“Canaries in a coal mine,” revisited
Remember this post? It got mixed reviews, but certainly engendered an interesting conversation.
[ ¶ ]
I did neglect to include another set of "canaries in a coal mine"—gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered, transsexuals, intersex, “gender queer,” etc. Heshy has corrected that oversight. As he and many others have pointed out, gay sex is not the only sin, nor is it the only one that the Torah/Bible describes as an “abomination (toeivah)." But it certainly is a hot-button issue. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever threatened to withhold synagogue honors from a person seen eating in a non-kosher restaurant.
[ ¶ ]
I confess to having been rather amused to read this post by Rabbi Maryles, given the fact that my husband and I had discussed exactly this possibility the very day that this was published. The most interesting thing about the controversy regarding a woman becoming a member of the Orthodox Jewish clergy is that the objections seem to be about inconvenience—a female Orthodox rabbi couldn’t be counted for a minyan or be a witness at a conversion—or about “the mesorah/tradition," meaning that it just isn’t done. It seems to me that nobody’s saying that it’s actually against halachah/Jewish religious law. This leads me to what I consider the obvious question: Is the Orthodox Union and/or the Rabbinical Council of America following in the footsteps of Young Israel and moving to the religious right? If even the OU is complaining about a woman leading Kabbalat Shabbat, who’s left? Feel free to interpret the word “left” in more way than one.
posted by Shira Salamone at 1:43 PM
16 Comments:
I don't understand your comment of "If even the OU is complaining about a woman leading kabbalat shabbat". What do you mean "if even the OU"? The OU is orthodox (hence, the name "Orthodox Union"). A woman leading kabbalat shabbat is not orthodox, and is against halacha according to many poskim, including my own rabbi who is one of the more modern orthodox rabbis out there. It's no surprise the OU is opposed to this.
Simple fact: Avi Weiss isn't acting like an orthodox rabbi any more. If you are looking to him and Sara Hurwitz to say "oh, with people like that, I can be orthodox" no, you can't. Not really. Not to say that there aren't people in orthodox communities that approve or applaud what they are doing, but it is so far from mainstream orthodoxy, even mainstream modern orthodoxy, that it's no surprise that folks like Harry have read them out of the orthodox movement, such as it is. Hell, they've read themselves out by coming up with "Open Orthodoxy."
“A woman leading kabbalat shabbat is not orthodox, and is against halacha according to many poskim . . .”
Fair enough, JDub. Let’s discuss the poskim’s objections. To the best of my admittedly-limited knowledge, the issues in question are serarah (the prohibition against women holding positions of leadership), kavod ha-tzibbur (the honor of the congregation), tzniut (modesty), and kol isha (the prohibition against a man hearing a woman sing).
I’ll start with the easiest one, kol isha:
See Rabbi Jachter’s opinion, from which I’ll quote:
Zemirot
There is, however, considerable disagreement regarding the scope of the Kol Isha prohibition. For example, the question of its applicability to Zemirot has been discussed at some length in the twentieth century responsa literature. Rav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg (Teshuvot Seridei Eish 2:8) notes that traditionally women refrained from singing Zemirot when there were males who were not family members sitting at the Shabbat table. However, he records that the practice in Germany was for woman to sing Zemirot in the company of unrelated men. Rav Weinberg records that Rav Azriel Hildesheimer and Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch (two great German Rabbis of the nineteenth century) sanctioned this practice. Rav Weinberg reports that they based their ruling on the Talmudic rule (Megila 21b) that “Trei Kali Lo Mishtamai,” two voices cannot be heard simultaneously.
