[H]e acknowledged that since the YU semichah program ordains many who are not going into the pulpit (education, chaplaincy, kashrut, kiruv, or professional fields outside the context of Jewish communal work) the Rav [Soloveitchik] was not concerned about the issues [ = prohibitions] of serarah [authority] for geirim [converts] entering the rabbinical school. Rav Schachter felt this was different for women where the entire purpose of ordination is to provide them with the credentials to be "pulpit rabbis".In other words, for geirim, the prohibition for them to wield serarah is ignored and they are granted semikhah because geirim who are rabbis can serve in offices beside the pulpit and thus circumvent the prohibition of serarah. By contrast, according to Rabbi Schachter, women will occupy pulpits and only pulpits, and that is all they will do with their semikhah, and so we cannot grant semikhah.
But this is nonsense. Women want the title so that they can do whatever male rabbis do, whether that's to occupy a pulpit or to write books with the word "rabbi" on the cover. Women do not want the title simply so that they can occupy pulpits. After all, Esther Jungreis and Lynne Kaye are doing just fine with their pulpits even without formal titles. If all women wanted to do was occupy pulpits, then they could go right ahead even without formal ordination. I'd further note that the Hafetz Haim did not have formal ordination. Conversely, men can hold the title of "rabbi" irrespective of their occupations. The natural presumption is that anyone wishing for women's ordination is asking for the same ability. If the RCA thinks the argument is otherwise, the burden of proof is on them, and yet I've seen no such proof from them. Therefore, the natural presumption remains that the controversy is over women possessing the title even without occupying a pulpit.
The fact that the RCA said nothing against Esther Jungreis or Lynne Kaye - both of whom do occupy pulpits - but attacked Sara Hurewitz shows that the RCA's issue is not with pulpits per se, but purely with the title. The RCA couldn't care less what women do, as long as they don't have the title.
In short:
(1) Women have been agitating for the title of "rabbi" not so that they can occupy pulpits, but so that they can have the same title for men, and get the same "pay" (the honor of a title) for the same work. But what that work is, and whether it includes pulpits, is an entirely different question. Whether or not women will occupy pulpits, this is entirely distinct from the question of their possessing the title of "rabbi".
(2) As I said, whether or not women can occupy pulpits is separate from whether they are called "rabbi". Esther Jungreis and Lynne Kaye do not possess the title of "rabbi", and both are nevertheless occupying pulpits. The RCA seems to have no objection.
We thus see from the RCA's own actions that it does not mind women's occupying pulpits, but it does mind their being called "rabbi" even if they do not occupy pulpits. If the RCA had wanted to, they could have said that women may not occupy pulpits but that they may nevertheless hold the title of "rabbi" (or its equivalent) for non-pulpit purposes, just as many men already do today. But since the RCA did not do that, what that means is that the RCA is opposed to far more than just women holding pulpits. They are opposed to women carrying the title itself, irrespective of what they do with it. Ironically, the RCA has no problem with Esther Jungreis acting like a pulpit-rabbi, and yet it objects to a woman possessing the title even without acting like a pulpit-rabbi. If anything, the RCA seems to be more opposed to the title itself than to the office of pulpit; if anything, the RCA is more opposed to a woman with the title of "Rabbi" who works in business or secular education than a woman with the title of "Dr." or "Ms." who gives sermons and teaches Torah. So the RCA's own actions indicate they have no problem with women occupying pulpits as long as they lack the title, and that conversely, they oppose women having the title regardless of whether they occupy pulpits.
