|
Chidushay Bang
Can women be rabbis?
R' Schachter from TorahWeb.org
Touchy Subject?
Elchanan Shoff
Nitzavim/Vayelech:
A Final Thought
jordan hiller
Kitavo:
Produce and Prayer
avi korn
TishaBAv:
Attack of the Klones
isaac galena
Chukas/Balak:
Fight Fire with Fire
avi korn
Shelach:
Is Instant Gratification Jewish?
avi korn n ' myles brody
BANGITOUT's SEDER SIDEKICK!
print this baby out!
Pesach: Unity in Bnei Brak
Steven Schwartzberg
Pesach: Where in the World is Moshe Rabainu?
Phil Witner
Walk Like an Egyptian
Yaakov Eizicovics
Purim- Do Looks Matter?
Steve Wind
Parshat Vayikra - G-d's "Go-to" Guy
David Mahler
Parshat Vayakhel- Shekels of Fire
Alan Gersch
Parshat Ki Sesa - A Glitch in the Matrix
Avi Korn
Parshat Vayishlach: Dina
R' Michael Zauderer
The Simchat Torah Dance!
Isaac Galena
Shaking up Succos
Yaakov from Toronto
SHAVUOT - Holiday of the NIGHT!
Steve Wind
Purim: Is Shikar the Ikar?
myles brody
When I saw his face now I'm a
Baal Teshuva
seth galena
It's
Raining Mun, Hallelukah
seth galena
Unlikely
Savior or Brady Bunch Father
avi korn
Who know's 8?
Ethan Eisenberg
Where's
the beef on Chanukah?
Myles Brody
Rushing
into Greek Week
avi korn
Shabbos Reinforcement
by R' Michael Zauderer
Shmini Atzeret: Shavuot II
by Avi Korn
Succos: Sleepin' in the Succah
by Steve Wind
Parshat Ki Tavo: Use the Force!
by Steve Thompson
Parshat Ki Taysay: How To Treat a Woman Right!
by
Lisa Seligsohn
Parshat Shoftim: VH1 Behind the Avairah
by
Uri Korn
Parshat Dvarim: UNITY
by
Avi Korn
The UWS Survival Dvar Torah
by
Avi Korn
Parshat Chukat: THE ROCK!
by
Rivka Friedman
Do the Rite Thing
by
Adam "the Katzker" Katz
Jerusalem, I Hardly Know Him!
by
R' Michael Zauderer
Press
Your Luck
by
Danny Fax
|
 |
|
The Bangitout Torah - search for meaning:
CAN WOMEN
BE RABBIS?
from torahweb.org
Readers comments here
READER COMMENTS:
To post your comments kindly send an email here:
submit@bangitout.com
We ask that your comments be respectful towards R' Schacter,Shlita, who is unquestionably one of the great Talmiday Chachamim of our time.
=====
From Michael Firestone:
Since many have dealt with R' Schechter's own words, I will limit my
comments to that of "Anonymous 2," particularly in reference to his
contention that equality would not "be an issue" if we only listened to
the gedolim.
The writer states that listening to the gedolim is impossible because we
cannot "think in line" with the Torah and its values because of the
impact of modern society on our "own thought processes and morals." This
reasoning is not only specious, but it horribly misguided. For good or
for ill, the modern world and the ideas that it presents are reality --
it exists and everyone has to deal with its implications, not only with
regards to one's political and moral obligations, but with regards to
one's spiritual life as well. As such, issues of women's liberation,
feminism, etc., are real, coherent issues which we cannot say do not
exist, and, moreover, by simply existing necessarily impact the way we
understand the Torah. If we adopt a false sense of reality, that ideas
current in the world -- even if they do not originate in the Jewish
tradition, like feminism -- have no impact or even the wrong impact on
our understanding of the Torah, then we are admitting that the Torah's
truth cannot respond to the modern world. In order to be true, there
cannot be a "wrong" way of understanding the Torah -- every way must
lead to truth, regardless of that way's origin or intent. There is no
question that our Gedolim routinely viewed modern ideas and trends and
understood the Torah through them. To give the most prominent examples,
it is well known that the Rambam was a student of Aristotelian
philosophy and that the Rav, z"l was a student of the great German
philosophers. Can one say that the modern secular though they willingly
learned and cherished was a hindrance to their study of Torah, that it
somehow polluted their understanding and prevented them from a clear
appreciation of the truth of the Torah or of the works of the Gedolim?
While clearly we are not on their level of comprehension, the blanket
generalization issued by Anonymous is patently false.
As Anonymous 2 and many others have done, it is entirely acceptable to
fall back on the mitzvah of following only the interpretation of the
Torah which will be offered by the Kohanim and Leviim (i.e., the
chachamim), and not to turn "right or left" from it, thereby placing
ultimate legal authority outside of the community and residing that
authority among a select few. But this does not mean that those not
authorized as halakhic authorities are unable to question or comment on
the rulings made by the Rabbis. The injunction to follow the Rabbis is
one that governs action only; it does not leglislate thought, and, given
the importance that our mesorah places on Talmud Torah, I -- as well as
many others -- would find such a "geder" objectionable in the extreme.
