The Art of the Deal' '

‘The Art of the Deal’ Preferences in Spouse Selection among Parents in a Hasidic Community

Sima Zalcberg Block

Abstract: This article examines the considerations that guide parents in an extreme Hasidic community with regard to mate selection for their children. Findings of the study indicate that an appreciable number of factors deal with personal aspects of a prospective match, such as age, external appearance, intellectual abilities, and genetic compatibility, while some concern the family of an intended match, for example, the family’s financial status, lineage, and general history of health. Conspicuous by its absence is any consideration of the compatibility of the couple themselves. Gender differences are significant in relation to the importance of the different variables. The study findings reflect the prevalent attitude in ultra-Orthodox society that sees marriage for the most part as a contractual agreement between families, demonstrating that this is, in effect, a barter system between two parties—the families of the projected couple.

Keywords: Haredi groups, Hasidic sect, matchmaking assets, mate selection, Toldot Aharon, ultra-Orthodox society

The mate selection process is an intricate one, and it has earned much scholarly attention in the fields of sociology, anthropology, psychology, and gender studies. Many studies in the field focus on the subject of preferences in selecting a partner (Bokek-Cohen 2012; Bryan et al. 2011; Buss 1989, 2004; Feingold 1992; Goodwin 2000; Hatfield and Rapson 1995; Riela et al. 2010; Tucker and Mitchell-Kernan 1990). Many of these studies relate to at least one of two central theoretical approaches: evolutionary psychology and the theory of the marriage market. Evolutionary psychology posits that preferences in mate selection involve a process of natural and sexual selection that directs members of both genders to adopt strategies that

Israel Studies Review, Volume 28, Issue 2, Winter 2013: 61–82 © Association for Israel Studies doi: 10.3167/isr.2013.280205 • ISSN 2159-0370 (Print) • ISSN 2159-0389 (Online) 62 | Sima Zalcberg Block

will maximize the chances of survival and reproduction (Buss 1989, 2007; Geary et al. 2004). The theory of the marriage market posits that the process of choosing a spouse involves trade-offs of economic and personal assets, and that an individual chooses a spouse who he or she believes will bring the greatest economic and emotional gains (Ahuvia and Adelman 1992; Becker 1981). Whether based on evolutionary psychology or on marriage market theory, any discussion of preferences in mate selection must consider that this process is influenced by cultural factors, with many differences among various societies and cultures regarding considerations that guide mate selection (Buunk et al. 2010). One of the most significant issues in this context relates to the differences between traditional and modern societies (Buss 1992; Shalev et al. 2012). The literature distinguishes two major types of marriage in this respect. One is the ‘traditional’ or ‘arranged’ marriage, which is based on the social expectations of the couple’s parents. The other is the ‘modern marriage’, based on the personal relationship between the young people involved. While the factors influencing the choice of a spouse in a traditional marriage are mainly the family’s social and economic status, the choice of a spouse in a modern marriage is based mostly on the mutual affection between the young people and their interpersonal compatibility (Dion and Dion 1993). Today, many people belong simultaneously to two culture systems— their traditional community and its host culture within a modern society (Hojat et al. 2000). As a result, the late twentieth century saw the beginning of research on mate selection processes and preferences in specific traditional cultures (Shalev et al. 2012). Many of these studies claim that in most cases young people are forced to cope with a set of contradic- tory expectations when their own wishes clash with those of their parents (Manohar 2008; Netting 2006). These young people are exposed to a modern orientation that emphasizes individualistic values of self-fulfillment and providing for personal needs, as opposed to the emphasis of their traditional community and their family—which often dictates their final choice—wherein these modern values are given limited consideration (Manohar 2008; Netting 2006; Ritblatt 2003; Uskul et al. 2007). Some cope with the dual value system by keeping their relationships secret from their parents. Others combine traditional and modern approaches: they attribute considerable importance to the family’s opinion and the social domain but simultaneously consider personal needs and make their choice indepen- dently (Chang and Chan 2007; Netting 2006; Zhang and Kline 2009). Most of this research is based on the perspective of young people seeking a mate (Buunk et al. 2010; Holmberg et al. 2004; Netting 2006, 2010). There is little scholarly treatment of the perspective of the parents, who ‘The Art of the Deal’ | 63 see themselves as responsible for marrying off their children and often are. Therefore, it is of particular significance to examine the preferences in mate selection from the parents’ point of view. This article analyzes considerations that guide parents who belong to one of the most extreme ultra- Orthodox groups,1 the Hasidic sect of Toldot Aharon, in the process of selecting a spouse for their children and examines standards employed by parents of the intended marriage partners in evaluating prospective mates.2 The Toldot Aharon group, like ultra-Orthodox society in general, main- tains a traditional identity, and, accordingly, arranged marriages are the norm. Marriage is considered first and foremost a business arrangement between the parents of the intended couple, as it is in ultra-Orthodox society as a whole (Friedman 1995; Heilman 1992). The parents consider the process of choosing a partner a matter of great importance: it cannot be left to the young people’s feelings, but rather must take place in a considered and logical manner. The parents are in charge, and the young people’s preferences play little part (Zalcberg 2012). Despite this, and despite the burgeoning scholarship today on the subject of ultra-Orthodox society, including the treatment of the mating and marriage process (Caplan 2007; Friedman 1995, 1999; Milevsky at el. 2011; Rockman 1994; Sivan and Caplan 2003; Zalcberg 2012), a systematic examination of parental preferences in selecting a spouse for their children in this society is still lacking. It is especially interesting to investigate this issue in the Toldot Aharon group because it occupies a unique position on the continuum from tradi- tion to modernity. On the one hand, Toldot Aharon has all the hallmarks of a traditional patriarchal society; on the other, it is located in the heart of a modern city (Jerusalem) and is thus exposed to—and influenced by— modern Western society.

