Different prespectives, or talking past one another
I went to a Yom HaAtzaut (Israeli Indendence Day) celebration at my "kaddish synagogue" on Monday evening. There, I ran into a buddy, who, in turn, ran into another buddy. My buddy's friend, hearing that I was saying kaddish at that synagogue, assured me that a woman is allowed to say kaddish as long as there's at least one man reciting kaddish, too. I got quite irked, and gave him a piece of my mind: "This is a Conservative synagogue--I don't need anyone's permission to say kaddish here."
To be fair, the poor guy probably didn't know what he'd said wrong--he was probably just trying to be nice. But I don't take kindly to some Orthodox guy whom I've never laid eyes on before walking into "my" Conservative shul and telling me what I'm allowed or not allowed to do. I guess one thing that distinguishes me from an Orthodox Jew is that I prefer to choose which questions to ask and which answers, explanations, and/or interpretations to accept.
To be fair, the poor guy probably didn't know what he'd said wrong--he was probably just trying to be nice. But I don't take kindly to some Orthodox guy whom I've never laid eyes on before walking into "my" Conservative shul and telling me what I'm allowed or not allowed to do. I guess one thing that distinguishes me from an Orthodox Jew is that I prefer to choose which questions to ask and which answers, explanations, and/or interpretations to accept.
posted by Shira Salamone at 4:30 PM
19 Comments:
Is there a tension between your resentment of some Orthodox guy telling you how to behave in your shul and you're belief it is ok for you to discuss your belief Orthodoxy would be better off with women rabbis?
OTOH this is your blog, your home space. And if the guy came into your C shul and said his opinion that would be an invasion. But you were telling him what you do at your C shul while in an O shul. Does that lose you the home court advantge?
I'm not telling you you shouldn't have rebuked him, but I'm asking you to think about it. We may both decide you weren't out of line at the end of the process.
Just to clarify, I was in a *Conservative* synagogue at the time I made my rebuke, though it was my "kaddish" shul, not my "home" shul.
"Is there a tension between your resentment of some Orthodox guy telling you how to behave in your shul and you're belief it is ok for you to discuss your belief Orthodoxy would be better off with women rabbis?"
Hmm, interesting point. But I'm not saying what a female Orthodox spiritual leader should be called, or what she should be authorized to do--in my opinion, it's up to the Orthodox community as a whole to determine that.
Of course, my opinion presents an obvious challenge: The Orthodox community *as a whole* includes laypersons, since, by current Orthodox rules, there's no such thing as a female Orthodox rabbi or cantor.
I must also confess that I think it would be really great if female scholars had the authority to pasken (make binding halachic decisions/interpretations).
So maybe I really am trying to have it both ways. Guilty as charged.
If you were in a store, and a black person behaved rudely in line, would you feel it acceptable to come on your blog and talk about how "you don't take kindly to black people coming into your supermarket and acting differently in line?"
The guy didn't attack you, didn't say anything against you, just made an extremely awkward attempt at conversation that you choose to take offense to.
If he was telling you what to do in Shul, find, the Orthodox vs. Conservative thing comes into play, but he was addressing the "she comes to Shul to say Kaddish" with an explanation of why that is okay.
I take two issues with your actions:
1. He wasn't telling you what to do, he was agreeing with what you are doing. That is, sadly, what passes for small talk in the Orthodox world. Therefore, rebuking him is unnecessary, he was just making conversations.
2. There was no need to bring up his religion in this context. If he was correcting your behavior from an Orthodox point of view, fine, as it was you were just upset at the conversation, and tagging him by his religion, when discussing non religious behavior (like small talk), is bigoted.