As such, contrary to what Anonymous 2 states in his last sentence, we do
have a basic right to "argue" with the Rabbis, even if our level of
comprehension and/or "dveykus" is lower than theirs. That only the
Gedolim ha
ve the right to "change" halakhot or minhagim is undeniable. But, to my
knowledge, no one individual Orthodox or even Modern Orthodox Jew has
endorsed that view. Rather, Orthodox Rabbis with whom R' Schechter and
others, including Anonymous 2, disagree, have made changes -- like even
allowing the names of the mothers of the chattan and kallah to be
written into the ketubah -- spurred, perhaps, because of current notions
of feminism, but not very different from the way that way that Rabbeinu
Gershom was spurred to ban polygamy or Hillel spurred to institute the
prozbol.
It is clear that everyone has made decisions to follow one Rabbi over
another in the course of a life committed to Halakhic practice.
Obviously, Anonymous 2 has chosen to follow R' Schechter and his
talmidim. Others have made different decisions, and historically, we
know that this is common. The students of Hillel and Shammai, for
example, made individual decisions to follow one of two Gedolim; they
were not born members of those two yeshivot, but clearly chose a certain
halakhic philosophy and practice, which, presumably, they valued higher
than the other. Obviously, once that choice was made, those students did
not pick and choose from between Hillel and Shamai's decisions. However,
one cannot negate the fact that initially a choice was made, and that
there was some measure of individual intellectual activity which
entailed an analysis of two distinct ways of approaching the Torah. The
injunction to follow the Torah as explained by the chachamim only
requires that a Rab
bi be chosen by the Jew who, when needed, may explicate the law, and
that the Jew follow the law as directed. The injunction does not require
that one choose the strictest standard, nor does it encourage the most
lenient. As evidence of their infinite and masterful understanding of
human nature and of the Torah, the chachamim recognized that the Torah
permitted "seventy faces," i.e., more than one way to observe the truth
of the Torah, all the while remaining constant and loyal to its
directives.
Those Orthodox Jews who are looking to broaden the traditional role of
women, e.g., through reading the ketubah, are not undertaking these
changes on their own. They are doing so through a permitted halakhic
process by consulting eminent talmidei chachamin before taking any
further steps. Anonymous 2 knows, I hope, that this is the case. As
such, though he presents his argument as a complaint against the
"community" which doens't want to listen to "the" Rabbis, he is really
denouncing his fellow halakhic Jews who do not follow the dictates of
"his" Rabbis. Unless Anonymous 2 is going to say that the Orthodox
Rabbis who have allowed a women to read the Ketubah are acting outside
of the halackhic method, his only real complaint is that either (1) some
people aren't acting as strictly as he feels they should, or, (2) that
some people aren't following the same Rabbis he has decided to follow.
The former is a valid issue, but I am sure that Shammai had the same
problem with Hillel. However, if Anonymous 2 bases his complaint on the
latter, then he should recognize the clear and unmistakeble sinat chinam
implicit in that position, which, I hope, does not animate his views
From Susie Neustein
If women helped create Rabbis then why can't they become them.
Aside from issues of tzniut, the only real problem that exists is the
issue of taharah and niddah. This is when a women can't lead or engage
in certain religious activities.That's what an assistant Rabbi is for.
Oh and yes, he can be a man, parrot,or monkey or whatever LOL. OOps!!
From Jon
I would like to clarify what I wrote in earlier. My reason for stating
that Men and Women are different is not sexist, or even my own original
opinion. It's a fact as delianted by Chazal and the Torah. If the focus
of our lives is trying to follow and observe the Torah, then we should
not have negative comments to say about a Torah Figure, about a man who
lives his entire life in Avodat Hashem. Who are we that we think we are
on a level to judge R' Shechter or the Torah? What have we learned, what
do we know? When it comes to matters of religion what makes us think
that our own emotions or intuition should play a role in such major
decisions. Judiasm is a religion of love and emotion, but love and
emotions only as guided by "the laws" (which are really not laws as much
as ways of becoming closer to G-d) of Judaism.
I appreciate that this is a heated issue, but we all must keep a few key
things in mind.
(1) The Torah is not an opinion, it is an undeniable fact.
(2) Our Mesorah has not changed and is as true today as it was by Sinia
(so far this is all from the Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith).
(3) The Role of the Gedolim of each generation is to define the
application of the Torah and Mesorah to present day.
(4) The G'mara says: If they (Chazal) are men then we are Donkeys - who
do we think we are to comment on R' Shechter?
(5) We are of limited intellegance.
