How Jewish tradition marginalized the deaf

Miss-Delectable

New Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
17,164
Reaction score
6
Silent Minority - by Eddy Portnoy > Tablet Magazine - A New Read on Jewish Life

In July 1936, one of Warsaw’s Yiddish dailies, Moment, described the wedding of two Jewish deaf-mutes. An arranged marriage of a well-educated boy from a well-off family to a “poor, but beautiful” bride, the story made special note that the groom’s parents, who owned a successful hat-making company, had a “strange pall hanging over them.” All three of their children were unable to hear or to speak.

The majority of the wedding guests were similarly afflicted, which made for an unusually quiet wedding. The many guests the article commented, “were greeted with hearty handshakes and dead silence.” The groom’s friends, seated around him at his tish, were described as “shuckling happily and speaking with their fingers.”


It was a traditional Jewish wedding, with a ketubah read and signed. The rabbi had the groom stammer the line, “With this ring you are betrothed to me according to the laws of Moses and Israel,” after which the newlywed smashed a glass. The Moment reporter noted the oddity of only hearing a few mumbled “mazel tovs,” but he wrote that, despite the silence, the wedding was a joyous one.

Jewish tradition was not especially tolerant of subgroups. Deaf Jews, for example, were grouped together in the Talmud with the mentally retarded as exempted from religious obligations. In other words, they were not considered full Jews.

According to Jewish law, the deaf could not be counted in a minyan nor could serve as ritual slaughterers. They weren’t allowed to purchase real estate nor could they testify in court. On the other hand, if a deaf man’s ox accidentally gored someone, he wasn’t responsible for the damages. And a hearing-impaired person would be less likely to be cursed: Damning the deaf is forbidden in Leviticus, which is hardly a square deal considering the intolerance.

Although halakhah traditionally prevented many deaf Jews from full participation in their religious communities, their position changed as far back at the Medieval period, according to Rabbi David Feldman, who notes in his 1986 essay “Deafness and Jewish Law,” that Maimonides argued that a deaf person who could speak could in fact participate in ritual matters, marry, and divorce. But the Rambam drew the line at business contracts, saying that a deaf person risked missing nuances in potentially complicated situations and could therefore be cheated. Other rabbis disagreed, saying that a deaf person who could speak was on solid ground for professional matters.

During the 18th and 19th centuries, deafness was often debated among rabbis, especially with the development of sign language. The founder of the Chabad movement, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, argued that the rules governing the treatment of the deaf should remain in force no matter how well a person can communicate. But later poskim, or legal scholars, such as Rabbi Simcha Bunim Sofer, recognized that improved communication among the deaf meant they could become fuller members of the Jewish community, in contradiction to the conventions established in the Talmud.

Education of the deaf improved in recent centuries in large part because of Jewish pioneers like Jacob Rodrigues Pereira, the son of Marranos who fled Portugal in 1741 to live openly as a Jew in France. He’s considered the first person to have taught a deaf-mute to speak and was an early sign-language developer. There was also David Seixas, son of Rabbi Gershom Mendes Seixas, who opened the first school for the deaf in Philadelphia in 1819. It was non-sectarian but funded by Jews. The first exclusively Jewish school for the deaf was founded by philanthropist Hirsch Kollisch in 1844 in Nikolsburg, Moravia. Eight years later, the school moved to Vienna to serve a larger population of deaf Jews.

There was even a deaf congregation, which was offered a place to gather in New York City’s Temple Emanu-El in 1907. Three years later, the New York Times reported that the synagogue offered simultaneous signing translation of its services. The signing was done by Samuel Cohen, a deaf congregant who had studied for the rabbinate. Emanu-El also had a deaf choir, made up of three girls, who wore white gowns and signed the hymns sung by the congregation. “Their skill demonstrated that there is music as well as poetry in motion,” wrote the Times reporter.