Rav Weinberg writes that he does not find this explanation satisfying (perhaps because the Gemara (Sotah 48a) writes that men and women singing together is a major impropriety). Rav Weinberg instead defends the German Jewish practice by citing the Sdei Chemed (Klalim, Maarechet Hakuf, 42) who quotes the Divrei Cheifetz who asserts that the Kol Isha prohibition does not apply to women singing Zemirot, singing songs to children, and lamentations for the dead. This authority explains that in these contexts men do not derive pleasure from the woman’s voice. In fact, the Pasuk (Shoftim 5:1) records that Devora the prophetess sang a song of praise to Hashem together with Barak the son of Avinoam. According to the simple reading of the text, Devora was married to Lapidot and not Barak. The Sdei Chemed writes that he believes that it is proper to be strict and not follow the approach of the Divrei Cheifetz, but he regards the lenient opinion as a viable approach.”
Serarah was dealt with here, the author, Yossi Steinberger, having concluded that it applies only to “king, dayyan [judge], and nasi [prince], which are all biblically-recognized positions.” As with kol isha, that opinion, is, obviously, not universally accepted.
As regards tzniut, I have no texts to cite. I can only say that using the modesty argument would prevent a woman from being a justice of the United States Supreme Court, too—and, last I heard, the U.S. Supreme Court has two Jewish female justices. I don’t think that the tzniut argument is a valid objection to a woman leading Kabbalat Shabbat, unless you want to argue that a woman has no business being a trial lawyer, the president/CEO of a company, or a Jewish day school principal.
The only argument left standing is kavod ha-tzibbur, the honor of the congregation, a concept which, for the record, I’ve never appreciated, since it implies that anything a woman does in front of a mixed congregation takes away the glory from the guys, lest anyone think that none of the gents is learned enough to do what the woman is doing. Kavod ha-tzibbur has been accepted as an argument against women having aliyot in a mixed group, even by the Orthodox feminist Rabbi Shlomo Riskin. But does this concept apply to parts of the service that are not obligatory? I honestly don’t know.
1) You can't pick and choose which arguments you buy and which ones you don't. No reputable Orthodox rabbi has endorsed women doing kabbalat shabbat, and you've picked the fringe opinions that support your argument. Plenty of Orthodox rabbis and poskim fundamentally disagree with each of the opinions you've identified. You say there's no kol isha problem, many ortho rabbis disagree. And k'vod ha'tzibbur is a a real halachic consideration, even if you don't like it.
2) The fact that you are deconstructing the arguments against, as opposed to finding an halachic argument for the practice, is a mindset inconsistent with Orthodoxy. There are meta-halachic issues that go beyond the specific issues. Avi Weiss is welcome to have a woman lead services at his shul, but the rest of the Ortho world is going to look askance and say "that's not orthodox."
"You can't pick and choose which arguments you buy and which ones you don't."
Guilty as charged.
"And k'vod ha'tzibbur is a a real halachic consideration, even if you don't like it."
I still think that my question is legitimate: Does kavod ha-tzibbur apply to non-obligatory parts of the service?
"The fact that you are deconstructing the arguments against, as opposed to finding an halachic argument for the practice, is a mindset inconsistent with Orthodoxy."
I am insufficiently Jewishly educated to do any better. :(
>> I am insufficiently Jewishly educated to do any better. :( <<
Doesn't this admission, for which you are to be commended, illustrate why you are disqualified from arguing those aspects of Orthodoxy that you reject?
While you are certainly entitled to express your opinion, with which those of us who read your blog regularly are now very familiar, I fail to see the benefit of these posts which are framed as challenges, unless you just enjoy the responses it engenders from your Orthodox readers.
To the extent that the issues which underly your complaints are ever addressed in Orthodoxy, they will be addressed and resolved from within, not without. That is perhaps the fundamental difference between Conservative and Orthodox; the Orthodox approach is to reject developments in the larger world as reasons, regardless of their merit, for changing the halacha.
If nothing else, this should convince you once and for all that regardless of the shul you daven in, you will never be orthodox.
TOTJ Steve, I do, indeed, enjoy the responses, especially since I never know what I'm going to learn.
"If nothing else, this should convince you once and for all that regardless of the shul you daven in, you will never be orthodox."
You're probably right, but I might consider becoming Ortho*prax*.
“That is perhaps the fundamental difference between Conservative and Orthodox; the Orthodox approach is to reject developments in the larger world as reasons, regardless of their merit, for changing the halacha.”