It is the obligation of each individual to think through his or her
life. As Plato wrote of Socrates in The Apoligy, the unreflected life
isn't worth living. Chazal said this too, but for some it seems Plato
may seem a more reliable source than Chazal. We have a right to inquire,
to ask and to honestly seek the truth, but we do not have a right to
deny the truth of the Torah. We do not have a right to deny Hilchot
Tsni'ut or define it simply as modesty. We are not only a religion of
custom, we are a religion that has been guided through 2000 years of
exile by adherance to law. An itegral part of the law is Ahavat Yisrael.
On one last note I would like to thank whoever it was that brought it
up, but I agree, and it is very important that we maintain a level of
respect towards each other when posting, all the more so when posting
regarding an established Hallachik figure. If you're posting your
emotions please remember that these are your own feelings, but they do
not change the facts behind the Hallacha and Mesorah on which Rav
Shechter is reporting. THese are not his own ideas, these ideas are
thousands of years old, and he is on of the Gedolim, one of the
guardians of our Nation entrusted with leading us.
From Abi
I understand ''anon''s fustration. Regarding a genuine want for closness
to Hashem....Im sure she's aware there are great women in tenach that
more than achieved, greatness and a closness with Hashem. For example
Devorah in shoftim who was the judge in her time of the whole of bnei
yisroel. The question of rabbinic's however is a slightly different
area. What is a rabbi? The jobs of a rabbi includes community
councelling, cheder, delivering shiurim....all of this a woman can do
with no problems......so why not call her a rabbi? There is one area
which I would challenge to be a womans area. A Rabbi has to answer
halachic questions and detach himself from situation to remain inkeeping
with torah law which IS sometime's not what someone wants to hear. A
woman has been given the gift of empathy and bina, the overall picture
when advising or making desicions however halacha whilst still taking
into account circumstances is a fixed law code and CAN NOT (if we still
want shabbas and jews in 100 yrs time) be changed to suit the asker. Do
we want to train ourselves to be more detached?
I think we have been given a different role. If we are talking about
achieving closness with Hashem we should see what gifts He has given us
and utilize them to find our own way to connect with Him. As the moshel
goes....if a mechanic see's a cleaner's tools and wants them for himself
and gets them....once he has them, he will realize that he can not do
his job with those tools...and all along he had the right one's to
furfill his job.
What tools have we been given? And lastly, we need female eductors and
councelllers...if youve got it, go for it!
From Atara
Rav Schachter is certainly a talmid chacham, and everyone is entitled to
their opinion on this issue. Much has been made of the comparison to
monkeys in Rav Schachter’s article. I am sure, as many of us are, that
he did not intend to demean women by comparing them to animals, monkeys
or otherwise, and in fact, that is not what offended/bothered me about
the article. In the beginning of the second section, the following
sentence, with regard to the reading of the ketubah issue appears:
A new trend is emerging among certain "modern Orthodox" circles.
The placement of those quotation marks is offensive! Is he suggesting
that in those circles their practices are not Orthodox!! Or is he
mocking the concept of an orthodoxy that is modern at all! I would
expect all those involved in organizations like EDAH and others that
profess to belong to the modern orthodox community to be offended at
this. By placing the phrase in quotations Rav Schachter gives the
impression that he is not, as it may seem, arguing a halachic point with
a community he deems to be generally valid, but rather criticizing a
circle of people that do not take orthodoxy seriously.
From Andrew
Rav Schacter is quite correct in his halachic judgement that women
cannot be rabbis. Indeed, the main arguments within the Reform and
Conservative worlds, and even now among a liberal fringe in the Orthodox
world, have been that women should be able to be rabbis because
restricting the rabbinate to men is not fair. However, we need to
remember that we cannot judge Hashem by man's standards, our standards
for morality and fairness need to be Torah standards, not the current
standards espoused by secular society. For most of history the Torah's
approach to gender roles and specifically towards the value and place of
women in society were considered by those societies surrounding the
Jews, both before and after the galus began, to value women too much.
Today feminism means that in much of the Western world the Torah's
viewpoint on gender roles is viewed by secular society as archaic and
repressive. Both positions are equally false because they are equally
based on secular understanding instead of absolute adherence to Torah
and halakha. A woman cannot be a rabbi for the same reason that I, not
born a Kohen, can never to be a Kohen, and for the same reason that
Korach could not become a priest. Indeed, when people argue that women
should be able to be rabbis they are committing the sin of Korach,
however, good their intentions they are arguing that their own desire or
knowledge or logic is superior to that of Hashem and should be
substituted for it.
According to halakha a woman cannot be a rabbi for a number of
reasons. First, a rabbi has to be a halakhic judge whose ruling when he
poskins is binding. One cannot simply say, after getting a rabbis
halakhic opinion that it has been taken into advisement and then go
ahead and violate his ruling. As a women is not halakhically allowed to
be a witness, in most cases, she also cannot be a judge. There are those
who bring up Devorah, but the fact was that she could only judge in
those matters where the litigants before the ruling formally agreed that
her opinion would be binding. A rabbi's ruling must be binding whether
or not the parties involved wish it to be; his ruling must be binding
due to his position as rabbi, not due people choosing to accept it.