Toldot Aharon Hasidim and the Institution of Marriage

Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) society acts according to social, cultural, and moral codes that are based on very strict interpretations of Halakhah (Jew- ish law). It is a minority group, both in Israeli-Jewish society and in the Diaspora (Friedman 1991). Haredi society rejects modernity, with its world perceptions and life- style (Friedman 1991). Nevertheless, this rejection is not absolute but dif- ferential—that is, it rejects the moral aspect of modernity but accepts its instrumental aspect. This can be seen principally in the fields of medicine and technology (Shilhav and Friedman 1985). Nevertheless, in recent years the Haredi mainstream exhibits some trends of increasing openness toward modernity and secular society. 64 | Sima Zalcberg Block

Toldot Aharon, a Haredi sub-group, shares these characteristics but is unique in various ways. It was established in the 1920s in Satmar, Hun- gary, by Reb Aharon Roth (1894–1947), eventually taking the name Toldot Aharon, or (spiritual) offspring of Aharon. In 1940, the group members settled in a Haredi ‘ghetto’ in the Mea Shearim district of Jerusalem and have lived there ever since. The community comprises around 800 families, with an average of eight children each (Zalcberg 2009). The extremist nature of Toldot Aharon is reflected in the strict segregation of its members from the outside world, the efforts to shun contact with individual outsiders, and the avoidance of all secular mass media. In addition, its adherents reject compromise with modernity or Zionism, even more than most Haredi groups. However, like other such groups, its rejection of modernity is selective, and members accept its instrumental aspects, mainly in the fields of medicine and health (Zalcberg 2005). Strict supervision of the sexuality of their members is characteristic of ultra-Orthodox groups (Aran 2003), but Toldot Aharon is especially stringent, with almost absolute separation between the sexes. Men are not allowed to look at women, with the exception of their wives and immediate family members (Zalcberg 2012). The group has unusually strict modesty rules governing women’s attire, requiring long dresses that hide their femininity and opaque black stockings. A married woman must shave her head and cover it with a black scarf; unmarried girls must gather their hair into one or two braids (Zalcberg 2007). Like other ultra-Orthodox groups, the life course of young people in Toldot Aharon is predetermined, yet their educational system provides them with far less general (secular) knowledge when compared to other Haredi groups. Thus, their world is extremely narrow, even by ultra-Orthodox standards. In addition, most group members lack any professional training, and so their income is relatively low. Girls begin their studies at age 3 and continue at the same institution until age 18. Schooling provides knowledge of prayer and religious studies, along with very basic ‘secular’ knowledge. As the declared principal role of the women in Toldot Aharon is bearing and raising children and being good housewives (Zalcberg 2009), the main purpose of their schooling is to train them for these roles. This approach contrasts with that of most other ultra-Orthodox groups in Israel, where women have an additional, important role of working and providing much of the family’s economic support, so that their husbands can devote all their time to studying the Torah (Friedman 1995). However, a few women in Toldot Aharon do work as teachers, clerks, cooks, and seamstresses within the framework of the group, or they sell homemade products. At the age of 3, boys begin studying in a cheder, then at Talmud Torah (equivalent to elementary school). They study in a small yeshiva from ages ‘The Art of the Deal’ | 65

13 to 16 and finally at the big yeshiva until age 18. The yeshiva is the central learning and social framework for the young men until marriage. Some continue to learn in kolelel3 after marriage. Others work as teachers, kashrut supervisors, scribes, and money changers, and some in businesses. Because group members have limited sources of income, many of them get support from charitable funds supplied by various Hasidic groups (especially Sat- mar), who view them as the flagship of ultra-Orthodox Judaism. The institution of marriage has a central place in the group, as in all ultra-Orthodox society, and therefore the group does whatever it can to marry off all of its members (Zalcberg 2012). Parents receive several offers of matches for their children from matchmakers, and they investigate those that seem suitable. Resources in these investigations are people who know the potential match and family, such as teachers, rabbis, and neighbors, and parents ascribe great importance to these inquiries. However, transparency is high and “everybody here knows everything about his neighbors,” explained Bayla,4 one of the women in the sect. When the parents decide that a particular match seems appropriate, and the other side agrees, they negotiate their financial commitments to the couple through the matchmaker (Zalcberg 2012). The degree of personal involvement by the young people in the mate selection process varies from one group to another within the ultra-Ortho- dox community (Rockman 1994), but in Toldot Aharon their involvement is especially low. In most groups, the proposed couple are allowed to meet each other (with the number, duration, and location of these meetings varying) before the parents finalize the financial arrangements. However, in Toldot Aharon, they may not meet until after the parents have finalized the financial arrangements. Thus, the first formal meeting between the young people who are intended for marriage is at the vort (Yiddish for ‘word’, as in ‘I give you my word’), where the engagement is formally concluded and the financial arrangements are written and signed. At this time, the boy and girl meet for only a few minutes to give their formal consent to the match, since the Halakhah states, “A man is forbid- den to take a woman for his wife without seeing her, lest he [subsequently] see something repugnant in her” (Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin 41a.). The girl and boy sit in a room with the door slightly ajar, so that they can be supervised. At the end of this meeting, they are asked whether or not they agree to the match, even though they have come with the understanding that they are about to be married off to each other. Surprisingly, perhaps, girls have a greater degree of liberty in choosing a mate than do boys. The young women are asked whether or not they agree to the match even before the first meeting with the intended groom, and they are permitted to refuse. The young men, on the other hand, are hardly 66 | Sima Zalcberg Block

ever asked, and it is not acceptable for them to refuse. Many other aspects of the matchmaking process are also gendered (see, e.g., Zalcberg 2012).

