Women in Judaism:Taxation without representation
You might as well start with the post that I published earlier today re "Rabbot," which includes some helpful links.
Please pardon the formatting of this post, such as it is--with the takeover of Blogspot by Google, it's become impossible to copy anything from Word and have it look decent, these days, unless you're an expert at editing html. :( Just insert the paragraph breaks mentally. [Here's the next paragraph break.]
This post was inspired by Rabbah? by Harry Maryles, and What is a Rabbi?, and the linked The ordination of women, by Rabbi Gil Student.
I don't think it's any news to anyone that there's no identifiably-Jewish ritual garment designed with women in mind. Nor do I think it's news to anyone that women are conspicuously absent from the traditional siddur (prayer book), or are mentioned therein mostly in connection with their husbands (on the obviously-erroneous assumption that every woman has a husband). There's also the major detail that, under most circumstances, a woman's testimony is not deemed acceptable in a Bet Din/Jewish religious court, nor may a woman serve as a judge. And there's yet another major detail--only the husband can grant a get (Jewish religious divorce).
How did our tradition get to be that way?
In my opinion, there may be several factors at work that have determined, and continue to determine, the traditional role of women in Judaism.
The public/private split
As I said in this post of mine, "If I understand correctly, the operating premise of an Orthodox woman's observance seems to be that her relationship to Hashem is more internal. ("Kol k'vodah bat melech p'nimah, All the glory of the king's daughter is within." [Psalm 45, verse 18 (March 6, 11:48 PM correction: verse 14)])."
In my decidedly-Jewishly-undereducated opinion, this attitude may be the source of the halachic restrictions concerning serarah (leadership, authority, with some saying that women are not permitted to hold positions of authority and/or leadership) and kavod ha-tzibbur (the honor of the congregation, which, among other things, is one reason why many believe that a woman is not permitted to have an aliyah). In addition, tzniut, modesty, seems to be discussed largely in connection with women, these days, and not only in connection with clothing, but also with appearances in any public forum. I’ve read of women being forbidden to give piano concerts, or to make vocal recordings for other women because their voices were deemed immodest for being “too good.”
The convenience of assigned roles
I apologize for any offence that I may cause in making this assertion, but it seems to me highly suspicious that the traditional role assigned to the Jewish woman is to play "Levi" to the man's "Cohen," freeing up the man to study and worship by taking care of the kids and house, and, in the case of the wife of a man engaged in Jewish studies full-time, being the main or only income-earner for the family, as well.
The attraction of power
Again, I apologize for any offence that I may cause, but the fact is that almost the entire corpus of halachah/Jewish religious law has been determined by men. (Hence the title of this post.) Some of those in power may simply not wish to share it.
I realize that this post may generate some controversy. Please feel free to respond, keeping in mind that my only rule for this blog is that all comments must be phrased in a respectful manner.
The floor is open.
*Those of you not acquainted with the history of the
32 Comments:
it's become impossible to copy anything from Word and have it look decent
Paste it onto Notepad. Then copy from Notepad to Blogger.
The Wolf
Thanks. I don't think I have Notepad on my office computer, but I think I may have it on my home computer. So please be patient, all.
You must have it. Notepad comes with Windows.
And if you're using a Mac, there must be a Mac equivilant of a plain-text editor.
The Wolf
Ah, here it is. Thanks again, Wolf.
Okay, I just copied the post into Notepad and corrected it, then copied it, as is, into Word, just in case. Wish me luck.
No such luck. For reasons unknown, I can't copy and paste from Word anymore, I can only drag and drop--and I don't seem to be able either to copy and paste or to drag and drop from Notepad.
Very interesting post.
Good Post!
A couple of points:
* -It's easy to copy from Word to blogger.Make sure you're not in HTML mode, and clean the code up later.No need to use notepad.
*- I understand your point about there being no separate woman's garment, but since there is no mitzva for women to actually wear tzit-tzit, the point is lost on me.
*- My beloved wife would very much disagree with you that the traditional siddur leaves out women. IMO, the siddur pretty much is a 'soul=to-soul' conversation between us and Hashem and leaves a person's sex out of it..with the possible exception of that one famous verse Observant men recite thanking G-d that they were not born women.
I've always interpreted that to be acceptance of Hashem making us as we are rather than a slam at women!And in fact, th everse women recite says exactly that.