So that's where I'll disagree with your action here, from a completely secular point of view. You're not from the Yeshiva world, so common courtesy and manners is expected of you. :)
Miami Al, my husband says I have a tendency to fly off the handle. I guess I'm guilty as charged on that count, too. The poor guy was just trying to make small talk. That's yet another sin to add to my ever-growing "Al Chet" list. :(
Larry, I've given some thought over Shabbat to your point about my belief that Orthodoxy would be better off with women in rabbinical roles, and I've concluded that that's a separate issue from some of my other complaints about Orthodox Judaism. Even my usual complaint about women not being counted in a minyan or given aliyot is, believe it or not, a separate issue. The problem with the lack of women in rabbinical roles is that, as Orthodox Judaism operates at the current time, half of the Jewish people is disenfranchised: Since women are currently not (generally and officially) accepted as poskot (decisors on questions of halachah/Jewish religious law), our interpretations of Jewish law have little effect. To paraphrase the famous line from Tennessee Williams, Jewish women have always depended on the kindness of always-male rabbis. The result is that, to this day, a woman isn't free to end her own marriage without her husband's consent, whereas a man can end a marriage without his wife's consent by getting permission from 100 rabbis.
If you were in a store, and a black person behaved rudely in line, would you feel it acceptable to come on your blog and talk about how "you don't take kindly to black people coming into your supermarket and acting differently in line?"
Miami Al, I think this is a false analogy. Race boundaries are not the same as denominational boundaries. The implication of the gentleman's statement was that had there not been a man present to say kaddish she should not be able to say kaddish. This is not not mere rudeness, but an attempt to impose his standards on a community that does not accept them.
Ya know, those looking between a common thread point out that Muslims, Christians, and Jews all worship the same Gd... a questionable claim given the different views of the Almighty, but all are worshiping the Gd of Avraham/Abraham/Ibrahim.
However, when looking at the differences in believes between Orthodoxy and Conservative Judaism, the differences are at least as vast as the difference between Episcopalians and Catholics, which nobody dismisses as simply denominational.
From a nationhood point of view, all "denominations" of Judaism are still Jews. But from a "religious" viewpoint, meaning the views and actions of the people, Orthodoxy holds a distinct "religion."
If you heard a comment stereotyping about "Jews" and would be offended, then when you hear/make the same comment about "Orthodox Jews" it's offensive and bigoted.
The number of non-practicing Jews I encounter that feel comfortable spouting out anti-semetic drivel but thin it's okay because 1) they are Jews, and 2) they are saying Orthodox Jews, is really disgusting. I'll include myself of 15 years ago in that list, it's really gross that in the egalitarian side of the fence, one would NEVER speak ill of ANY "class" of people, except Orthodox Jews. Someone making rude comments about black people would get yelled at, but about Orthodox Jews, totally acceptable.
TRBT, you are reading implications into it. He stated the conventional "liberal" Orthodox view of women saying Kaddish. There is no "implication," it is what it is. If a Christian tells me that his pastor preaches dual covenant theory and that Jews can go to heaven, there is no "implication" that most Christians don't feel that way, just the statement.
Miami Al
I'm not sure what you mean when you say no one dismisses the differences between Episcopalians and Catholics as purely denominational.
Episcopalians and Catholic mutually acknowledge one another as part of 'Christendom'. Actual merger talks (perhaps equivalent to the 1950s attempt at forming a Beit Din America?) have occurred at several points in their history. Currently Episcopal priests may convert and become Catholic priests, even while retaining their wives. For those interested further, a quick google search showed up this history. The relationship had its ups and downs, but the two religions are closer to one another than say Catholicism and Islam.
The Vatican's decision to have Episcopal 'observers' at Vatican 2 offers a healthy model for Jews to emulate(*). I think it would be great to have the RCA extending an invitation to the RA to have observers present at next week's meeting. Alas, I think it about as likely to occur as to have the Agudah extend such an invitation.
Anyway, I'm still confused about what the point of your comment is. Care to expand on it?
(*)The vatican also extended an offer to the American Jewish community to have observers present. Rav Soloveitchik wrote a teshuvah opposing such participation, so I am definitely not speaking for MO as a whole here)
Speaking of views of different relgions ...
And finally, I wanted to comment that I hear nasty comments about the Jews of every denomination from every other denomination. Sadly, it is the case that more often it the heterodox Jews who are betraying their principles by being prejudiced against O Jews. Far too many O Jews IME have no problem being prejudiced against a wide range of groups, not just their co-religionists. This makes them more consistent, but less admirable.
Shira,
This guy was just telling you what the halacha is. Last time I checked, I thought that supposedly the Conservative movement believed in halacha.