Methodology

The findings presented here are based on my broader ethnographic study on the Toldot Aharon group, conducted from 1998 to 2004. The research was performed through participatory observation (see Atkinson and Ham- mersley 2000) by accompanying group members, especially women, in their daily lives and at special events. Making contact with the subjects of my study was a long, slow process of establishing informal relationships and developing trust on a personal basis (see Zalcberg 2005). Since a researcher’s credentials with respondents are shaped by contact in the course of fieldwork (Ayella 1993; Shaffir 1991), the way I presented myself was the product of a continuing, dynamic give and take between me and the respondents. With regard to the matchmaking process, I conducted in-depth interviews (see Patton 1990) with 40 individuals (25 women and 15 men), aged 20–60, all of whom were married. Most of them (33 interviewees, not including those in their twenties) were in the process of searching for a match for their children or had previous experience doing so. Although the interviewees who were in their twenties had no immediate children to marry off, I include their responses because they are relevant in sharpen- ing and highlighting some of the criteria discussed. Although the group’s dominant language is Yiddish, the interviews were conducted in Hebrew, my own language, as the adults’ Hebrew was more than sufficient for this purpose. Interviews lasted an average of two hours. I was sensitive to the possibility that a request to record the interview might seem threatening, and thus I documented the interviews in writing, after receiving permission from the interviewees. Each interview began with an open general question, such as “Tell me about your experience in the matchmaking process.” The interviewees included parents looking for a spouse for a son or daughter, those who had experienced the process, and matchmakers. During the interview, I added open questions about the accepted age to marry off children, the usual marriage arrangements, the important criteria for a future groom or bride, the degree of involvement of the young people, and how the children felt about this entire process. Because of the difficulty involved in making contact with group members and getting them to cooperate, this study is based on ‘convenience sampling’, that is, approaching potential subjects on the basis of practica- bility. As the fieldwork progressed, I used the ‘snowball’ method, making ‘The Art of the Deal’ | 67 use of some of the first informants to reach a wider spectrum of group members by word of mouth (Reinharz 1992). The study used the phenomenological approach, eliciting information about the world as seen through the respondents’ eyes, thus providing insight into their experiences and conceptual world (Denzin and Lincoln 2000b). Since phenomenological inquiry relies as much as possible on pure experience, I present the personal experiences of the respondents in their own words. The analysis is based on grounded theory development (Charmaz 2006). Grounded theory is appropriate when there is a general research question with no hypotheses to prove or disprove, as was the case with this study. The analysis has two levels. The first is a general thematic analysis, looking for major themes and patterns in the interviews, while the second consists of finding the meanings underlying the more obvious ideas in the data, as well as the meanings of the first-level categories.

Findings

As part of the matchmaking and marriage process in this group, a kind of barter system operates among parents of the prospective matches, whereby each side examines and weighs the projected value to be obtained from the other party. The barter value or ‘matchmaking assets’, as I term them in this article, are the properties and characteristics (i.e., ‘the resources’) possessed by the prospective candidates for marriage, which are the criteria that the parents consider in selecting a match for their children. The matchmaking assets that emerged from the interviews may be clas- sified into two main categories: one includes characteristics that relate to the family of the prospective match; the other includes those that relate directly to the prospective match. Since families differ in how they rate the various matchmaking assets, which can even vary from match to match, the order in which the values are presented does not necessarily indicate their importance to the members of the group.

Characteristics That Relate to Family

Affiliation to the Group

The Toldot Aharon Hasidim are particularly strict about marriage within the sect (endogamy), so a key criterion in mate selection is group affiliation. Kroyne, a 56-year-old housewife and a mother of seven, explained: “We prefer not to marry into another Hasidic group because we are the 68 | Sima Zalcberg Block

absolute tops, and our people will not ‘lower themselves’ to join another Hasidic group.” Toldot Aharon members have a self-image of an elite group: other groups are branded by them as inferior because the normative customs of other groups are not as strict as their own in various fields, especially regarding modesty, and because other groups demonstrate more open attitudes toward the Zionist state and the modern world. It is therefore not fitting to marry into them. This perception is an expression of societal mechanisms designed to construct a separation between members of the sect and ‘the world outside’, which refers to any social setting whose life- style is different from theirs, no matter how religiously observant, including other Haredi groups (Zalcberg 2005). This insistence on intra-group unions protects against ‘outside’ influences and preserves the group’s stringent norms. Another reason for this proclivity for endogamy is the belief that both members of the couple will obtain more emotional benefits from each other the closer they are in terms of values and norms (Hooghiemstra 2001). Cor- respondingly, the parents are also interested in the couple having shared values and norms. There may, however, be exceptional cases when the parents are not successful in finding a match for their children within the group and are forced to seek a mate from other Haredi groups.

Economic Status

The economic status of the family of the prospective match is a vital factor in the selection process. Since the match is basically a business transaction, “closing the deal” (sgirat ha’iska, in Hebrew), as many interviewees phrased it, depends on the consent of parents on both sides regarding the financial arrangements for the couple, particularly with regard to buying an apartment (Friedman 1991). In Toldot Aharon, the accepted practice is for both sides to share the expenses equally. However, on occasion it has happened that one side insists on paying less than half the amount while making greater demands on the other side. In general, this happens when the young man is considered a genius in Torah study and thus is especially sought after in the marriage market. For example, Mindel, a 50-year-old matchmaker, recounted: “I have a case now of a young fellow who is considered a Torah scholar, so his parents are insisting on paying only 30 percent. The girl is also very gifted, so her parents are willing to pay only 50 percent. So for the time being, we can’t finalize the match.” As she put it: “Money can make or break a match.” The demand for the other side to pay more is sometimes put forward by the bride’s parents. As Yentel, a 60-year-old housewife and mother of 11, ‘The Art of the Deal’ | 69 reported: “In the beginning, we wanted to marry off our son to the Gold- man’s daughter, but they agreed only if we paid everything, so the deal fell through right away. They don’t have anything, but we couldn’t afford it.”

Genealogy and ‘a Good Family’

Since marriage is seen as a relationship between families, a family’s pedi- gree (yichus, in Hebrew) and the desire to belong to ‘a good family’ are key factors affecting mate selection in Toldot Aharon, as with other ultra-Ortho- dox groups (Heilman 1992). Pearl, a 46-year-old teacher and mother of eight, explained: “I look less at the girl or the boy and mostly at the family.” ‘A good family’ means one that is networked in the group, that is known for its religious zeal, and that has no children who have forsaken the group and the Haredi world. Yichus refers to a family that has a close familial relationship with a prominent religious-spiritual figure, such as an esteemed rabbi or well-known Torah scholar, or one who is descended from the founding families of the sect. Speaking for many interviewees, Shaindel, a 60-year-old lady, explained: “For a match, what is really important is the father, that he is a Torah scholar.” Corroboration that the value ascribed to the family is the predominant consideration is demonstrated by cases where parents insist upon arranging a match with a certain family, regardless of which member of the family becomes their daughter- or son-in-law. Ruchel, a 59-year-old housewife, related: “My younger son’s bride is the one I really wanted for my older son, but it didn’t work out. Still, I wanted that family as in-laws so much that we matched her up a year later with my younger son.”