Secondly, women are exempted from almost all of the time bound mitzvot.
And there is much debate about which ones she may voluntarily take upon
herself. Moreover, even if a woman does take on certain mitzvot the
action is that which a person has ordained for herself not that ordained
for her by Hashem, so it has a lesser value. A rabbi needs to be bound
by all these mitzvot in order to not only be a proper role model but to
be qualified to be a proper judge. There are also the issues of public
Torah reading and of female study of the Gemarra. Even if one admits
that women may formally be taught Gemarra, the halachic reason for that
is because the threat of secular intellectualism in the modern world
means that the risk from female Gemarra study is today not as great as
the risk posed by not teaching a woman and leaving her susceptible to
corrupting secular influences. However, as even those great Torah
scholars who permit and encourage female Talmud study today, such as
Rabbi Soloveitchik z"l and Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson z"l never
argued that the halachic rulings against it that were practically
universal from long before the Rambam to the days of the Chofetz Chaim
were wrong, but rather that circumstances made this necessary. The
halachic ideal is thus still that women should not be formally taught
Gemarra. Thus, the halakha seems quite clear that women were not meant
to be rabbis as even the fundamental knowledge necessary for the
rabbinical office was not to be formally taught to them.
In short, the real question that we have to ask ourselves and our
fellow Jews in this debate is whether we are remaining true to Torah and
Hashem with our motives, opinions, and decisions based solely on the
halakha, or whether in arguing that women should be rabbis we are trying
to bend and even change the halakha to make it fall in line with our
secular values; thereby, negating in our minds and hearts the essence of
Judaism, that the Torah is from Hashem and is the sole source of
universal, immutable Truth.
AN IMPORTANT SHAYLAH AND T’SHUVA
Dear Rabbi Machmirman:
I am an orthodox man who lives alone. I am concerned about the fact that I do not as yet have a
wife to light Friday night candles and, therefore, have no candles on Shabbos. I recently learned
that, from a halachic standpoint, parrots and monkeys can do the same things as women. My
question is: Can I buy a monkey or a parrot and have it light Shabbos candles for me? If so,
which is halachically preferable – a monkey or a parrot?
A Concerned Bochur
Dear Concerned Bochur:
It is about time that important halachic issues, which have long been overlooked, are being given
the attention that they deserve. Invisible bugs in the water is a problem that was ignored for far
too long. The same is true of the ancient halachic concept known as of v’kof, which is nowadays
referred to as parrots and monkeys.
There are three dayot on the issue. The first holds that women cannot be equated with parrots
and monkeys. While every dayah is entitled to respect, in my opinion following this one may lead
to abuse. Indeed, it could eventually result in women making birchat hamotzi for their family at a
dinner table – something that would clearly be an act of gross immodesty.
The other two dayot (which, in my opinion, are preferable) both hold that a parrot or monkey is
an acceptable alternative to a woman, but they differ as to which of the parrot or monkey is
preferable for lighting candles. The dayah which prefers parrots holds that, since parrots can
speak, they are in the category of a medaber and, therefore, are on a halachically higher level than
other animals (albeit lower than men) and are, therefore, properly comparable to women.
In contrast, the other dayah says that, to determine the comparative levels of a parrot and a
monkey, one must look at the order in which they were created during the six days of creation.
Parrots were created on the fifth day; monkeys on the sixth. Since every day of creation reflects
an elevated status (culminating in Shabbos, the ultimate kedusha) this dayah holds that monkeys
are preferable. (You should note that the dayah which prefers parrots rejects this analysis,
because, if followed to its logical extreme, it would mean that women are on a higher level than
men, since they were created later. This, as we all know, cannot be true.)
My own view is that a true yoreh shamayim should try to accommodate both of the preferable
dayot. This can be accomplished in a manner similar to the parable in masechet Sanhedrin, where
the lame watchman was put on the back of the blind watchman so that they could be treated as a
combined functioning unit. Accordingly, unless it would be a hefsed merubah for you, you
should bear the expense of buying both a parrot and a monkey. The parrot can then sit on the
monkey’s shoulder (like a pirate) and recite the bracha for lighting candles while the monkey does
the actual act of lighting.
Please note that if you follow this recommended procedure, it is important that the monkey have
kavana to be yotzeh with the parrot’s bracha. It is my understanding that competent halachic
authorities are currently checking monkeys to see which ones are genetically capable of having
the attribute of proper kavana, and that hechsherim will be issued accordingly. Be sure that you
only buy a monkey which is certified as having acceptable rabbinic supervision. It may cost more,
but one cannot put a price on the proper observance of mitzvot.
Rabbi Machmirman
P.S. After issuing this teshuva, it came to Rabbi Machmirman’s attention that certain parrots
come from India and may be used in idol worship ceremonies. Accordingly, hashgacha on the
parrot is also required.
From Mike
I'm quite surprised by Rav Schacter's conclusions, or rather, how he
arrived at his conclusions.