One aside: my entire post has been assuming, for the sake of argument, that women are in fact prohibited to wield authority, to possess serarah, but that they can still do other rabbinic tasks, exactly as with geirim. But the truth is that both geirim and women can wield serarah, if only the people democratically accept them and democratically wave the prohibition of serarah. Rabbi Benzion Uziel shows this in his teshuva on women's suffrage. It seems to me that this is because Judaism is a democracy. According to the Torah, a communal authority can wield power only if the people accept him. In times past, people were racist and sexist and rejected women and converts. They were not justified in this, but reality was reality and fact was fact, and if authority requires democratic consent, then women and converts were ineligible. Thank G-d, we have evolved since that time, and now that we accept women and converts as the equal citizens they in fact are, we are now ready to democratically accept them, all things being equal, i.e. assuming they are otherwise equal to the male non-converts they are running against.
Posts
15 comments:
I think rabbinical schools should stop calling the degree smicha and call it a Masters in Rabbinical Studies. Then everyone can have the same degree.
Then make a separate title for women. No congregation is going to accidentally hire a woman thinking that she's a male Rabbi because she holds a degree in rabbinical studies. On the other hand, it's a fully level playing field for school principals, authors, etc.
Everyone gets what they want or close enough to it.
In our previous discussion of Makvoian democracy, you said that while unanimous consent was not required, some sort of supermajority was in order to have a rule that could be enforced on those who did not support it. I don't think we (the Orthodox community) are anywhere near a supermajority in support of allowing women to receive the title rabbi.
One important question is who is the relevant community here? Is it all Jews? All Orthodox Jews? All Orthodox Jewish men? The faculty of a given yeshiva? I don't think it can be the community of a particular shul, since shuls do not grant titles.
LeahGG, not a bad idea.
Larry, Rabbi Weiss's shul and his yeshiva constitute a distinct ideological community. No one outside that community is being coerced. The model of democracy I am advocating limits only government, and private organizations and individuals are free to form contractual relationships. The whole idea of my form of libertarian democracy is limiting the government so that it, as much as possible, is limited by contract the same way any business or church is. But since no church can force people to join, my libertarianism does not affect it, and it can do whatever it wants, as long as it and its members keep their contracts. So too with Rabbi Weiss and his yeshiva; it affects only those who choose to be affected, and anyone outside his community is not being coerced to have women rabbis against their wills.
However, Larry, if Rabbi Weiss-ians controlled the government, then there'd be a real question. If Rabbi Weiss were the chief rabbi of Israel, then it would be illegitimate of him to coerce others by installing women rabbis into state-run synagogues.
In short, Larry, my demand for localized governance and supermajorities is not some magical principle I pulled out of heaven. The idea, rather, is to prevent coercion.
If government were localized, then coercion would be more difficult because first, the citizens would have greater access to their governors and be more able to lobby them; and second, because they'd be able to easily move if they became dissatisfied with their government.
If a supermajority is required, then a small majority (say, 60%) will not be able to impose its will on large minority (say, 40%). Instead, it will be something like 90% and 10%, or some such. That way, if ever the majority does win over the minority, it will hopefully be because the majority was expressing an axiomatic belief of that society. For example, if Christians in Medieval Europe decided for the government to support the church, the Jews would be oppressed, but of course, the "normal" person there was Christian, and Jews were anomalies, and so it's not quite so unfair. When a minority is sufficiently miniscule, it ceases to become an entity deserving its own dignity and the majority ceases to be obligated to say elu v'elu. In Biblical Israel, for example, a person who broke Shabbat was clearly breaking with what "normal" people did, and to punish him was not an act of coercing the minority. It was simply punishing lawbreakers. But when a vast segment of the Jewish people begins to violate Shabbat, they begin to feel they have their own intrinsic right to dignity and that their actions ought to be respected as legitimate.
But none of the above applies to private organizations. In a private organization, the individuals willingly and deliberately entered into a contract. Therefore, assuming the contract is enforced fairly, and assuming the individuals were not coerced by natural necessity (say, starvation and being forced to pay a price-gouging merchant for basic goods), then the organization can do whatever it wants, and it will be bound by the contract it has with the citizens.
But government applies to everyone in its locality, and so we should limit it as much as possible, and try to make it mimic a contractual private organization as much as possible, so that there is as little coercion as possible. A private organization does not coerce at all, because if you don't like it, you don't join it, and we must try to make the government as much like this as possible.
