Moshe responds to the argument that there is no objection in Jewish law to a woman becoming a rabbi:
You mention the Rav, which is ironic since it’s well documented that he objected to women even being shul president, let alone clergy. Rav Moshe allowed a woman to be a mashgiach only for dire need (a widow with no other means of support) but explicitly states that all things being equal, women should not have such leadership roles (serarah). In light of these very legitimate concerns, it is astounding that you can categorically declare female rabbis to be "not halachikly problematic at all" (!)
Moreover, one thing that concerns me is, when did we become halachik fundamentalists to the point that only the letter of the law counts? Is there not a general spirit of the law, and in specific with regards to women’s issues? How do you deal with the meta issues that a woman rabbi could not even be a witness at a wedding she performs, can not count in the minyan she ministers to, etc. Isn’t there a disconnect there? Even the Conservative writings on this dealt with those meta issues!
And finally, and I mean this sincerely and respectfully, I notice you refer to your article as a "teshuva". What do you consider to be the standard at which an article becomes canonized as an official "teshuva", meaning it’s invested with authority and communities can rely on it. Do you consider yourself a posek? Must one even consult a recognized posek before acting on something lemaaseh, or is it enough that an argument feel compelling to those who wish to follow it? I ask these questions not sarcastically, but only because I think the answer to the above questions is a litmus test of sorts to determine a general halchik philosophy.
Finally, your description of Hurwitz as not a militant feminist and as committed to Orthodoxy is circular. Since you don’t consider women rabbis anti-orthodox, it follows that she’s not anti-orthodox. I disagree. I think her willingness to act in a way which is not approved by single major Orthodox organization (OU, RCA, Agudah, young israel, YU, religious zionist, hasidic, sefardic, whatever) or by a single recognized orthodox authority by definition does make her a militant who absolutely does stand opposed to establishment Orthodoxy.
Charles Hall writes:
"Of course I would never daven in that shul."
A lot of others do. It has the largest beit knesset in the community, it is packed every Shabat, and is approximately tied with the Riverdale Jewish Center for the largest membership of any congregation in the Bronx (and that includes the non-Orthodox congregations). This after Rabbi Weiss started in the basement of an apartment building 36 years ago. It is actually one of the major kiruv success stories in American Judaism, as hundreds of families have come to Torah through his efforts. Something is working.
"I think her willingness to act in a way which is not approved by single major Orthodox organization (OU, RCA, Agudah, young israel, YU, religious zionist, hasidic, sefardic, whatever) or by a single recognized orthodox authority by definition does make her a militant who absolutely does stand opposed to establishment Orthodoxy."
Excuse me, but do you know M’Hurwitz? Have you ever spoken with her? Can you cite an action of hers that is contrary to halachah? Or any thing that she has said or written?
And is being "militant" asur? There have been times in our history when a bit more militancy might have served us well. Remember that if "establishment Orthodoxy" had had its way we would not have a State of Israel, and it also failed to act effectively in Europe prior to the Shoah.
And M’Hurwitz continues to be employed by a congregation that is a member of the OU in good standing.
‘Do you think that synaogues that have "maharat" positions will next allow mixed minyanim? ‘
I have never asked either M’Hurwitz or R’Weiss their positions on this issue, but there is no "mixed minyan" at the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale.
"But Ashkenazim *do* have to worry about it. And that includes HIR and most American Jews."
Currently there are about three times as many members of Reform synagogues in the US as there are Orthodox Jews. While the Conservative movement has been imploding, there are now 200 more Reform congregations than there were a generation ago. Reform is now the largest Jewish "movement" in the US for the first time since the 1880s. (Maybe we don’t have to "worry" about this, but it is a fact nevertheless.)
Lisa, a lesbian and an Orthodox Jew, writes: "My objection to Ms. Hurwitz’s title of "mashgicha ruchanit", which she held up until recently, was not that there was anything wrong with her serving in that capacity. It was the sure knowledge that it was only a first step. With this "maharat" business being the second step, and "rabbi" being the endgame. This pushing of the envelope is detrimental to Judaism."
This is in response to the article "Woman leading Women of the Wall," in your Nov. 14 issue. I am a Jewish woman who enjoys going to women’s prayer groups. I enjoy being able to read Torah and participate in ways that would be inappropriate in an Orthodox synagogue. And yet I am unalterably and vehemently opposed to the group known as the Women of the Wall.
