Rabbah, or "What's in a name?"
"Over the course of the last several weeks, at the request and initiative of Rabbi Avi Weiss, the leadership of Rabbinical Council of America and Rabbi Avi Weiss have engaged in discussions concerning the issue of ordaining women as rabbis. We are gratified that during the course of these conversations Rabbi Weiss concluded that neither he nor Yeshivat Maharat would ordain women as rabbis and that Yeshivat Maharat will not confer the title of “Rabba” on graduates of their program."
That didn't last long, did it? Apparently, Rabbah Hurwitz will be the one and only Rabbah for the foreseeable future. A graduate of Yeshivat Maharat will receive the title "Maharat."
On the plus side, the RCA didn't ask Weiss to close Yeshivat Maharat.
P.S. When I explained this change of name plan to my husband, he replied, in typical Punster fashion, "Modeh ani l'fanecha . . . sheh-hechezarta bi nishmati b'chelmah, maharat emunatecha. " :)*
*Sorry, you'll have to check your siddur (prayer book) for that one--see the first prayer recited every morning upon waking up.
posted by Shira Salamone at 2:31 PM
22 Comments:
It's called, "let's all walk away from the brink, calm down, and decide what to do." I'm pretty sure the RCA realizes that some sort of ordination of women is in the future of modern Orthodoxy, but they aren't willing to cede the entire decision to Rabbi Weiss.
And they need to have their rear front guarded, since a REAL schism between modern Orthodox that doesn't bring the Centrists along creates an actual problem for people.
While Conservative Jews were welcome to stomp their feet over Gay Rabbis and other nonsense, it doesn't really effect Conservative Jews if there is a movement splinter. If the right wing was putting the RCA in Cherem, officially, this could be a problem.
If NCYI (National Counsel of Young Israel), the defacto #2 synagogue group of modern orthodox Jews (officially religious zionist, NCYI likes to flirt with the right-wing, while the members of YI shuls are anything but right wing) were to prohibit hiring YU Rabbis, you'd have a mess. The national organization has already prohibited the member Shuls from hiring a Rabbi without national consent... in practice this is ignored outside NY, but rules on the books get resurrected decades later.
This is an issue because YI Shuls aren't legally separate from the national, and it's not an "affiliation" you can drop like Reform, Conservaitve, or OU (the official modern Orthodox group), if you leave NCYI, NCYI technically owns your building, and you have to fight to maintain it. There is precedent for doing so (courts have normally let local congregants keep their Churches in Protestant splits, but less so when the Catholic Church Diocese shuts down a Parish).
There are REAL issues in areas of Jewish law when property rights are involved, not arguments and venom in the blogosphere. ;)
Al, you've done a fine job of explaining the issues involved and the possible problems that all parties are trying to avoid creating. Thanks!
What was left unsaid by many of the commenters on this issue, is that the RCA has, by not expelling Avi Weiss, and the OU by not expelling HIR, has implicitly recognized that a woman can serve in some rabbinic-type role. To avoid controversy, let's say a pastoral role. That's huge.
Avi Weiss may be walking back with egg on his face, but he's gotten them to take a position that means that other shuls can, if they choose, hire a "Maharat" (what a stupid title) and give her appropriate pastoral roles, without fear of being booted from the OU.
JDub, I imagine that Rabbi Weiss was (more or less) willing to get egg on his face in order to keep his membership in the RCA, keep his synagogue in the Orthodox Union, and keep Yeshivat Maharat open.
I wouldn't have though that the change from Maharat to Rabbah would have been such a big deal, since the educational requirements remain the same, but, apparently, perhaps even in the segment of the Orthodox world in which a woman can have a job that entails many of the same duties as a rabbi's job, a woman can't be called anything remotely resembling Rabbi. Community Scholar, Rabbinic Intern, Rosh Bet Midrash (Head of the House of Study), Rosh Kehillah (Head of the Congregation), Congregational Leader, Mashgichah Ruchanit (?)/Spiritual Leader (or whatever was Rabba Hurwitz's pre-Maharat title) are all fine, but Rabbi is not, and anything that sounds almost the same as Rabbi is not. A combination of politics, tradition, and fear of change militates against the acceptance of such a title.