Rav schacter explains that a man, and not a woman, may read the kesuba
(and thus compromise his tznuis) because on occasions when halacha
requires us to act in a public fashion, halacha distinguishes between
men and women. This seems to ignore the fact that halacha does not
require men to read the ketuba ("the truth of the matter is that no one
has to read the kesuba!"). Why would Rav Schacter think that halacha
distinguishes between men and women by reading of the kesuba?
In fact, since halacha doesnt require men to read the kesuba, why are we
allowing men to read it at all. Rav Schacter doesn't seem to have a
problem with a parrot reading it, or more practically, a recording. We
should put an end to the untzniut practice of men reading the kesuba at
once.
From Leibel
It is told of Devorah (in the Book of Judges) that she was both a Judge
and a Prophet(ess). One asks - how did she become a judge; surely, no
one would appoint
or elect a woman judge (after all it was a fairly black-hat community).
The simple answer is that she became a judge by being accepted by others
as wise and honest. Similarly, an woman with a knowledge of Torah will
become a Rabbi notwithstanding the refusal of traditional yeshivot to so
name her - by the acceptance and recognition of her followers or
adherents.
The seismic upheaval in Jewish education among women will either be
recognized by the Orthodox community with the granting of a degree of
recognition (a Jewish one - not a doctorate) or there will ultimately be
a revolution from below where a new tradition of educated and learned
woman is respected as such because of communal recognition and
acceptance.
From Dina Pirutinsky
In response to Anonymous 2 (and a few other people):
You are confusing just what the argument is. You say that men and women
are different. The women who disagree with that are not saying that men
and women are biologically identical but that there is a difference
between "Feminine" and "Masculine" and that century after century traits
that are considered masculine (for example, being assertive and
competitive) have been venerated and respected while feminine traits
(patience, compassion...) have not been valued. I am not a Teresa Heinz
Kerry fan at all, but no one can deny that when she said, "my only hope
is that, one day soon, women - who have all earned the right to their
opinions - instead of being labeled opinionated, will be called smart or
well-informed, just as men are," in her speech at the Democratic
National Convention, that she nailed it. Women do not want to be men and
a woman who wants to be a rabbi is not necessarily asking that.
The Feminist movement was started because women wanted that which is
Feminine to be as esteemed in regard as that which is Masculine. They
did not want to have to be masculine to be respected. A woman who wants
to be a rabbi (and since I was in about 9th grade I've wished my Hebrew
skills were a heck of a lot better because I really had my heart set on
being an Orthodox rabbi) does not want to be a man, she just wants to
study Tanach and the Talmud and learn it and know it and gain smicha and
be able to answer sheiylot and to teach it over and possibly even lead a
shul--everyone is different, of course.
In response to Abi:
Don't generalize. There are more women than you could imagine who can be
just as apathetic as men can. It's, once again, not an issue of Man and
Woman but of Masculine and Feminine. There are plenty of masculine
females and plenty of feminine males. Granted, those terms were made
because they represent the majority of the people of that gender, but
think of all those other terms--tomboy, butch, sissy, fag--don't you
think society would benefit if they stopped isolating "tomboys" from
"real girls" just because they prefer playing ball to playing with
Barbies? We're really ridiculous.
And just a bit for me to vent:
The Torah is the word of HaShem; Navi was written through nevuah;
Ketuvim with ruach haKodesh; and the Talmud with even less. No one can
argue that each generation, Tanaim, Amoraim, Gaonim, etc. were not
biased people. They were brilliant scholars and even more than just
intellectually--which is obvious since they were able to derive these
things from the Torah--but they were still people. Even if you study
Navi you can see that different books of Navi are written in different
styles because while it was nevuah from HaShem, they were written by
people who were exposed to different things growing up and you can tell
some are written more eloquently than others. It's impossible to argue
that our Gedolim, whom I have the greatest amount of respect for, were
not biased--they did live in a time when women were disregarded as not
independent thinkers. I know it's not a black and white issue, but it's
difficult to rationalize certain things like "shelo asani isha," which
say what you want to defend but it's still phrased as a thanks to HaShem
for not making you (the sayer of it) a woman. So to understand it a bit
more clearly, it's easier to say that this is not the direct word of
HaShem but rather the direct word from HaShem--that HaShem alluded to
for us to derive and that the Torah sh'Baal Peh is Torah sh'Baal Peh so
that it can be poskined and adapted differently for each generation and
that to properly understand certain edicts we have to understand what
generation our Gedolim were from.
From Steven G.
It is interesting to note that
the posts that attack Rav Schecter the most do not do so by quoting and
discussing halacha. Rather these posts attack Rav Schecter's views by
saying in effect, "I feel that he's wrong". Well with all due respect
to these posters, Rav Schecter knows (at least) 200 times more Torah
then all you put together. So please, be honest with your posts and
start them off with, "I know noting of halacha but I still feel….