In addition to a number of Jewish-run schools for the deaf in the United States, there was also a monthly periodical, The Jewish Deaf, which chronicled issues in the community in the early 20th century. The publication reported on improvements and fallacies in deaf education, on job opportunities, holiday services, dances, picnics, and sporting events. Deaf Jewish institutions apparently had excellent basketball teams that competed in “normal” leagues. One story from 1915 indicates that a Jewish deaf team, the Lexington Avenue Midgets, crushed the Flushing Federals, 42-7.

In the early 20th century in Eastern Europe, there were similar strides in deaf education. The first Jewish school for the deaf in Poland was founded in Lodz in 1911 and used Yiddish as its language of instruction. But at a Jewish school for the deaf in allegedly Yiddish-centric Vilna, the language of instruction was Russian.

In spite of advances in deaf education, the press persisted in reporting on the deaf as a novelty and with condescension. In an article in the Warsaw daily Haynt, for example, reporter Meyer Barenholtz describes what he considers to be a very strange ball for the deaf in the spring of 1932. “Beautifully dressed women in ball gowns, and well-dressed men in tuxedos were in attendance,” wrote Barenholtz. “In spite of of the dead silence, faces were beaming and a good time was had by all. Like at any dance, there was much flirting, although here it was performed by nervously moving fingers and lips. … It was a strange, silent dance of tragically, permanently silent people.”
 
It was a strange, silent dance of tragically, permanently silent people.”

who notes in his 1986 essay “Deafness and Jewish Law,” that Maimonides argued that a deaf person who could speak could in fact participate in ritual matters, marry, and divorce.

Other rabbis disagreed, saying that a deaf person who could speak was on solid ground for professional matters.


audism rears its ugly head!
 
I agree that Jewish religious history as described in relation to treatment of people who are deaf< as well as women in most instances and GBLTQ folks which includes myself> , has been hurtful and exclusive. Today we as a people are doing some things differently, although certainly not all is perfect. But I am heartened at this example: Congregation Bene Shalom Temple <www.beneshalom.org>
 
I wonder why people like to refer deaf as mute? why don't they ever say deaf who use sign language as their communication? how do they know they are really mute anyway?
 
I wonder why people like to refer deaf as mute? why don't they ever say deaf who use sign language as their communication? how do they know they are really mute anyway?

Inflected Form(s): mut·er; mut·est
Etymology: Middle English muet, mut, from Anglo-French, from mu, mute, from Latin mutus, probably from mu, representation of a muttered sound
Date: 1513

1 : unable to speak : lacking the power of speech
2 : characterized by absence of speech: as a : felt or experienced but not expressed <touched her hand in mute sympathy> b : refusing to plead directly or stand trial <the prisoner stands mute>
3 : remaining silent, undiscovered, or unrecognized

Mute doesn't mean silent here. It means not speaking.

Although the topic of this thread is really inequities in treatment of deaf people in Judaism.

Mute - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
 
But "all" deafies have a voice, as in having vocal cords to exercise whether or not any of it is discernable to the majority. :D
 
My friend's Jewish and I have noticed their attitudes to the disabled. They are not terribly accepting of their disabled members.
 
My friend's Jewish and I have noticed their attitudes to the disabled. They are not terribly accepting of their disabled members.
As for "your friend's Jewish", that's still not quite the same as yourself being Jewish, is it? That from what I've gathered, you're not?

Anyway, getting back to your quote, actually I find it to be the opposite. That generally speaking I find Jewish people to have a good attitude towards the disabled and minorities. After all, they were often perceived to be the "minority" in many countries or areas throughout history. And besides don't they tend to also vote democrat, the party that tends to be more "minority" or "disabled-friendly", in the USA?
 
hi all :wave:
I try to be very careful not to lump everybody together, as in "THEY are all such-and-such" or "they are like that". I think it serves a good purpose whether one is discussing deaf, Jewish, whatever.

I happen to be Jewish. I also have a learning disability
and while the majority of other Jews I've met are Democratic, I've also met some that aren't. Most of the other Jewish people I've met do happen to be accepting of what is considered "other" by many in the "majority".
 
My friend's Jewish and I have noticed their attitudes to the disabled. They are not terribly accepting of their disabled members.