Family Compatibility

Many interviewees emphasized the importance of compatibility between the prospective match and the family of the other side, as well as between both families. In this context, some referred to a preferred family origin, with each family having its own preferences. Rabbi Zeltzer, a 55-year-old man, for example, noted: “First of all, it must be someone from a European background. Not because of genealogy as much as because of compatibility [hatamma, in Hebrew]. I prefer someone who is not American.” The common ground among members of the Toldot Aharon group is their strong preference for marrying someone of Ashkenazi origin. A non- Ashkenazi prospect, Pearl explained, “is immediately considered second- class.” This attitude reflects the perception of superiority of Ashkenazi ultra-Orthodox society vis-à-vis Sephardic ethnic groups, which hinders the latter’s integration into the ‘ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazi’ world (Leon 2010). 70 | Sima Zalcberg Block

When speaking of compatibility, some interviewees expressed preference for a union with families religiously similar to them. Although this Hasidic group is considered particularly extreme, they also have their own internal ‘piety scale’, with the more pious—mainly with respect to attire and head covering—tending to seek marriage with those like themselves, while the ‘less pious’ seek unions with those who are similarly like- minded. This can be seen when families disqualify outright a match with a particular family because the women of the family do not cover their heads with a black scarf, considered more modest, even if the potential bride herself is willing to wear the most modest one.

Health Status of the Prospective Family

Mental, physical, and particularly psychological disability in any family member related to the prospective mate can lower that person’s value in the marriage market (Greenberg and Witztum 2001), due to the severe stigma and fear of hereditary diseases. Mothers of children with either physical or mental disabilities noted that when the problem was not genetic, they almost never encountered difficulties in marrying off their other children. Aidel, a woman in her mid-fifties who has a daughter with Down syndrome, reported: “In the match arranged for my eldest daughter, I asked the matchmaker if there have been any problems because of this, and she said, ‘No, because it is not genetic.’” On the other hand, when a child suffers from what is suspected to be a hereditary disease, the value of his or her siblings in the marriage market decreases, and it is likely that they will be disqualified immediately. Shi- mon, a 25-year-old salesman, related that due to the fact that his mother suffered protractedly from depression, his options were limited: “I married my cousin because my uncle was the only one who agreed to give me his daughter in marriage.”

Characteristics Directly Related to the Prospective Match Age at Marriage

In Hasidic groups, women marry at approximately age 18 and men at about 19. Among the Lita’im (non-Hasidic or yeshivish), women marry at about 19–22, and men at about 21–24. In Toldot Aharon, the parents are interested in marrying off their children at a particularly young age (Zalcberg 2012) and thus prefer the intended match also to be particularly young. Therefore, the age of the young people is an important criterion in the matchmaking process in the group. As Yentel described it: “The boys get married at the ‘The Art of the Deal’ | 71 age of 18, and the girls at about 17 to 18. If a boy is 20 and is not yet married, it is a disaster. We call such a fellow an alter bocher [an old bachelor].” The young woman’s age is even more crucial than the young man’s. A woman who is past 20 and has not been married is considered a woman whose ‘shelf life’ has expired. As the matchmaker Mindel states: “In the Talmud they say ‘If your daughter has become mature’—that is, if she is over 20—‘free your slave and give him to her’ so they should not sin.” Early marriage is believed to guarantee the sexual purity of the young people by ensuring that they do not stray sexually. As David, a 59-year-old scribe, explains: “We get married early because the body has its needs, and this could lead to sin.”

Ba’aleboste (Homemaker)

The declared role of women in the Toldot Aharon group is the woman’s traditional role in a patriarchal society—that is, to be a wife and mother and to manage the household. Accordingly, as Nahman, a 43-year-old father of nine, put it: “It is important for the parents to check whether the girl is a ba’aleboste [Yiddish for ‘homemaker’].” A ba’aleboste is a skillful housewife who would know how to perform such essential crafts as cook- ing, baking, and sewing. Pearl, for example, declared: “I wouldn’t take a daughter-in-law who doesn’t know how to cook and sew! Why, how would she fix things in the home, her husband’s clothes?” For this group, skill in sewing is considered an indicator of the woman’s value. Furthermore, its importance was portrayed to me as being linked to the man’s Torah study. This linkage appeared as early as the Middle Ages in what a father would wish for himself on the birth of a daughter: “May God grant that I raise her to sewing, to spinning, and to good deeds.” This is in contrast to his wishes when a son was born: “May God grant that I raise him to Torah, to marriage, and to good deeds” (Grossman 2004).

Intellectual Abilities

Outstanding intellectual abilities, reflected in a young man being termed a talmid khakham (Torah scholar), are perceived as the most important talent for parents seeking a spouse for their daughter, as with other ultra-Ortho- dox groups (Friedman 1995, 1999). Scholarliness is of such import that it may dwarf ‘flaws’ that the young man might possess. An example is Yankel, who won the hand of the sought-after daughter of the Berman family of distinguished lineage despite the fact that one of his brothers had not only left the fold but religion entirely, that another sibling was born with Down syndrome, and that his family’s economic situation was quite bad. His brother 72 | Sima Zalcberg Block

Yehuda, a 20-year-old kolel student, explained: “My brother Yankel is considered a real prodigy. That is why he won the Bermans’ daughter.” While outstanding intellectual abilities are significant in selecting a groom, they are not so in selecting a bride. Some interviewees registered qualms about a bride who was especially smart. This reflects apprehen- sion that the girl’s intelligence would infringe upon her duties in the home as well as concern about possible militancy and predominance in fields not rightfully hers. Feigie, a 60-year-old housewife and a mother of 13, explained: “A fellow does not always want a smart wife. He doesn’t want his wife be in charge of everything. He wants her to be smart in the kitchen; he wants her to be smart about his shirts.”