"Avi Weiss may be walking back with egg on his face, but he's gotten them to take a position that means that other shuls can, if they choose, hire a "Maharat" (what a stupid title) and give her appropriate pastoral roles, without fear of being booted from the OU.
That's a major victory.
The problem with Maharat is that it's not a title, it's an acronym--a Hebrew one, at that--and, as with any other acronym or abbreviation, it has to be explained to every individual hearing or reading it for the first time. How tiresome. Frankly, Rabba is, at least, self-explanatory--all a Rabba would have to say is that the word means "female rabbi." The only way to explain Maharat is to translate it first, and then say that it means "female rabbi." That's a pretty longwinded and roundabout way to say Rabbi.
Shira,
But don't pretend that this wasn't a HUGE tectonic shift in the Orthodox world. There is now a (singular) ordained Rabbah (female Rabbi) working under that title in an OU affiliated Shul. There is a tacit acknowledgment of ordained "Maharat." There is an acknowledgment of a need for female clergy-members in Orthodoxy...
Rabbi is a LOADED term with both Halachic and cultural associations. The term is perceived as the Jewish term for Priest/Minister, which it's not, but we only permit a male to serve in the capacity of the Shul Rabbi, and a few other roles.
However, for the VAST majority of Rabbis, even those working within the Jewish world, are not working in a role that requires a man OR a Rabbi, per Halacha.
There is also a legal issue, the US Legal System recognizes parsonage, payment to a minister by a religious organization toward housing that is not taxable. This was created to permit Protestant Churches to house their ministers if they can't afford housing there (otherwise housing is a taxable benefit), used by the Catholic Church for their Priests, and used by the Orthodox Day School world to grant pay tax free to teachers.
Since the Orthodox World requires living in close quarters, Modern Orthodox Rabbis wouldn't necessarily be able to live within Modern Orthodox communities without an absorbent salary given the costs of some communities, so this lets them help their Rabbis and teachers live in the community on an affordable basis.
There is now an avenue for a woman, in the Modern Orthodox world, to become a part of the clergy with all the financial benefits that that entails.
This is a MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR shift... I don't think Rabbi Weiss got egg on his face, I think he agree to split the load, took 80%, and let the OU/RCA save face... and everyone knows that we'll push the envelope again, just not for a few years.
This was a HUGE amount of "cultural ground" captured, and the only "retreat" was over the title.
Rabbah may be easier to understand as "female Rabbi," but "Maharat" as "female Rabbi" for dealing with the outside world isn't too big a deal... They figured out that Rabbi = Hebrew for Priest/Minister, and Iman = Arabic for Priest/Minister, nobody on the outside needs to worry about our internal issues.
To the outside world, there is now a term for a female Orthodox Jewish Rabbi, that's huge...
Nice forest, don't worry about the frost damage on the tree in the back.
Miami Al, my reading around the Internet has served to remind me that Orthodox women have been ordained previously. "Mimi Feigleson received semicha from Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach, and Havivah Ner-David received semicha from a Jerusalem-based rabbi named Aryeh Strikovsky (who was also my teacher)."
Ah, there's Sara Hurwitz's former title: Machricha Ruchanit ("religious mentor").
That said, this is most certainly ". . . a HUGE tectonic shift in the Orthodox world. There is now a (singular) ordained Rabbah (female Rabbi) working under that title in an OU affiliated Shul. There is a tacit acknowledgment of ordained "Maharat." There is an acknowledgment of a need for female clergy-members in Orthodoxy..."
It's terrific that learned Jewish women can now earn a title that entitles them not only to serve as clergy, but also entitles them to get the parsonage benefits reserved for clergy.
"This is a MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR shift... I don't think Rabbi Weiss got egg on his face, I think he agree to split the load, took 80%, and let the OU/RCA save face. . ."
That's a good way of looking at it.