* - The points about the Beyt Dim and the Get are, on the other hand, well taken IMO.I agree that these restrictions probably derive from the male commandment to study Torah and Halachah. But OTOH, use of the Beyt Din is voluntary.
The Get is something very different. We definitely need some new rules there to prevent Husbands from keeping their ex-wives hostage, but that would need to be left to more knowledgeable hands than mine!
B'Shalom,
Rob Miller @ Joshuapundit
Certainly I agree that the roles of men and women in traditional Judaism are unequal. However, I find that many times when the reasons are given in short form, the discussion starts to loose the sense of Judaism as a holy system, and that is something that I refuse to ignore, for all of its flaws when it comes to gender. So I often feel torn- how do I make change in a way that preserves the system and its kedushah, without getting so bound up that I also preserve flaws that are ready to be improved.
I'm not sure why you're having posting problems. I just did a test run on my blog by copying from word and pasting to blogger with no problem.
In any case, I have had some of the same questions you have. But I don't blame Chazal or the way tradition has evolved. I find that a lot of questions you have are not a problem for mainstream Orthtodox women. They are quite content with their defined religious roles and do not in any way feel they are being oppresed by a patriarchal system at all.
I think a lot of it is cultural and learned behavior. To a woman who has been indoctrinated to beleive that any society that does not have sexual equality across the board is sexist, O Judaism will look sexist. To a wmaon who ahs been indoctrinated to believe that a woman's role is - though differnt from a man's role is nevertheless equal in the eyes of God, they actually resent the absolute egalitarian values of feminism. They see it as an intrusion on a tradition that they have learned from their foremothers and that they love.
It's all about the perspectives we've been indoctrinated with.
The Rav has been quoted as saying: Judaism is not a religion of rights. It is a religion of obligations. The over-riding question should always be: What does God want, not what do I want.
Shira - the main difference between the viewpoints of someone who Orthodox and someone who is a Conservative Jew, is the source of the system of Jewish law. I believe as an Orthodox Jew that the source of the halacha is G-d. He gave us the Torah she'bichtav and Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai, and the Oral tradition is the way that our sages interpreted it. In no way shape or form did the sages "make it up", so therefore you cannot assume that the halacha is the way it is because of the bias of men who want to keep "power".
The key word here is "interpret". This is where you get machloket - differences in opinion about the law. When a new question comes up (either scientific advances or social changes will cause these)then there may be differences in how one Rabbi will rule versus another. And yes, one Rabbi may be motivated to interpret in one way or another by individual factors - BUT THERE IS ALWAYS AN HALACHIC PRECEDENT TO BASE HIS VIEW. Saying that a Rabbi will rule one way in order to keep his power is an insult to the halachic system.
The best way to understand the system is to learn it, first hand. This means learning both the textual sources in the Tanach, and the Oral sources from the Talmud onwards. Only after you understand how a psak is decided can you then judge it.
Freedom Fighter/Rob Miller @ Joshuapundit, you said, "Make sure you're not in HTML mode, and clean the code up later." If I knew how to clean up the code, I wouldn't be having this problem. :(
*- My beloved wife would very much disagree with you that the traditional siddur leaves out women. IMO, the siddur pretty much is a 'soul=to-soul' conversation between us and Hashem and leaves a person's sex out of it..with the possible exception of that one famous verse Observant men recite thanking G-d that they were not born women."
That's certainly true. But it doesn't change the fact that the wording of the prayers doesn't mention Eimoteinu (spelling?), Our Mothers, at all, except, if memory serves me correctly, in the baby-naming prayer, whereas Avoteinu, Our Fathers, are mentioned in the very first brachah (blessing) of "The Prayer" (the Amidah), recited three times every day.
"use of the Beyt Din is voluntary."
Not if you're trying to get a divorce, it isn't!
"We definitely need some new rules there to prevent Husbands from keeping their ex-wives hostage,"
Okay, you're forgiven for the "use of the Beyt Din is voluntary" remark. :)
No, I didn't forget anything--I just saved the best for last.
"*- I understand your point about there being no separate woman's garment, but since there is no mitzva for women to actually wear tzit-tzit, the point is lost on me."
It most certainly is: The whole point is precisely that "there is no mitzva for women to actually wear tzit-tzit," despite the fact that the Torah says quite clearly that "B'nei Yisrael" are supposed to do so. What are we *women* supposed to look at, to remind us of HaShem's commandments?