External Appearance

External appearance is considered a key matchmaking asset when it comes to young women, and a match may even be ruled out because of it. Tzipora, a 50-year-old mother of 11, explained: “Is beauty important for a match? Cer-tain-ly!!! My daughter was a beauty, and already from when she was 15, I began to get offers for her. The mothers here look at beauty only.” Since there is scant consideration for the young man’s opinion, and he has almost no opportunity to check out the match that is being proposed, his mother is the one who thoroughly examines the external appearance of the candidate. Kroyne explained the reason for the focus on this specific quality as follows: “You can never tell how the young girl will be as a woman. Beauty, on the other hand, is more certain.” External appearance is seen by the women as a more ‘guaranteed’ characteristic, one that does not deceive, as opposed to other characteristics about which one can never know for certain before a match. Before modern times, in traditional society, external appearance was an indicator of an individual’s fitness for physical work and, concomitantly, of the ability to earn a livelihood, and it was therefore a significant matchmaking asset (Baten and Murray 1998). In the Toldot Aharon sect, hard physical labor is assigned primarily to the women, who are expected to give birth to as many children as possible and to care for them. Thus, the women in the group see the external appearance of a young woman as a manifestation of her ability to reproduce and of her potential for functioning in the home. They therefore attribute great significance to her appearance. Parents do not ascribe particular importance to the outward appearance of the young man, but this factor is especially important to the young women because they have no real opportunity to judge a young man’s character before marriage. They are able to observe him only in the synagogue. Therefore, when giving consent to a match, the sole criterion that ‘The Art of the Deal’ | 73 they can consider on the basis of their personal judgment is the young man’s external appearance (Zalcberg 2012).

Personal Attributes

Personal attributes or midos, as they are known, are desirable character traits and admirable patterns of conduct in various domains (Elor 1994), such as being respectful to parents and older people, helping others, and so forth. Parents ascribe great significance to a girl’s personal attributes to the point that they may overshadow other ‘flaws’ that she possesses. Ita, a 53-year-old teacher, from the distinguished Finkel family, reported: “Our daughter-in-law comes from the orphanage of our Hasidic group. Her parents had neither money nor distinguished family ties.” Despite this, “we wanted her for our son because we saw that she is an excellent girl, possessing many admirable midos.” In speaking of midos, many parents also referred to a girl’s modesty, which in this context was defined in terms of her willingness to cover her head in compliance with the demands of the groom’s family. The Toldot Aharon group as a whole is very stringent in observing rules of modesty. However, here too there is a ‘modesty ranking’, reflected primarily in the differences between the head coverings for women—specifically, how tightly a head covering fits on the head, its length, and its color5 (Zalcberg 2007). Tzirel, a 41-year-old mother of five, explained: “There are families who insist that the daughter-in-law cover her head with the ‘most modest head covering’. And that might also be a condition for the match.” Members of the group also attribute great significance to the attributes of the young man. Rabbi Zeltzer, for example, explained that for him “the most important thing is the boy’s midos, how he treats people. That is more important for me than studiousness and family relations, and on this subject I am unwilling to compromise.”

Genetic Compatibility

A significant and even decisive variable in finalizing a match is the ‘genetic compatibility’ between the prospective candidates, meaning that the two young people do not carry genes for the same hereditary diseases (Zalcberg 2005). Genetic testing identifies carriers of genetic mutations for several specific diseases. It is known that when both parents carry genes for them, there is a high probability that the diseases will appear in their children (Prainsack and Siegal 2006). Gittel, a 42-year-old mother of eight, explained: “The tests are conducted by the Dor Yesharim Institute. After undergoing testing, each subject receives 74 | Sima Zalcberg Block

a number, and when the time comes [to consider a marriage proposal], each side asks the other for that person’s number, and checks to see if there is genetic compatibility between the two numbers.” The test results are confi- dential. Gittel went on to say: “Each side is told only if the specific match is suitable genetically or not. Nothing more.” In this way, the group actually creates a ‘genetic couplehood’, as Prainsack and Siegal (2006) defined it. Members of the Toldot Aharon group used to be suspicious of these tests, but today all of its young people (like many in other ultra-Orthodox groups) are tested when they reach marriageable age, with the encouragement of their rebbe. Yosef, a 60-year-old father of 12, explained: “The previous rebbe was not enthusiastic about these tests. The present rebbe understands the great benefit they offer and says to every Hasid who wants to finalize a match: ‘Have you done the Dor Yesharim tests?’” The admittance of these tests into this sect is, then, a fascinating step that shows the channels through which modernity permeates even the most extreme groups.

Health Status

As in all Haredi society, the value in the Toldot Aharon matchmaking market of young people who suffer from a disability, whether physical, mental, or psychological, is particularly low (Heilman 1992), even if it is not a hereditary defect. The tendency is to match them up with someone who is also suffering from some ‘defect’, or, as they say in ultra-Orthodox society, to match ‘second-rate with second-rate’. The two people need not have the same disability. Aidel, a 48-year-old housewife and mother of 10, related the case of a young man “who had one hand that didn’t function, and they found him a girl who limped.” The prevalent attitude in the group is to marry off those with disabilities, no matter what those disabilities are. As Miriam, a 39-year-old mother of a retarded girl, explained: “Definitely marry them off, why not? … The aim is for everyone to be married.” However, some voices privately challenge this approach. Yitzhak, a 27-year-old man whose brother has Down syndrome, said: “I am certain that they will marry off my brother! I don’t understand how they can do it!” It thus appears that marriage is so important to the group that its members try to make sure that everyone marries, even at the expense of the individual’s happiness (Zalcberg 2012).

Personality Traits

Concern for personality traits in the matchmaking process was almost totally absent from the remarks of the interviewees. The only person who broached this subject was Rabbi Zeltzer, when talking about a marriage ‘The Art of the Deal’ | 75 proposal that he received for his daughter: “The young man they proposed was an excellent fellow, only he was someone who requires a great deal of warmth. My daughter is not a warm, giving type; she cannot give him this. It would not work out between them. I am angry at those who do not understand this and marry off people without taking such factors into consideration.” Thus, Zeltzer not only was concerned about the interpersonal compatibility of the couple, but also criticized those who ignore this variable when selecting a spouse for their child.

Rapport with the Intended Mate

Beyond objective, definable considerations, parents choose a match for their children on the basis of some personal rapport that they feel toward the intended match. This is reflected in the interview with Kroyne, as she explained why she chose Estie, of all others, for her son’s wife: “I don’t know why. I felt an affinity for her. I remember that ever since she was a little girl, I always thought how sweet she is.” Personal rapport is a relevant factor particularly in small groups such as Toldot Aharon, where its members all know each other and the prospective mates from childhood. This consideration is also relevant in relation to young men, as Kroyne went on to say: “The father sees a young man in the synagogue who wins his approval, and he wants him for his daughter. That is mostly on the basis of personal liking.”