"... and everyone knows that we'll push the envelope again, just not for a few years."
I'm waiting, I'm waiting, but at least I have some more envelope-pushing looking forward to, eventually. :)
"This was a HUGE amount of "cultural ground" captured, and the only "retreat" was over the title."
I'm think you're right.
"Nice forest, don't worry about the frost damage on the tree in the back."
:)
If Rabbi Weiss isn't worried, then neither am I. I guess I'll guess have to have a bit more patience.
A friend working in one of the Day Schools openly mused about trying to get Conservative Ordination. She figured that if she was going to stay in the Day School administration, it was a worthwhile investment. While she wouldn't have the title Rabbi at work, it might help her financially...
The school could grant her parsonage, as an acknowledged "Rabbi," and potentially gain access to any "Rabbi" pay scale, since the Day School umbrella organizations aren't inherently Orthodox, even though the majority of the schools are.
Of course, being an Orthodox Jew, that would amount to heresy. :)
This is a MAJOR "facts on the ground" change, because while there have been several examples of female semicha, it didn't correspond with real recognition and employment.
This agreement, gave Rabbi Weiss and his group of pioneers 80% of the loaf, retreating on the name seems easy.
Rabbah would be nice, but since there is one, there is precedent, IF his Maharat program is successful.
Again, more useful to have a dozen recognized and employed Maharat Women running around in Orthodox circles and RECOGNIZED in Orthodoxy than a handful of women called Rabbah that aren't recognized.
This needs to trickle through, Agudat can stomp their feet, but this only works if OU affiliated shuls hire his graduates, not sure how successful is YCT program is in that regard.
UTJ takes the Israeli Rabbanut Semicha exam, and my understanding is that they have trouble finding employment because UTJ isn't trusted by either side, though that may be incorrect.
"This is a MAJOR "facts on the ground" change, because while there have been several examples of female semicha, it didn't correspond with real recognition and employment.
. . . more useful to have a dozen recognized and employed Maharat Women running around in Orthodox circles and RECOGNIZED in Orthodoxy than a handful of women called Rabbah that aren't recognized."
I agree.
" . . .but this only works if OU [Orthodox Union] affiliated shuls hire his graduates, not sure how successful is YCT program is in that regard.
I guess only time will tell whether either Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School or Yeshivat Maharat graduates will be successful in obtaining OU synagogue employment.
I am fully in sympathy with women who want a clergywoman to turn to, a role model for their daughters, perhaps as a personal religious expression, etc...
I am also fully in sympathy with a kohein who falls in love with a giyores.
The difference between the two cases is that the second one has a clearly defined prohibition that it violates, while the word "rabbi" doesn't actually mean anything halachically. That said, who ever said that Jewish norms are limited by specifically defined prohibitions? Or, to put it another way... How much bending can the system of cultural transmission of norms take, and still be usable? If we interrupt that "mimetic chain" this grossly, will we have a mesorah left to carry those specific halakhos?
This chain itself implies a critical chain in Jewish values. No longer will we be trying to redirect people into a model of religiosity that centers on the home and the world outside the synagogue, as we are now fully "buying" the idea that sanctity and leadership are found in the shul.
In Judaism, "I would rather be a nail than a hammer" (to quote R' Rakeffet). Hammers are no more critical to the world than nails. In fact, the nail serves and continues to serve as long as the table exists. The hammer's role is flashier. That too is further submerged. (Another nail in the coffin?)
We can't simply make drastic societal changes, because being a good Jew means more than being observant of the 613 laws. It requires absorbing values and a worldview. And if we change our culture overnight rather than letting it evolve, that will be lost.
-micha
"No longer will we be trying to redirect people into a model of religiosity that centers on the home and the world outside the synagogue, as we are now fully "buying" the idea that sanctity and leadership are found in the shul."
A former rabbi of ours had a similar complaint, saying that Conservative Jews put far too much emphasis on the synagogue, whereas Judaism is meant for all facets of daily life.
