally been the waters of the well) between them. Not only Jacob but
Rachel also, according to the Maharal, after one moment of overwhelming
unity, sensed the ebbing of the current, the separation and disruption that
overwhelms every ideal state in this world. Then while Jacob saw what would
happen in the future, that there would be separation, that there would be
exile, and that she would not be buried with him in the end, since Rachel
was a prophetess, she saw into the very heart of reality. Lacrimae rerum.
And what she saw was the separation, disintegration and flux that are an
indissoluble part of the nature of this world, the "tears" at the very heart
She saw, too, says the Maharal, that
were such an union as existed between her and Jacob to be fully realized in
this world, time itself would fold up, Israel be truly at one, and there
would be no chronological unfolding of Jewish or world history. Because
Rachel saw all this, she accepted with even greater alacrity perhaps than
Jacob himself the principal of dualism not only in reality but also in
marriage and the inherent necessity, this world being as it is, for Jacob to
have two wives.
Said Rabbi Levi Yitzhak of
Berditchev: "Yaakov loved Rachel more than Leah." What that means is that he
loved her even more. He loved her as he always had and he loved her "more",
mi-Leah", because of Leah, because of her unselfishness in breaking up
personal romance, so that her sister should have a stake in the upbuilding
of the Jewish People. That is, he loved her for her compassion for her
sister which made her capable of interceding for all the Children of Israel,
whether hers or not. Rachel's compassion served as an additional, and
perhaps the most powerful, attraction to Yaakov.
From the one figure of love and
beauty which she was to Yaakov, Rachel through her shared marriage grew into
the prime figure of the mater dolorosa representing compassion in the
midrashic tradition. Like her son Joseph, she cared for the unity of all
Klal Yisrael, not just her own children. And therefore she could give up her
own for the larger interest.
"Everything depended upon Rachel:
(Her "tears", her gift to her sister, are the building blocks on which the
Jewish Nation is founded.) Therefore are all the Children of Israel called
by her name; (Whoever gives his/her life for someone, that person then takes
on the name of the person who has made the sacrifice. Therefore, the entire
Community of Israel is called "Rachel"), and not only by her name but by the
name of her children And not only by the name of her sons but by the name of
her grandsons. (All Israel is called Joseph; all Israel is poetically called
Ephraim, as in "He is my child, and I do love him....."
The task of completing the Tribes and
thus achieving perfection and the "soul" of the Jewish People, was given to
Rachel as her last. Similarly, rest, the last work of the Six Days, gave the
whole creation the sense of completion and of ideal form that ushered in
Shabbat. All the Six Days had been tending towards this goal, the "Desire of
the Days". Similarly, Rachel, though she physically had only two, and those
not the most important, out of the twelve, through her selfsacrifice, in a
sense, gave birth to all of them.
The world was created through the
travail pangs of a woman in labor. The world is continuous creation. There
is pain in creation of the world. Redemption can only come through pain.
There is a price. Something has to be given.
So Scripture says: "And as for me,
when I came from Paddan, Rachel died unto me in the land of Canaan" (Gen.
XLVIII, 7). Rachel died "unto him"; She died because of him. she died to his
own personal cost. Of all his many hardships, says the Zohar, the loss of
Rachel was what made him suffer the most.
Rachel had to go because she was the
one that Yaakov yearned for. To break such idolatrous images, the greatest
suffering and sacrifice was exacted, the life of the beloved. "Rachel
travailed and she had hard labour", the term "hard" indicating that a severe
doom was issued on high at the instigation of the angel of death.' "And
Rachel died." ( Zohar, Bereshith, Section 1, Page 175a) Her breath left her.
It returned no more Rashi insists, as if indeed there were some doubt about
that, as there is, not only in Jewish folklegend, which links Rachel with
Elijah as two who rise up from death to spring to the aid of Jewish
children, but already in the Prophet Jeremiah, who, living a thousand years
later, has Rachel rise up from the grave and weep for her children who have
vanished... A Voice is heard on the Heights, The bitter wailing of Rachel
who weeps for her children, She utterly refuses to be comforted for her
children who are not.
As if resurrection from death to come
to her children's succour were not enough, Midrashim give her an even
grander role as the original Mater dolorosa figure who intercedes for all
children and all in need.
After the Temple is destroyed as a
punishment for Israel's sins, God weeps that He Himself has destroyed His
house. But Israel has sinned; punishment is inevitable. Yet he bids Jeremiah
go out and get Abraham. Maybe Abraham will be able to put up such a good
defense that He will be able at least to spare His children. Of course
Father Abraham speaks of his readiness, in his lifetime, to give his son to
be sacrificed by God's Will. "And now that you saved my son, will you finish
off all his descendants?"
God weeps, but nothing avails.
Then Isaac comes out and speaks of
his readiness to give up his life on God's word. God spared his life, only
for his descendants to perish! The Holy One commiserates, but it is as if He
can do nothing. Then Jacob speaks in defense of his children, but it does
Moses came before God and, as is
customary among believers, much that is unbearable in life he was prepared
to accept. Destiny was that the glorious Temple would be reduced to ruins,
school children would be massacred, and their elders go into captivity or be
slaughtered also, but one thing was innacceptable. That a child should be
killed in the very presence of his mother.
First he adjured the occupying force:
"O captors, I beg you, if you kill, do not add torture to killing; do not
kill with a cruel death; do not make a complete extermination; do not slay a
son in the presence of his father nor a daughter in the presence of her
mother; because a time will come when the Lord of heaven will exact a
reckoning of you." But Israel's enemies refused to comply with his request,
and they brought a son into the presence of his mother and forced his father
to kill him.