I think you should say "in her/his experience" rather than generalizing to a whole population.

I am Deaf, quadriplegic, and Jewish. I have been a member of a conservative synagogue all my life. I am a welcomed member, and have been given a number of honors. I am counted in a minyan, and have interpreters provided for all services I attend. Last year the entire Deaf Jewish population of our 1 million+ city was invited to my synagogue for the high holidays, and 6 interpreters (including tactile interpreters) were provided. It was amazing, and is in the works again for this fall.

There is no "all" when it comes to populations, either Deaf/hearing, Christian/Jewish, republican/conservative, or any other contrasting groups. There is variety in any group, thank goodness. And within that variety are a spectrum of opinions and tolerances. imho.
 
My friend's Jewish and I have noticed their attitudes to the disabled. They are not terribly accepting of their disabled members.

There's a lot of Jewish Deaf people. Marlee Matlin and Shoshannah Stern come to mind. Not all Jewish people are ablist. Like the article says, some Jewish organizations interpreted their services and even started schools for the deaf.
 
I think you should say "in her/his experience" rather than generalizing to a whole population.

I am Deaf, quadriplegic, and Jewish. I have been a member of a conservative synagogue all my life. I am a welcomed member, and have been given a number of honors. I am counted in a minyan, and have interpreters provided for all services I attend. Last year the entire Deaf Jewish population of our 1 million+ city was invited to my synagogue for the high holidays, and 6 interpreters (including tactile interpreters) were provided. It was amazing, and is in the works again for this fall.

There is no "all" when it comes to populations, either Deaf/hearing, Christian/Jewish, republican/conservative, or any other contrasting groups. There is variety in any group, thank goodness. And within that variety are a spectrum of opinions and tolerances. imho.

Your experiences are present day. The article is about the treatment in earlier centuries.

And if you are honest, you know that in modern times when you were young, you certainly were not part of a minyan.
 
Miss D. experience is also present day, so I can see why he wrote what he wrote.
 
As for "your friend's Jewish", that's still not quite the same as yourself being Jewish, is it? That from what I've gathered, you're not?

Anyway, getting back to your quote, actually I find it to be the opposite. That generally speaking I find Jewish people to have a good attitude towards the disabled and minorities. After all, they were often perceived to be the "minority" in many countries or areas throughout history. And besides don't they tend to also vote democrat, the party that tends to be more "minority" or "disabled-friendly", in the USA?

No, I'm not Jewish. You do have a point, however the attitudes towards the disabled in Jewish community in US and Australia are different.
 
I think you should say "in her/his experience" rather than generalizing to a whole population.

I am Deaf, quadriplegic, and Jewish. I have been a member of a conservative synagogue all my life. I am a welcomed member, and have been given a number of honors. I am counted in a minyan, and have interpreters provided for all services I attend. Last year the entire Deaf Jewish population of our 1 million+ city was invited to my synagogue for the high holidays, and 6 interpreters (including tactile interpreters) were provided. It was amazing, and is in the works again for this fall.

There is no "all" when it comes to populations, either Deaf/hearing, Christian/Jewish, republican/conservative, or any other contrasting groups. There is variety in any group, thank goodness. And within that variety are a spectrum of opinions and tolerances. imho.
Good point!
 
Your experiences are present day. The article is about the treatment in earlier centuries.

And if you are honest, you know that in modern times when you were young, you certainly were not part of a minyan.
You have a point about "present" versus "ancient". Personally, I'm wondering what's the purpose of the article being posted in the first place? Besides, I'm sure there are other worst examples out there in history on how the deaf, handicapped and disabled were treated by a group than the one posted in this thread.
 
You have a point about "present" versus "ancient". Personally, I'm wondering what's the purpose of the article being posted in the first place? Besides, I'm sure there are other worst examples out there in history on how the deaf, handicapped and disabled were treated by a group than the one posted in this thread.

If history is not relearned by all generations, it has a tendency to be repeated.

It is part of deaf history.
 
Back
Top