I want to take this opportunity to explain why I oppose the Women of the Wall, and why I believe others should oppose them. And why it is not only "right wing, ultra-Orthodox" Jews who are offended by this group. In Tractate Yevamot 13b, we learn that even though the School of Hillel and the School of Shammai had different legal views of what constituted illegitimacy, they were able to marry between the communities. Why? Because each community would let the other know who among them would be considered illegitimate by the other.
They did not stand on their own pride and insist that only their view could possibly be correct, but rather showed respect even for the view they thought was wrong. There are authorities in Jewish law who support women’s prayer groups. There are likewise authorities who oppose these groups. Each side has ample support and backing in Jewish law, and each side is as legitimate in their views as the School of Hillel and the School of Shammai were in their views of illegitimacy. When such differing views exist in Jewish law, each side is completely entitled to live according to their own views. They are not, however, entitled to try and force their views on those who hold by the opposing side. For someone who opposes women’s prayer groups to barge into a private home where such a group is being held and try to break it up would be unconscionable. But for someone who supports them to hold a women’s prayer group in a communal location like the Western Wall, where they know it will offend others, is every bit as wrong.
Change does not come in Judaism by demonstrations and marches. Traditional Jews believe that the Torah we keep is the same Torah given by G-d more than thirty three centuries ago. It is not ours to give up on, or give in on, just because someone is pressuring us.
This is entirely aside from the habit the Women of the Wall have of staging media events by inviting the press to what they know will result in a confrontation. Creating strife among Jews for the sole purpose of trying to force acceptance of one’s views is not the Jewish way. It has never been the Jewish way.
JOFA had a conference here in Chicago. Now, I’m definitely a supporter of women’s davening groups (so long as they’re done according to halakha), but JOFA stands for a lot more than that. The Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance was founded by Blu Greenberg (of "Where there’s a rabbinic will, there’s a halakhic way" fame), wife of Yitz Greenberg (founder of CLAL, and the ostensibly Orthodox rabbi who publically declared that due to Hashem permitting the Holocaust, His commandments are no longer binding on us).
I attended part of this conference. Why? Well, my first reaction was that of course I wasn’t going to go. Why on earth would I add one more person to the headcount so that they could claim to be representative of Orthodox Jewish women?
Well, someone very close to me was going. And I knew she was going to have all sorts of things to say afterwards, and I decided that it’d be a lot better if I could hear what the people actually said, rather than a second-hand account.
This was a Very Bad Idea.
Mitch Morrison writes on Hirhurim: Lisa nails it… Halacha must always include meta-halacha. While something may be permissable the broader question is can what i permit today lead to something forbidden tomorrow. If, RJM, you say a woman rabbi, based on contemporary expectations of a pulpit rabbi, is permissable, that’s your position – and a lonely one within Orthodoxy. If you says it is forbidden then the question is do you see the role of Mora’at leading to something more down the line is this where the boundary is set.
I’ll offer what may be a poor example. My brother is a Traditional Conservative Rabbi. in his last shul, he would not let women hold a Sefer Torah on Simchat Torah because based on his constituents he feared many would say, "well, if i can hold a Sefer Torah, then i should be able to lein from the Torah in our shul." He didn’t want that. I remember he said to me, if i were in a Young Israel where boundaries are clearer, then i’d let them hold a Sefer Torah on Simchat Torah.
Again, it’s all about context and end games. If you, Avi Weiss, etc. feel a woman should be able to receive semicha and act as a pulpit rabbi with caveat on edut, then you should have the courage to say so. But right now, the move on SH – where her enhanced title is in the functions within a shul as opposed to say academia – presents a tightrope lacking steadiness.
LISA WRITES: I see the difference is with Avi Weiss declaring Hurwitz to be "clergy". Before he did that, it was a local matter at one shul. But he (and she) are a tail trying to wag the dog. I’m willing to bet that if you ask Hurwitz what she thinks about the whole Maharat thing, she’ll say something along the lines of, "I’m happy about it. It’s a good start."
When she was still a madricha ruchanit, she made it clear that she thought it was unfair that she couldn’t be a rabbi. I doubt she’s backed down from that position at all. Not to get all slippery-slope and domino about this, but that’s all this is. Is a step. And to the extent that they "get away with it", they’ll continue pushing the envelope further and further.