"We can't simply make drastic societal changes, because being a good Jew means more than being observant of the 613 laws. It requires absorbing values and a worldview. And if we change our culture overnight rather than letting it evolve, that will be lost."
With due respect, Micha, I disagree. Judaism would not have survived without "drastic societal changes." Witness, for example, the radical change from Temple-based to text-based Judaism, or, in more contemporary times, Sarah Schenirer's founding, less than 100 years ago, of the Beis Yaakov schools , the first yeshivot for girls. In societal terms, evolution doesn't necessarily happen by itself--humans sometimes have to make changes conciously in order for societal evolution to take place. In my opinion, the question is more about the speed of change. Some (mostly non-Orthodox) would prefer to see changes that are deemed necessary take place as soon as possible. (This may be a particular issue for some of us oldsters--at 61, I'd love to see a solution to the agunah problem before I die.) Others prefer to take change at a slower pace, to give people more time to adjust their thinking. The compromise between the RCA and Rabbi Weiss may help the Orthodox community adjust to the idea of women serving in whatever rabbinic capacities are halachically permissible for women.
The question isn't whether we respond to external realities. It whether we evolve slowly, as cultures do, or allow for conscious and quicker change. I am afraid the latter comes with it a weakening of one of mesorah's basic foundations.
If it were a time of crisis, like the fall of the Temple, or the mass defection from Orthodoxy of East European young women, then inaction would be more dangerous. But in general, sudden shift in culture is a major hazard to be avoided. (As I see things.) Here there is no mass exodus of people who are turned-off by the status quo; the risks aren't outweighed by the benefits.
I don't see this as a compromise between the RCA and R' Weiss. All that changed was the terminology. Yeshivat Maharat will still be producing women who will serve in the role of rabbi. "A rose by any other name..."
Perhaps the RCA feels that the terminology alone is an issue that will slow down the perception, and thus the cultural evolution, to safer levels. I have fears it isn't. But in any case, changing a word isn't meeting half-way. For better or worse, the RCA caved.
--
This is distinct to the other issue, that the entire enterprise is founded on a western confusion between that which gets attention and that which is important. And thus it feeds trends toward a synagogue-centric religion that is inauthentic to what Judaism is supposed to be. That's not specific to feminism, and men have MUCH to do in this domain as well.
Mikhah concluded his three part summary of Judaism with "hatznei'ah lekhes im E-lokekh -- walk with privacy with your G-d." He wasn't talking to just the women, despite all of today's tzeni'us talk being aimed that way.
But here the question is whether a societal change that is wrong for such "aggadic" reasons is not halachically prohibited -- despite the lack of a specific prohibition.
This ties into the whole notion of Judaism having values, not just laws.
--
For what it's worth, there is a solution to the agunah problem. R' Willig's prenup would grant any woman being married from now on civil legal recourse in an agunah case. The problem isn't in the halachic realm; at this point it's entirely sociological. People don't use it -- even those who follow the vast majority of rabbis who consider it halachically binding.
There is another solution... granting halachic batei din the power to imprison people in contempt of court. It would require a drastically different State of Israel and making aliyah, but that's the historical solution. It was only with the fall of the autonomous kehillah that the agunah issue became a crisis.
-micha
"If it were a time of crisis, like the fall of the Temple, or the mass defection from Orthodoxy of East European young women, then inaction would be more dangerous."
I'm not sure that either of us is truly in a position to say that there is, or isn't, "mass defection from Orthodoxy" because of the limited public role for women in Orthodox practice. I would be very curious to see a serious survey of women who've left Orthodoxy asking whether that limitation was a factor in their decision to "go off the Derech" (leave "the Path" of Orthodox Judaism).
"For better or worse, the RCA caved." The more I think and read about it, the more I agree.
"But here the question is whether a societal change that is wrong for such "aggadic" reasons is not halachically prohibited -- despite the lack of a specific prohibition."