From David Barak
Subj: Unfortunate tone - comments on Rav Schacter's essay
Dear Editor,
Rav Schacter, Shlit"a, has made an unfortunate
comparison: in saying that women could read a Ketubah
because a monkey could read a ketubah, he relates
women to animals, and that association is not a
welcome one.
The argument that women are blessed with the ability
to retain more privacy than men is circular: we say
that men don't have privacy because they must do
public things, but then say that because women don't
do these public things they can retain it. The flaw
in the argument is that the lack of public
participation is an effect, not a cause. Arguing that
it is both cause and effect is not compelling.
Further, arguing that women's status is a blessing is
hard to swallow: I know many intelligent, well
educated (in limudei kodesh as well as secular
studies) Jewish women who would rather have a more
active participation in ritual Jewish life.
Halakhah is what it is, and I am not arguing for
discarding it in the slightest. However, the
contention that limitation is really a blessing is
hard to swallow in this case. I respectfully submit
that the issue is far from proven, and request of Rav
Schacter that he reconsider his position and resubmit
his essay (hopefully free of the type of unfortunate
comparison mentioned previously).
From Dovie
It's really depressing to see so many women in our Jewish community who
are so caught up in trying to be men and so paranoid that they're being
passed
over that they can't see the beauty in being a Jewish WOMAN. Maybe if
these women spent a little more time understanding all the roles,
responsibilities
and privileges of being a Jewish woman they would not feel the need as
much to try and turn themselves into men. Many women all over, in
religion as
well as society in general, spend their time SAYING that they're secure
in their femininity yet spend all their time trying to expunge it from
themselves. I think these women should stop victimizing themselves and
maybe learn a little bit about their culture and history before
speaking.
In this day and age when the common method of dealing with one's own
ignorance is to scream discrimination, it's not too likely - but it's a
wish
worth wishing.
From Moshe Wilensky
To begin my response let me first say that I am Orthodox and male and
yes I believe a woman can be a Rabbi. But we'll get to that later. I'd
like to first comment on what Rabbi Schachter had to say, and why his
article is bunk. A quick example. His argument against Bat Mitzvah's at
13 egregiously misses the actual reason why women should
Bat mitzvah at 12. A Bar mitzvah is not some abstract concept of
understanding Jewish law. It is literally the day you hit puberty, and
as every seventh grader
knows, women sprout first. This was a very biological law originally.
The age of Bar/Bat mitzvah was later codified to avoid the embarrassment
of (pardon my crudity) searching for "evidence" of (wo)manhood. I
mention this only to allow those reading his article a reference point
from which to judge his remarks...but
I digress. Why a women can be a Rabbi: Shmecha, and the title of Rabbi,
are reflections of one item only, a mastery of the Talmud and Torah.
Rabbi is a title of respect for one who has dedicated the time to learn
Torah, and indicate they are
qualified to answer your questions about it. Just a
Doctor is a title of respect for one who has studied
medicine and is qualified to take out your appendix.
So exactly what part of a women's X chromosome renders
her unable to remember the Talmud and become a posek?
There are, admittedly, some problems with a women taking
a shul pulpit from a logistical level. These however,
A) can be solved and B) not every Rabbi needs a
pulpit. A Rabbi is not some mystical being. A Rabbi
is a teacher, and a scholar, and anatomy has no relation to the qualifications. And it might be
refreshing for Jewish women to be able to take their
questions about menstruation to someone who doesn't
need a medical text to understand the condition.
from: sound of anonymous.
Interesting approach on a very touchy subject. After all, I've been asked more than once whether or not I consider orthodox judaism to be mysoginistic. Well, that's up there with questions about whether kosher really means "blessed by a rabbi", why I don't have those curly things growing out of my ears, and about holes in bedsheets.
However, I woulda spent a bit less time focusing on the issue of whether a woman can read a ketubah or not. After all, as pertinent as it was to the discussion, my mind probably would have strayed after a bit of it if I wasn't a yeshiva bochur or just intellectually curious on where this minhag comes from. As far as I see, there was a lot more to discuss about the issue at hand than Rav Schachter, sh'lita, discussed. Now I've heard Rav Schachter speak numerous occasions, even had the
privilege of getting to know him a bit; not only is he a very
knowledgeable man book-smart whise, but I happen to know that he has been around the jewish world and has a very thorough understanding of what's going around there. I was half expecting to see a bit more of a reflection of that here.
Although I agree about women who decide to follow halakha out of spite/vindicativeness, why shouldn't the same hold for men? The way I see it, "that a rose called by any other name would still make me sneeze" (my allergies). Valid argument about how we want to protect the tz'niut of women, but shouldn't that be THEIR choice? Of course if you force a woman into a veldt of extra-tzenuity, she will grow to hate it. But a man, now he is allowed to compromise his tz'niut. Isn't there more to say about this point? Like WHY do we stress that our women lead such tz'nua lives?