Saying, "this is a Conservative synagogue, so I can do BLANK" is not a halachic argument
>> The problem with the lack of women in rabbinical roles is that, as Orthodox Judaism operates at the current time, half of the Jewish people is disenfranchised: Since women are currently not (generally and officially) accepted as poskot (decisors on questions of halachah/Jewish religious law), our interpretations of Jewish law have little effect. <<
Shira, this isn't a "jewish" argument, or even a "religious" argument. You're merely taking a prevailing western secular concept, and insisting that somehow judaism must conform to it. If anything, as I've commented here before, such an argument represents a continuing secularization of judaism, which I continue to see as a generally negative phenomenon. No Orthodox jewish woman is "disenfranchised". With only the smallest of exceptions, no one is compelled to be or remain orthodox. You're the best example, you reject Orthodoxy for a perceived hostility to women, in favor of Conservatism, which has found a way, albeit strongly secularly driven, to accommodate you, my spouse, my daughters and many others. But we know there's been a substantial cost for that.
Nor do I feel its fair for you to regularly criticize Orthodoxy on this issue, since you've set yourself outside of it.
Finally, I think you underestimate the influence orthodox women have with respect to legal answers. I suspect that most, if not substantially all, of today's decisors have spouses or sisters or daughters. If my house our your house (based on other comments you made) are the sites of regular frequent discussions between spouses about issues with which they are dealing in a professional capacity, why not give the benefit of the doubt to those with whom you take issue?
commenting live from the JTS Library, 3080 Broadway, NYC
Anonymous:
Saying "This is a conservative shul, so we hold by the opinions of the CJSL regarding the roles of women" on the other hand, is a halachic argument.
Larry -- you're right, of course, but that was not how Shira reported her answer, nor did I get the sense that it was what she intended.
Nor is citing to CJLS necessarily clear, given the multiplicity of opinions on any particular subject often flowing from the CJLS. As an example (and I apologize to other readers for the peculiarly local reference) at HPCT, giving this response could mean two completely different things, depending on which minyan you were davening in that day.
TOtJS:
I think one of the 'secular' aspects of CJ is the willingness to use contemporary social sciences such as sociology. Your argument still leaves men as the sole legitimate agents of change, and says that women may have only indirect influence.
Wow. As the joke goes, "Open mouth, insert foot, chew vigorously."
Unfortunately, I'm working today--big project due tomorrow--so there's a limit to how much I'll be able to respond.
Let me say, though, that I seem to have offended more than one of my commenters (including JDub on a previous post) with my complaints about the exclusion of Orthodox women from rabbinical positions. I apologize for the offence. I try to be respectful, but I don't always succeed, and, judging by the response to this post, I do even worse in person than online. Oy. :(
Hillel version (standing on one foot):
"Saying "This is a conservative shul, so we hold by the opinions of the CJSL regarding the roles of women" on the other hand, is a halachic argument."
Larry, that's what I *should* have said.
"Your argument still leaves men as the sole legitimate agents of change, and says that women may have only indirect influence."
My point precisely. Is there any way to say that *without* causing offense?
Miami Al - I think I understand your concern, so let me say this: If a Reform Jew visiting a Conservative Shul had said "There's not much decorum in all this shuckling and bowing, but it's OK because everyone is responsible for making choices about praxis" would have been every bit as worthy of rebuke.
The general principle is this - that it is rude to dis minhag haMakom when you are a guest in another community's domain.
TRBT, There is one CRUCIAL difference, the Orthodox Visitor DIDN'T criticize the custom of the Shul. He agreed with it. Shira didn't like the fact that in explaining his AGREEMENT, he gave the Orthodox justification instead of the Conservative one.
If he came in and attached the Shul's policy, he's be a rude guest. However, in agreeing, there was no need to rebuke him for agreeing with you for a different reason than you wanted.
Al, we're going to talk in circles on this, so this will be my last comment on it.
The Conservative movement's policy is that a woman may say Kaddish, whether or not a man is as well.
Saying that a woman's right to say Kaddish hinges on at least one man saying it is an attack on that policy.
It sounds to me like he was not so much agreeing as paskening, and deserved rebuke.
I'm afraid to open my mouth again, at this point. Moving right along, I've published a few non-controversial posts, in an attempt to stay out of trouble for a while. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home