Pardon the slight delay--it took me a while to find this comment. “Dilbert,” a Modern Orthodox commenter, asked a related question here,
"4. Are new things ipso facto forbidden until there is proof that they are allowed? ? or are new things allowed until there is proof that they are forbidden? You can go both ways on this.”
I haven't found the rest of this discussion yet--it may be a comment to another post--but, if I remember correctly, Dilbert thought that those who hold the opinion that "new things [are] ipso facto forbidden until there is proof that they are allowed" tend to be more right-wing Orthodox Jews, while those who hold the opinion that "new things [are] allowed until there is proof that they are forbidden" tend to be more left-wing Orthodox Jews.
that's fine what Dilbert said. But kabbalat shabbat and davening aren't new. So, you're perverting the argument by throwing that in. Women leading davening for men is assur, and has been prohibited for all of our written memory.
One could make a legitimate case that Kabbalat Shabbat *is* new: L'cha Dodi, the piyut/religious poem at the heart of Kabbalat Shabbat, was composed in the 16th century".
"Women leading davening for men is assur, and has been prohibited for all of our written memory."
The question is, does the issur/prohibition apply to *non-obligatory* prayers? Just to give you some totally unrelated examples, is it permissible for a woman to lead a man in reciting tehillim/psalms, or to lead a mi-shehberach prayer for the ill?
Shira is right--kabbalat shabbat *is* a chiddush and not an obligation. One could have a completely valid Shabbos evening davening without it. It carries as much religious weight as reciting tehillim or shir hashirim before Shabbat.
Gimme a break. This is the 21st Century. Kabbalat shabbat has been around for 500 years or so. Women's trying to daven in mixed settings is new. If this is the strength of your logic, no wonder you're confused.
And minhag yisra'el k'halacha hi. Don't tell me kabbalat shabbat is not obligatory. It's not obligatory in the sense that you have to make it up if you miss it, but what Orthodox synagogue in the world skips it?
The issue is women's participation, not the age of the tefillah. Kabbalat shabbat predates modernity by several centuries. That really is a specious argument.
Hey, you started it--you're the one who said that Kabbalat Shabbat was new. :) But okay, I'll give you a break. In Standard Time, as opposed to Jewish Time, 500 years or so is a substantial amount of time.
"minhag yisra'el k'halacha hi. Don't tell me kabbalat shabbat is not obligatory. It's not obligatory in the sense that you have to make it up if you miss it, but what Orthodox synagogue in the world skips it?" For the record, your argument reminds me of something I read recently on the Internet: Someone remarked that the typeface in the Birnbaum Siddur/prayer book is all the same size because Birnbaum believed that every word of the siddur was equally important. Is Kabbalat Shabbat as sacred as the Sh'ma?!
I've asked you twice whether the issur/prohibition against women leading men in prayer applies to *non*-obligatory prayer, and I'd appreciate an answer.
Jdub: The German community in NYC did not daven kabbalat Shabbat until much later, when a rabbi at Breuers decided that it was a nice thing to do (this would have been around the 1800s or later). I'm not sure if this is a practice for Jews worldwide and therefore debatable if it's "minhag yisrael". Maybe just the minhag of some American Jewish communities. If you really want to know, you could ask Shira for my contact information and I'd connect you to experts in the area.
In any case I did NOT state the kabbalat shabbat as a chiddush had anything to do with permissibility for women to lead it. Please don't read things into my comment that I did not write. Calling me "confused" was pretty rude.
Actually, you could just ask your LOR if reciting kabbalat is a chiyuv :) no need for a Jewish historian.
uh typo, kabbalat shabbat.
By way of clarification, my point is not that Kabbalat Shabbat is a chiddush, but that it's not obligatory. Is it assur/forbidden for women to lead men in *non*-obligatory prayer, or does that issur/prohibition apply to obligatory prayer only? May a woman lead men in a public recitation of tehillim/psalms? May a woman recite the mi-shehberach prayer for the ill at a minyan?
Post a Comment
<< Home