As a followup, I think the bigger issue at hand is not only are women allowed to be rabbis, but about orthodoxys "mysogony". Like for example, women wearing tallit and tefillin. I think I once heard that Rashi allowed his daughters to wear tefillin, (apologies to Rashi if I heard wrong) why the exception here? And women learning gemara, what about Bruriah? Finally, the old famous "nashim da'atan kallus hein", given this "vayiven" theory, that women do have a binah yeteirah, how do we explain this one?
Finally, I would not disagree with putting modern orthodoxy in the same envelope as conerv., reform, tzedukim, et al. With all due respect to the modern orthodoxy
rabbinate, I think that the way it's practiced nowadays, it is simply "a rose called by another name", no better to me than conserv/reform; only with a gauche, "ah, but I'm ORTHODOX, I'm a better jew than you". Having grown up modern orthodox, I find it to be spiritually dead and in many cases I found, the system teaches people to compromise their beliefs too much. Well, I could argue this point for hours but this is hardly the time or the place.
Shabbat Shalom.
From E. Fishman, NYC
I was extremely offended at Rabbi Shachter's comparison of Conservative
and Reform rabbis to Christians, or Tzdukkim. While I disagree with R.
Shachter's opinion on the concept of Tzniut-I believe that tzniut is
private modesty, and should not be decided upon by Batei Din, or by
Rabbis, many of which probably have no personal connection to the women
who is trying to make these personal choices-I was even more upset by
the slander that the Conservative and Reform movements are being put
through. With all respect to R. Shachter, maybe the more pressing issue
here is not women's rights in Judaism, but what destroyed the Beit
Hamikdash itself-Sinaat Chinam.
FROM ANONYMOUS 2
This is meant as a response to
the first post. This
is not an attack on whoever wrote it, it is simply an
intellectual response in an attempt to contribute to
what is hopefully an honest discussion among those
looking for the truth.
As Rav Shechter (shlita) writes, the issue of equality
is one that has been debated for centuries. I did not
see one instance where he equated the conservative and
reform movements to Christianity. Nor did he equate
Modern Orthodoxy to any other movements. I believe
that what he was writing about was a phenomena larger
than the modern issue of women in Judaism. The larger
issue is how we relate to out mesorah. If we view our
Mesorah and Minhagim as interpreted by our Gedolim
(such as Rav Shechter) as the ultimate source of value
and morality, then equality would not be an issue (as
we would understand that they are correct). However,
due to our inability to honestly intellectually think
in line with the tTorahand the tTorah'smorals and
values (due in part to the impact our society has had
on our own thought process and morals) we all to often
hear the people misinterpreting the words of our
Rabbis.
It is highly ddoubtfulthat Rav Shechter feels
threatened by the ppossibilityof a woman performing a
mitzvah out of sincerity. As someone who has heard
shiur from him, learned b'chavrusa with many of his
talmidim, and read many of his works, I have seen
nothing but grace and love of avodas hashem from him.
I highly doubt he would deny a woman her own honest
desire for true d'veykus bashem.
Rav Shechter spoke about the nature of women being
different from the nature of men. It's a biological
fact. The Torah therefor (as Rav Shechter said)
ddelineateddifferent roles and tasks to men and women.
As a "book" of truth and knowledge, the Torah
prescribes a specific path for how to live our lives.
The Gedolim, the leaders of each generation, are given
the eenormoustask of interpreting the Torah for each
generation. To say that the Mesorah or accepted
Minhag needs alteration is not up to us to decide. I
ssympathizefor a woman who cannot appreciate who she
is, or feels second to men bec of the more tsanu'ah
role she has been given by G-d. A woman should be
proud to be a woman, and take every opportunity to
experience true d'veykus. However, you cannot
experience a connection with G-d outside of the
parameters he set up for making that connection. You
can only get close to G-d through the channels he
established through his Torah as defined by our
Mesorah and our Gedolim (it's a mitzva de'oraysa to
follow the chachamim, so this is all one entity).
Rav Moshe clearly said this regarding women performing
a mitzvas asay sh'ha'zman grama.
If anyone found this article demeaning or insulting
then they must ask themselves why they felt attacked
by it. Rav Shechter attacked people interested in
distorting the Torah, distorting the truth. He
attacked the idea of a woman performing mitzvos for
ulterior motives. He attacked the idea of going
beyond the parameters established by those entrusted
with our Mesorah (for more info on Minhag and Mesorah
see The Rav's - Rav Yosef Dov Solveitchik's - ppiecein
Shiurim L'zeicher Nishmas Avi Mori). If Torah, Torah
values, and true d'veykus is all a woman is concerned
with, then nothing in this article would be found
offensive. He clearly stated that "Women mature
intellectually at an earlier age than men." He was
stating the truth as established by those (Chazal)who
were most in touch with the ultimate source of
knowledge - G-d. He did not deny that a woman can be
intellectually mature, to the contrary, he showed that
woman mature earlier! He did not question a woman's
intellectual capacity, rather he challenged those who
seek to redefine the Torah and our Mesorah.