Some right-wing rabbis, in the aftermath of World War II, made a decision that, in order to replenish the ranks of the lost rabbinical leadership, *all* men would be encouraged to study full-time. In those right-wing Orthodox communities that accept this approach, the long-term result has been that the wife has become the principal income earner for the family, leaving their children to be raised by others, often strangers and often non-Jewish. Does anyone protest against *this* change in the mesorah? Or do the protests take place only when it's the *women* who want the change?
Thanks for the information about the Willig nuptual agreement. I hope it becomes widely used.
Did I forget to mention that, to the best of my knowledge, the ketubah (Jewish relgious marriage contract) requires the husband to support his wife, not the other way around? That's not even mesorah (tradition), that's halachah (law), to the best of my knowledge. Yet the kollel community violates it every day of the week. I repeat, is change permitted only when it benefits the men?
There is no mass defection from O today, for any motive. We do have a low-level defection, but if you ask these "kids at risk" and their adult counterparts, the primary complaints tend to be about hypocrisy -- people who claim to be religious and yet don't have many forms of basic interpersonal ethics.
Second, there was major outcry against the kollelization of the chareidi world. In fact, that's a critical part of the very same RCA's prehistory and reason for existence!
And FWIW, the complaint has merit. Speaking of those kids at risk... How many of the boys so labeled are ADD and/or dyslexic? I believe estimates are upward of 80%. Because if you only have one ideal lifestyle, and you're clearly not suited for it, of course you would want to shoot for some other value system, one that makes you feel more valuable.
-micha
Thanks for the "history lesson" concerning the Rabbinical Council of America.
I'm still curious about the defectors, even if the defection is "low-level." If I recollect, my impression, in the early days of the Havurah Movement (see here), was that some of the most active leaders were women who'd left Orthodoxy because they wanted more of a public role, such as the ability to lead religious service.
Er, "religious services." When I have an opportunity to go to one of my favorite egalitarian minyanim and lead Musaf, I lead *all* of Musaf, including Kaddish and Kedushah, and enjoy and appreciate the honor of being baalat tefillah (prayer leader). Not even in a Women's Tefillah Group or Partnership Minyan would a woman be permitted to lead those parts of a service for which a minyan is required.
Shira, it's not a problem. Every "study" or even collection of data points to higher "OTD" rates amongst men then women. Even outside of those areas, the number of single, unmarried Orthodox women clearly outnumbers the number of single, unmarried Orthodox men.
Since we have a "surplus" of women and a shortage of men, women leaving the fold may be a "spiritual crisis," since even one is one too many, but we don't have a societal problem of women leaving.
Basically, if "more" egalitarianism would retain more women and push away some men, the "shidduch crisis" would be amplified.
Unless we're prepared to permit plural marriages, retention of the men is the top priority, not women.
Miami Al, ever the optimist.
And by the way, gee, thanks. Not.
Sigh.
Shira,
Sorry to upset you. I am personally supportive of more inclusion of women as Halachicly permitted... I just think that pulling a justification needs to be grounded in a reason people might do things.
Given the gender dynamics, pushing away 1 man but retaining 4 women hurts the community, unless/until the community re-embracing plural marriage.
Note, increasing the potential pool of men available for marriage to a woman does not hurt women, it raises their "value" in the marriage marketplace... plural marriage as an option is pro-woman, and the people that banned it were misogynists, not the other way around. I personally have ZERO interest in a second wife, but very happy that when I was dating, the tall, athletic wealthy guy could get first pick, but he couldn't take all the women. :)
"I personally have ZERO interest in a second wife, but very happy that when I was dating, the tall, athletic wealthy guy could get first pick, but he couldn't take all the women. :)"
Granted that, since there are more women than men, polygamy might solve the problem of women remaining single for lack of sufficient potential marriage partners, but, on the other hand, some of us jealous females would not be so amenable to sharing a husband. That's one matter on which we agree. :)
Shira,
My wife keeps joking that she needs a wife, a third adult in the house. I find my life stressful enough keeping one woman happy, two has zero appeal to me.
That said, you'd only need 2%-5% of marriages to be plural to eliminate the surplus woman issue.
Sociologically speaking, not advocating whether it is a good or bad idea.
Post a Comment
<< Home