So in Israel, having women rabbis installed by the government would require one of two things:
(1) Each local community in Israel, on its own, decided to have women rabbis within its own geographic boundaries, or
(2) Those forbidding women rabbis constituted such a minority that they were not "normal" and their opinion not deserving of tolerance.
But that's when the government is involved. Rabbi Weiss has not enlisted government support, and so localization and supermajoritarianism are not required.
In the halachic context, how does this approach avoid having 'two torahs in Israel'. It sounds like your ideal Jewish polity is the age of the Judges when "there was no king in Israel and each man did what was right in his own eyes."
We already have "two Torahs in Israel", due to the travails which the Oral Law has suffered. There is nothing we can do about this anymore. Disputes will exist regardless, and the only question is: will we coerce everyone to obey one arbitrary shita, or will we hold by elu v'elu? But the disputes will continue to exist regardless, until the Jewish people come together again and democratically confer semikhah on one individual with unanimous approval and consent, as RambaM says.
My ideal polity is when there is no king in Israel and each man does what is right according to the Torah.
whereas my proposed solution completely skirts the issue (pun intended.) The degree is the same, regardless of title, meaning you're not dealing with a halachic issue at all. You would have difficulty finding mainstream Orthodox rabbis who would say that a woman shouldn't hold a master's degree.
We learn from the Mishna and the Talmud that:
-the Halacha follows Beit Hillel and not Beit Shamai also the Talmidei Shamai were the better scholars, because Hillel had mor students
-Rabbi Eliezer Ben Hyrkonus could not rule that an oven is kosher also he was the nasi and had support of great scholars, because the majority didn't agree with (and this also the Talmud syas that even HaShem agreed with him!)
-In case of a machloket between Rabbi Akiva and another individual, the Halacha is like Rabbi Akiva. But between Rabbi Akiva and the Chachamim it is like the Chachamim. And this again because the Halacha goes like the majority
What you suggest, i.e. that every community is doing iot's own Halacha, is contradicting to this principle and therefore cannot be called orthodox.
What Rabbi Weiss is doing, intentionally or not, is to create after Reform and Conservative another non-orthodox stream of Judaism.
Anonymous,
So if the majority of Orthodox Jews forbid secular studies, doesn't that make YU heretical?
Throughout exilic Jewish history, each community has been keeping its own shitot. According to you, it would seem that Sephardim in their own lands were obligated to become Ashkenazim because they were outnumbered. Actually, during the era of Rashi and the early Rishonim, the Sephardim outnumbered the Ashkenazim, and so it is the Ashkenazim who were obligated to convert.
"So if the majority of Orthodox Jews forbid secular studies, doesn't that make YU heretical?"
Why do you think that there is such a majority?
Which Ashkenazi Rav claims that Nusach Sephardi is not kosher, i.e. against Halacha, or vice versa?
I don't see any connection between these examples and the ordination of women.
Btw, the expression elu ve'elu that you like to quote continues in the Talmud: "Those and those are the words of the living G-d, BUT THE HALACHA IS LIKE BEIT HILLEL". There is no such thing as: you cnchoose whatever you want.
" ... BUT THE HALACHA IS LIKE BEIT HILLEL"
But who, pray tell, will decide for us? Why should Rabbi Weiss defer to the Haredim? Maybe the Haredim should defer to Rabbi Weiss.
All you've proven is that ONE shita should prevail. But whose shita?
As I wrote before that you can learn from Talmud and Mishna that Halacha is going with the majority and not with the individual, even if the individual is Rabbi Akiva.
And the women ordination was not declared to be against Halacha only by "the Haredim" (whoever that may be), but by the RCA:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/137251
Seems that in contrast to you Rav Weiss understands the importance of unity of Orthodoxy:
http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=105534
Kol HaKvod!
Post a Comment