Discussion and Conclusions

The picture presented here reveals the network of considerations that guide members of the Toldot Aharon sect in selecting a spouse for their children. Although most of them treated the matchmaking assets presented here with gravity, there is some diversity with regard to the importance of each one. Some families are willing to compromise on the personal qualities of the proposed mate, but not on factors connected to the prospective match’s family background; others are just the opposite. In any event, most of these matchmaking assets reflect a view that sees marriage predominantly as a contractual relationship between families. This view, which had characterized traditional Jewish society (Gross- man 2004) as well as most societies before the twentieth century (Baten and Murray 1998), is still accepted in various traditional societies (Dion and Dion 1993). In many of them, not only is romantic love far from being a precondition for marriage; it is considered an obstacle to a successful union (Brown 1994). 76 | Sima Zalcberg Block

The findings further indicate that elements of barter, which exist in effect in every romantic relationship (Ahuvia and Adelman 1992; Becker 1981), take on a particularly businesslike nature in this group. This is reflected in the fact that the parents not only conduct a systematic investigation of the proposed matches and their families, but also examine their ‘genetic baggage’. Using scientific tools to make a decision about a marriage proposal would seem to contradict the declared position predominant in ultra- Orthodox society, which states that every match is the result of Divine intervention (Zalcberg 2005). However, for the group members, this activ- ity is not a challenge to Divine Providence but rather reflects the hishtadlus (human effort) that they are required to make for the success of the match. For them, the results of the genetic tests are an indicator from God, show- ing whether the match should be finalized or canceled. Kroyne explained it thus: “In a match, it is God who sets the circumstances in motion. If the genetic results are not suitable, it is a sign that the match is not right.” The investigation of a prospective mate is conducted as part of the matchmaking process. However, it must be emphasized that selecting a mate for one’s children is a procedure that extends over a long period of time, years before the young people actually reach marriageable age. The young people in the group consequently live their entire life before marriage under the critical scrutiny of potential mothers- and fathers-in-law, and every step that they take may raise or lower their value in the marriage market. Fur- thermore, the parents are also careful in their own behavior for fear that it might harm their children’s future marriage prospects (Zalcberg 2005). In effect, the matchmaking assets demonstrate the status and value of the young people in the group and the societal expectations of them. Therefore, gender differences in matchmaking assets express differences in status and societal expectations between men and women in the group. One of the prominent differences that emerged relates to the importance of two variables: for the bride, ba’aleboste capabilities and external appearance; for the groom, the degree of scholarliness. Since external appearance is assumed to indicate the reproductive ability of the woman (Buss 2004; Goodwin 2000) and her capabilities in the domestic sphere, this finding reflects the patriarchal character of the group, which places the woman in the domestic domain and sees her main role as reproduction. These gender-based differences exist in other ultra-Orthodox groups as well (Elor 1994); however, since most of these women are also expected to bear the burden of providing a livelihood for the family to allow the husband to study Torah, no less consideration is given to the earning potential of the woman (Friedman 1995). In Toldot Aharon, in contrast, it is considered inappropriate for a woman to work out of the household, and therefore she is judged more for her potential in the domestic sphere. ‘The Art of the Deal’ | 77

These findings may indicate the inferior status of women in the group (Beauvoir 1974; Wollstonecraft [1792] 1975). At the same time, the degree of liberty available to a young woman in selecting a mate is much greater than that granted to a young man, as indicated in this article and as came to light more forcefully in a previous study on the subject (Zalcberg 2012). This fact may be an indication that the criteria for evaluating the status of women in a group are not unequivocal (Collins 1991; hooks 1990), and that Western universal perceptions of the status of women are not necessarily relevant to a group with social and cultural characteristics like Toldot Aharon. Many of the matchmaking assets that came up in this study were also present in traditional Jewish society (Grossman 2004), and they are in fact important to some degree to many parents in modern society, as well as to all individuals in the general society who are seeking a mate (Buss 1989, 1992, 2004; Feingold 1992; Goodwin 2000; Hatfield and Rapson 1995). However, one significant difference between this group and general society in this context primarily concerns an evaluation of the achievement- based characteristics of the young men in the mate-selection process. In the Toldot Aharon group, the man’s achievement-based characteristics are all in the field of Torah scholarship, while in general society, such characteristics relate mainly to income, profession, and level of education (Bokek-Cohen and Peres 2006; Feingold 1992; Hatfield and Rapson 1995). Another significant difference relates to the role of interpersonal compatibility between the members of the couple. While general society attributes great weight to interpersonal compatibility (Dion and Dion 1993), the Toldot Aharon group’s approach to the subject and to personality- based characteristics of the couple was conspicuous by its absence. There- fore, this process of ‘barter transaction’ may be seen as an ‘objectification’ (Nussbaum 1995) of singles—a concept that in its broader definition includes people as subjects of an approach that considers the human being as merchandise or an object for use without sufficient regard for individual personality (LeMoncheck 1997). According to Nussbaum (1995), something is objectified when the person or thing is treated as something that is freely exchangeable or replaceable and when it is treated as being devoid of self-determination. The fact that it is important for the parents to make a match with a specific family at any cost—and that they do not consider which of its children are best-suited to the children of the sought-after in-laws—reinforces this claim. However, it is also possible that within the Toldot Aharon cosmology the emotional benefit of the couple is formu- lated in terms of different scales and sorts of compatibility between their families, in addition to various economic arrangements. This topic calls for further study that would undertake to evaluate the level of satisfaction in married life in a society where the match is decided 78 | Sima Zalcberg Block

by the parents on the basis of clear-cut, definite criteria, as compared to modern society where the individual is highly involved and has a large degree of freedom in selecting a spouse. Such a study should of course consider how these factors relate to a couple who will live in a very close- knit environment all their lives, as opposed to being in the larger and more diffuse general society.