Seeing this, Moshe our Teacher turns
to the Creator of the word: "Master of the Universe, Thou hast written in
Thy Torah, Whether it is a cow or a ewe (rahel), you shall not kill it and
its young both in one day." (Lev. xxii, 28) But have they not killed many,
many mothers and sons, and You are silent....!"
At that moment Rachel, a human
ewe-lamb or mother-sheep, breaks out into speech before the Holy One, and
speaks only of her love, and of her sacrifice of her perfect oneness with
her husband, out of compassion for her sister.
"Master of the Universe, it is
revealed before You that Your servant Jacob loved me very very much and
worked for my father seven years for me. When those seven years were
completed and the time arrived for my marriage with my husband, my father
planned to substitute another for me to wed my husband.... It was very hard
for me, because the plot was known to me and I disclosed it to my husband;
and I gave him a sign by which he could distinguish between me and my
sister, so that my father should not be able to make the substitution."
"After that I relented, suppressed my
desire, and had pity on my sister so that she should not be exposed to
shame. In the evening they substituted my sister for me with my husband, and
I delivered over to my sister all the signs which I had arranged with him,
so that he should think she was Rachel. More than that, I went beneath bed
upon which he lay with my sister; and when he spoke to her she remained
silent and I made all the replied in order that he should not recognize my
sister's voice. I did her a kindness, was not jealous of her, and did not
expose her to shame. And if I, a creature of flesh and blood, formed of dust
and ashes, was not envious of my very real rival and did not expose her to
shame and contempt, why should You, a King who lives for ever and are full
of mercy, be jealous of stupid idols in which there are no reality, and
exile my children and let them be slain by the sword for worshipping such
Immediately the mercies of the Holy
One were stirred and He said: "For your sake, Rachel, for you, I will
restore Israel to their place." And so it is written, Thus saith the Lord: A
voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for
her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are
not. (Jer. Xxxi, 15). But immediately following: Thus says the Lord: Refrain
your voice from weeping, and your eyes from tears; for your work shall be
rewarded ... and there is hope for your future, says the Lord; and your
children shall return to their own border (ib. 16f).
How does she merit this? What is so
special about the tears of our mother Rachel that they should prevail while
the argument of all three Patriarchs and Moshe Rabbenu do not? It is not
simply her compassion for her sister/Other that moves her to sacrifice the
harmonious union with her husband, but her instinctive understanding of the
complex nature of reality in this world, in which perceptions are multiple
and there are as many viewpoints as people, if not more, and all are right!
Although Rachel learns from precedent
to come to terms with polygamy as part of the reality of nature necessary
for the upbuilding of the fabric of the Jewish People, that does not mean
she condones it. Not only is polygamy analogous with sin and with idolatry,
she is saying, but in a sense it is worse. After taking on herself such an
ordeal as a rival wife, she feels entitled to steal an idol or two from her
father's collection and introduce them into her home without causing
anything like the cosmic commotion brought on by the struggle between two
sisters. It is precisely through her forbearance for inbetweens (idols,
substitute-wives) that we can see how this world is organized so that there
exist different perceptions and competing claims in the world of separation.
The analogy here is between the wife who suffers from polygamy (Rachel) vis
a vis the One who suffers from polytheism and Israel's unfaithfulness (God),
and in this the Patriarchs and no man, who rather benefited from this
fallible human system, can have anything to say. Here Rachel claims that,
realities being so unequal, her suffering is even greater than His.
And God accepts her testimony: "For
your sake, Rachel, your children (i.e., all the children, Leah's children
having become hers) will return to their country...."He can deny her
That is her reward. That every last
child, every exile and fragment and misfit are hers to reintegrate into
God's pattern. If Leah gave birth to the royalty and priesthood of the
hierarchy of Israel, of all the matriarchs, only Rachel was a shepherdess;
from her, like Abraham, Yitzhak and Yaakov, Joseph, and like Moshe and
David, the seven shepherds of the Jewish People, came nourishment for
Israel; all her care was to bring every stray sheep home.
Through a series of separations and
substitutions throughout the course of her life and beyond, Rachel
transcended her own private romance and her heart expanded to embrace the
grief of the Shekhinah. Therefore Rachel is not only one of the names of the
Children of Israel, for whom she sacrificed herself, but also a name of the
Shekhinah. "Rachel" is Ruah-Kel, since her fully human tears play on the
strings of the Divine compassion: "For when a humanbeing weeps and sheds
tears (and shares another's grief) as their own...) They also cause tears to
be shed on high. In fact, God travels in an eternal drought, longing to shed
as much as a single tear, and only human tears can bring God Himself relief:
As it says: "Oh, that my head were waters, and my eyes a fountain of tears
that so I might also weep for my dead....." (Jer. 8:23) And this is the
function of Rachel who, as her name implies, Ruah Kel, Spirit of God, by
supplying a totally human outlet for the Divine suffering, also provides it
The article is an excerpt of a book
on which Freema Gottlieb is currently working on.
Freema Gottlieb war born in London
and grew up in Scotland. She taught Midrashic Literature at various Jewish
institutions in New York. Recently she was a visiting lecturer of Midrash at
Charles University in Prague. She is the author of three books: "The Lamp of
God: A Jewish Book of Light" (Aronson, New York); "Jewish Folk Art" (Summit,
New York); and "Mystical Stonescapes in Prague Jewish Town and the Czech
Countryside (Tvorba, Prague, 1997).
- [program] - [reactions]
[history of women in the rabbinate] - [women
on the bima]
[start in german] - [start
every comment or
feedback is appreciated