Whether or not a woman should be in a leadership
position, speaking before a crowd of men, or
performing additional mitzvos is not an emotional
decision that can be made by any of us (laymen or
women). The Torah is not a book of advice we can
choose to accept or interpret on our own, it is a
definitive guideline for how we are to live our lives.
A child may want to eat candy all day, and as
happiness is the child's only concern the child will
think his/her parents cruel for denying him/her that
happiness. However, as an adult the parents possess
the knowledge that eating all that candy is unhealthy.
We must accept that it is possible that emotionally
we want something, and intellectually it may seem to
make sense to us, but we do not posses the ultimate
knowledge. We are not in a position to call the
shots.
We were given the gift of a book with all the answers,
a guide to life. We were even given those that have
studied that book and were set forth in the book lead
and guide us. Instead of protesting that our Rabbis
don't understand, maybe we should ask ourselves why we
don't understand or agree. Instead of complaining
about the Rabbis we need to ask ourselves where we
went wrong. It is not they who have a problem, it
is we who don't agree. If a professor of math was
debating with a child about basic multiplication we
would not consider the child's opinion virtuous bec
he/she does not posses enough knowledge on the subject
to argue with the professor. Who are we that we feel
we have enough knowledge of the Torah, of the ultimate
truth and morality, that we feel we have a right to argue?
From
Tommy Sterling
Sydney, Australia
Dear Bang it Out,
The simple answer to the question is yes, of course women can be Rabbis. It is only a matter of time before female Rabbinic interns are given the title they deserve.
With respect to Rabbi Hershel Schachter, he bases his argument on aggadic obiter in the gemara. Specifically on the drash of the word "vayiven".
Furthermore it is not sincere to argue that the halacha regarding the age of Bat Mitzvah is supported by scientific research. According to the research presented by Rav Schachter, Bat Mitzot would need to be performed at age 11. It is disingenuous to use research to bolster your position regarding the approximate ages of Bar/Bat Mitzvot without then using the data to "correct" the slight error of Chazal.
I am disappointed by the views put forward in this article and hope that my scholarly friends in cyberspace are better able to argue the opposite proposition.
From Abi
I understand ''anon''s frustration. Regarding a genuine want for
closeness to Hashem....Im sure she's aware there are great women in
tenach that more than achieved, greatness and a closness with Hashem.
For example Devorah in shoftim who was the judge in her time of the
whole of bnei yisroel. The question of rabbinic's however is a slightly
different area. What is a rabbi? The jobs of a rabbi includes community
counseling, cheder, delivering shiurim....all of this a woman can do
with no problems......so why not call her a rabbi? There is one area
which I would challenge to be a woman's area. A Rabbi has to answer
halachic questions and detach himself from situation to remain in
keeping with torah law which IS sometimes not what someone wants to
hear. A woman has been given the gift of empathy and bina, the overall
picture when advising or making decisions however halacha whilst still
taking into account circumstances is a fixed law code and CAN NOT (if we
still want shabbas and Jews in 100 yrs time) be changed to suit the
asker. Do we want to train ourselves to be more detached?
I think we have been given a different role. If we are talking about
achieving closness with Hashem we should see what gifts He has given us
and utilize them to find our own way to connect with Him. As the moshel
goes....if a mechanic see's a cleaner's tools and wants them for himself
and gets them....once he has them, he will realize that he can not do
his job with those tools...and all along he had the right one's to
furfill his job.
What tools have we been given? And lastly, we need female eductors and
councelllers...if youve got it, go for it!
From Anonymous
I find this to be pretty demeaning
and insulting.
Although Rav Schechter is clearly a talmud chacham, with all due
respect, there is such a lack of sensitivity towards the women who feel
that they would like to be more involved. We live in a different world
than the rabbi's from the time of the gemara. that is why they did not
even consider the question of women being rabbis. Furthermore, Rav Moshe
Feinstein considered that there might be women who sincerely want to
perform the mitsvot aseh shehazman grama. He did not negate this
possibility. Rav Schechter seems to completely overlook the fact that
there are women who sincerely want to be more involved. What about
other secular aspects of society? should women never be in leadership
roles, even when they have what to contribute? I find it insulting that
Rav Schechter compares women to monkeys. Although he was trying to prove
a point, that anyone can read the ketubah, the effect of his comments is
offensive.
If women's motivations are to be questioned in such a generalized
fashion, i think it is fair to question the motivations of the rabbis,
who are unwilling to look at the need for change, within the permits of
halacha. why do they feel so threatened? There should be more of a
careful, nuanced look at individual issues that are being raised, and
not an overarching assumption about all women and their motivations.
Modern orthodox rabbis should not be lumped together with conservative
and reform rabbis who have a different agenda. Of course we want to
preserve the halacha, the traditions of our rabbis, and the spirit of
halacha, but is there no way to do this without making adjustments that
are within the parameters of halacha? It seems too dismissive to put all
of the issues together and to take a stance against all progress and
change.
|