Acknowledgments

Most of this article is based on a broader study of the world of the Has- sidic women in the Toldot Aharon group. The research was conducted for a doctoral study under the supervision of Prof. Menachem Friedman, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan. I also would like to take this opportunity to thank a number of funds for their support during the research: the Schupf Fund, the Memorial Foun- dation for Jewish Culture, and the Fanya Gottesfeld Heller Center for the Study of Women in Judaism at Bar-Ilan University. In addition, my thanks go to the editors of the journal and the readers of the article for their important comments and suggestions and especially to this issue’s guest editors, Prof. Sylvie Fogiel-Bijaoui and Dr. Reina Rutlinger-Reiner.

Sima Zalcberg Block holds a PhD from the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Bar-Ilan University, and an MSc from the Faculty of Industrial and Management Engineering at the Technion, Haifa. She has been a researcher of social and policy issues at the Brookdale Institute in Jerusalem for more than a decade. In recent years she has been writing and teaching on issues related to gender, religion, and ultra-Orthodox and Modern Orthodox society in Israel.

Notes

1. Toldot Aharon is considered extreme by its own members and among the entire set of ultra-Orthodox communities (Zalcberg 2005), as well as within the academic discourse (see Caplan 2010; Friedman 1991). 2. I discuss mate selection from the child’s perspective in an earlier article (Zalc- berg 2012). 3. A kolel is a yeshiva for married men, who study and receive a modest monthly stipend. 4. All names are pseudonyms in order to protect interviewees’ anonymity. ‘The Art of the Deal’ | 79

5. Although the accepted norm is to wear a black headscarf, a small percentage of women allow themselves to deviate from the norm and don headscarves in various colors.

References

Ahuvia, Aaron C., and Mara B. Adelman. 1992. “Formal Intermediaries in the Marriage Market: A Typology and Review.” Journal of Marriage and Family 54, no. 2: 452–463. Aran, Godon. 2003. “The Haredi’s Body: Chapters of Ethnography in Process.” [In Hebrew.] Pp. 99–133 in Sivan and Caplan 2003. Atkinson, Paul, and Martyn Hammersley. 2000. “Ethnography and Participant Observation.” Pp. 248–261 in Denzin and Lincoln 2000a. Ayella, Marybeth. 1993. “‘They Must Be Crazy’: Some of the Difficulties in Researching ‘Cults.’” Pp. 108–124 in Researching Sensitive Topics, ed. Claire M. Renzetti and Raymond M. Lee. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Baten, Jörg, and John E. Murray. 1998. “Women’s Stature and Marriage Markets in Preindustrial Bavaria.” Journal of Family History 23, no. 2: 124–135. Beauvoir, Simone de. 1974. The Second Sex. Trans. H. M. Parshley. New York: Vin- tage Books. Becker, Gary S. 1981. A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- sity Press. Bokek-Cohen, Yearit. 2012. “Women’s Sex Objectification during the Matchmaking Process in Israel.” Asian Women 28, no. 2: 81–111. Bokek-Cohen, Yearit, and Yochanan Peres. 2006. “Mate Selectivity: An Empirical Confrontation of Evolutionary Psychology with Marriage Market Theory.” [In Hebrew.] Social Issues in Israel 2: 73–93. Brown, R. A. 1994. “Romantic Love and the Spouse Selection Criteria of Male and Female Korean College Students.” Journal of Social Psychology 134, no. 2: 183–189. Bryan, Angela D., Gregory D. Webster, and Amanda L. Mahaffey. 2011. “The Big, the Rich, and the Powerful: Physical, Financial, and Social Dimensions of Dominance in Mating and Attraction.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 37, no. 3: 365–382. Buss, David M. 1989. “Sex Differences in Human Mate Preferences: Evolutionary Hypotheses Tested in 37 Cultures.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12, no. 1: 1–14. Buss, David M. 1992. “International Preferences in Selecting Mates: A Study of 37 Cultures.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 21, no. 1: 5–47. Buss, David M. 2004. Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind. Boston: Pearson. Buss, David M. 2007. “The Evolution of Human Mating.” Acta Psychologica Sinica 39, no. 3: 502–512. Buunk, Abraham P., Justin H. Park, and Lesley A. Duncan. 2010. “Cultural Variation in Parental Influence on Mate Choice.”Cross-Cultural Research 44, no. 1: 23–40. 80 | Sima Zalcberg Block

Caplan, Kimmy. 2007. Internal Popular Discourse in Israeli Haredi Society. [In Hebrew.] Jerusalem: Shazar Center. Caplan, Kimmy. 2010. “‘Cheeky Dirty Convert’: The Marriage of Amram Blau and Ruth Ben-David.” Iyunim Bitkumat Yisrael 20: 300–337. Chang, Szu-Chia, and Chao-Neng Chan. 2007. “Perceptions of Commitment Change during Mate Selection: The Case of Taiwanese Newlyweds.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 24, no. 1: 55–68. Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage Publications. Collins, Patricia H. 1991. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall Inc. Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds. 2000a. Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2000b. “Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research.” Pp. 1–29 in Denzin and Lincoln 2000a. Dion, Karen K., and Kenneth Dion. 1993. “Individualistic and Collectivistic Per- spectives on Gender and the Cultural Context of Love and Intimacy.” Journal of Social Issues 49, no. 3: 53–69. Elor, Tamar. 1994. Educated and Ignorant: Ultraorthodox Jewish Women and Their World. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Feingold, Alan. 1992. “Gender Differences in Mate Selection Preferences: A Test of the Parental Investment Model.” Psychological Bulletin 112, no. 1: 125–135. Friedman, Menachem. 1991. The Haredi Ultra-Orthodox Society: Sources Trends and Processes. [In Hebrew.] Jerusalem: Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. Friedman, Menachem. 1995. “The Haredi Women.” [In Hebrew.] Pp. 273–290 in Jewish Women in the Mediterranean Communities, ed. Yael Azmon. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center. Friedman, Menachem. 1999. “‘The King’s Daughter Is All Glorious Without’: The Haredi Woman.” [In Hebrew.] Pp. 189–206 in Blessed Who Made Me a Woman, ed. David Ariel-Joel, Maya Leibovic, and Yehoram Mazor. Tel Aviv: Yediot Aharonot. Geary, David C., Jacob Vigil, and Jennifer Byrd-Craven. 2004. “Evolution of Human Mate Choice.” Journal of Sex Research 41, no. 1: 27–42. Goodwin, Robin. 2000. Personal Relationships across Cultures. New York: Routledge. Greenberg, David, and Eliezer Witztum. 2001. Sanity and Sanctity: Mental Health Work Among the Ultra-Orthodox in Jerusalem. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Grossman, Avraham. 2004. Pious and Rebellious Jewish Women in Medieval Europe. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press. Hatfield, Elaine, and Richard L Rapson. 1995. Love and Sex: Cross-Cultural Perspec- tives. New York: Allyn & Bacon. Heilman, Samuel C. 1992. Defenders of the Faith: Inside Ultra-Orthodox Jewry. New York: Schocken Books. Hojat, Mohammadreza, Reza Shapurian, Danesh Foroughi, Habib Nayerahmadi, Mitra Farzaneh, Mahmood Shafieyan, and Mohin Parsi. 2000. “Gender Differ- ences in Traditional Attitudes toward Marriage and the Family: An Empirical ‘The Art of the Deal’ | 81

Study of Iranian Immigrants in the United States.” Journal of Family Issues 21, no. 4: 419–434. Holmberg, Diane, Terri L. Orbuch, and Joseph Veroff. 2004. Thrice Told Tales: Mar- ried Couples Tell their Stories. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hooghiemstra, Erna. 2001. “Migrants, Partner Selection and Integration: Crossing Borders?” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 32, no. 4: 601–626. hooks, bell. 1990. Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics. Boston: South End Press. LeMoncheck, Linda. 1997. Loose Women, Lecherous Men: A Feminist Philosophy of Sex. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leon, Nissim. 2010. Soft Ultra-Orthodoxy: Religious Renewal in Oriental Jewry in Israel. [In Hebrew.] Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi. Manohar, Namita. 2008. ‘‘‘Sshh …!! Don’t Tell My Parents’: Dating among Sec- ond-Generation Patels in Florida.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 39, no. 4: 571–588. Milevsky, Avidan, Deborah S. Niman, Atara Raab, and Ruchie Gross. 2011. “A Phenomenological Examination of Dating Attitudes in Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Emerging Adult Women.” Mental Health, Religion & Culture 14, no. 4: 311–322. Netting, Nancy S. 2006. “Two-Lives, One Partner: Indo-Canadian Youth between Love and Arranged Marriages.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 37, no. 1: 129–146. Netting, Nancy S. 2010. “Marital Ideoscapes in 21st-Century India: Creative Com- binations of Love and Responsibility.” Journal of Family Issues 31, no. 6: 707–726. Nussbaum, Martha C. 1995. “Objectification.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 24, no. 4: 249–291. Patton, Michael Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Prainsack, Barbara, and Gil Siegal. 2006. “The Rise of Genetic Couplehood? A Comparative View of Premarital Genetic Screening.” BioSocieties 1, no. 1: 17–36. Reinharz, Shulamit. 1992. Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York: Oxford University Press. Riela, Suzanne, Geraldine Rodriguez, Arthur Aron, Xiaomeng Xu, and Bianca P. Acevedo. 2010. “Experiences of Falling in Love: Investigating Culture, Ethnicity, Gender, and Speed.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27, no. 4: 473–493. Ritblatt, Shulamit N. 2003. “Couple Formation in Israel Jewish Society.” Pp. 137–155 in Mate Selection across Cultures, ed. Raeann R. Hamon and Bron B. Ingoldsby. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rockman, Hannah. 1994. “Matchmaker, Matchmaker, Make Me a Match: The Art and Conventions of Jewish Arranged Marriages.” Sexual & Marital Therapy 9, no. 3: 277–284. Shaffir, William B. 1991. “Managing a Convincing Self-Presentation: Some Per- sonal Reflections on Entering the Field.” Pp. 72–82 in Experiencing Fieldwork: An Inside View of Qualitative Research, ed. Wiliam B. Shaffir, and Robert A. Steb- bins. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 82 | Sima Zalcberg Block

Shalev, Ofra, Nehami Baum, and Haya Itzhaky. 2012. “Mate Selection and Mar- riage Decision in Bicultural Society: Modern Orthodox Society in Israel.” Mar- riage & Family Review 48, no. 2: 210–226. Shilhav, Joseph, and Menachem Friedman. 1985. Growth and Segregation: The Ultra-Orthodox Community of Jerusalem. [In Hebrew.] Jerusalem: Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. Sivan, Emmanuel, and Kimmy Caplan, eds. 2003. Israeli Haredim: Integration without Assimilation? [In Hebrew.] Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Van Leer Institute and Ha-kibbutz Ha-me’ukhad Publishing. Tucker, M. Belinda, and Claudia Mitchell-Kernan. 1990. “New Trends in Black American Interracial Marriage: The Social Structural Context.” Journal of Mar- riage and the Family 52, no. 1: 209–218. Uskul, Ayse K., Richard N. Lalonde, and Lynda Cheng. 2007. “Views on Inter- racial Dating among Chinese and European Canadians: The Roles of Culture, Gender, and Mainstream Cultural Identity.” Journal of Social and Personal Rela- tionships 24, no. 6: 891–911. Wollstonecraft, Mary. [1792] 1975. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Ed. Carol H. Poston. New York: W.W. Norton. Zalcberg, Sima. 2005. “The World of the Hassidic Women of ‘Toldot Aharon’: Their Status as Individuals and as a Group.” [In Hebrew.] PhD diss., Bar-Ilan University. Zalcberg, Sima. 2007. “‘Grace Is Deceitful and Beauty Is Vain’: How Hasidic Women Cope with the Requirement of Shaving One’s Head and Wearing a Black Kerchief.” Gender Issues 24, no. 3: 13–34. Zalcberg, Sima. 2009. “Channels of Knowledge and Information about Menstrua- tion and Sexuality among Hasidic Adolescent Girls.” Nashim: A Journal of Jew- ish Women’s Studies & Gender Issues 17 (Spring): 60–88. Zalcberg, Sima. 2012. “Gender Differences in the Involvement of Young People in the Matchmaking Process in an Extreme Ultra-Orthodox Community.” Journal of Jewish Identities 5, no. 2: 27–50. Zhang, Shuangyue, and Susan L. Kline. 2009. “Can I Make My Own Decision? A Cross-Cultural Study of Perceived Social Network Influence in Mate Selection.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 40, no. 1: 3–23.