Debka_Notion, you said, "I find that many times when the reasons are given in short form, the discussion starts to loose the sense of Judaism as a holy system, and that is something that I refuse to ignore, for all of its flaws when it comes to gender." that's a good point. I guess I don't tend to think of Judaism as a "holy system." Maybe I should.
"So I often feel torn- how do I make change in a way that preserves the system and its kedushah, without getting so bound up that I also preserve flaws that are ready to be improved." Good question. I hope that the rabbis and scholars of our era and future eras come up with some good answers.
Harry, you said, "I think a lot of it is cultural and learned behavior. To a woman who has been indoctrinated to beleive that any society that does not have sexual equality across the board is sexist, O Judaism will look sexist. To a wmaon who ahs been indoctrinated to believe that a woman's role is - though differnt from a man's role is nevertheless equal in the eyes of God, they actually resent the absolute egalitarian values of feminism. They see it as an intrusion on a tradition that they have learned from their foremothers and that they love."
I agree. I'm convinced that one reason why a number of the opponents of egalitarianism in my neighborhood Conservative synagogue are women is that they feel that egalitarianism implies that the way their mothers and grandmothers practiced Judaism wasn't "good enough." They see egalitarianism as an insult to their female ancestors. Obviously, I don't see it that way. I just think that different times, attitudes, and opportunities call for changes in practice.
"The Rav has been quoted as saying: Judaism is not a religion of rights. It is a religion of obligations. The over-riding question should always be: What does God want, not what do I want."
I assume that you're referring to Rav/Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. One of my pet peeves is that Orthodox Jews tend to assume that all Jews are yeshivah grads and understand all Jewish terminology and references. I may yet get around to posting about my annoyance with Rabbi Jonathan Sacks for translating Yom Tov as Yom Tov, instead of Festival, in the Koren Sacks siddur/prayer book. That's a translation??! Of what use is such a "translation" to a baal t'shuvah/"returnee" to Orthodox Judaism or to a ger/convert still struggling with Hebrew?
Ahem, what was I saying before I so rudely interrupted myself? Oh, yes. Rabbi Soloveitchik may have a point about Judaism being about obligations, not rights, but, to be honest, I'm not enough of a believer to ask what *God* wants and too much inclined to think along contemporary lines to be willing to ignore what *I* want. That's not what you wanted to hear, I'm sure. :(
"Shira - the main difference between the viewpoints of someone who Orthodox and someone who is a Conservative Jew, is the source of the system of Jewish law." Well said, WestBankMama. I think your statement would probably apply to other non-Orthodox Jews, as well.
"Oral tradition is the way that our sages interpreted it." Yes, and the sages, to the best of my knowledge, were all male. This is what I meant when I said, "almost the entire corpus of halachah/Jewish religious law has been determined by men."
"THERE IS ALWAYS AN HALACHIC PRECEDENT TO BASE HIS VIEW."
Precedent can be both a good and a bad thing. On the one hand, the necessity of finding a precedent can reduce abuse of the law, as you said. On the other hand, it can also discourage necessary change in the law.
"Saying that a Rabbi will rule one way in order to keep his power is an insult to the halachic system."
As you know, I try to maintain a respectful blog, so I regret that you perceive an insult in what I wrote. What I meant was more general--since the system as it currently exists suits men, men in general (both rabbis and laymen) may prefer interpretations of halachah that keep change to a minimum.
The manner in which the laws of get/Jewish religious divorce are currently interpreted is an example. I've often wondered whether, if women had been among those sages interpreting halachah/Jewish religious law, they would have devised a divorce procedure that was more equitable.
I must plead guilty to judging on the basis of ignorance--you're certainly right about me not being knowledgeable enough. This is why I've always found it ironic that people ask me why I didn't, or don't, become a rabbi. I'm not the least bit studious, I'm sorry to say, and would much rather sing than study--which is why I applied to cantorial school twice. Too bad my voice was judged to be not much better than my study habits. :(
I highly recommend "Re-Reading the Rabbis," by my teacher, Dr. / Rabbi Judish Hauptman. It's just not helpful to read ancient texts in the context of contemporary societal norms and attitudes.
It's that very error which allows folks to both dismiss Tanakh and Talmud as misogynist and irrelevant as well as misapply it to maintain and reinforce gender stereotypes.
The Torah was a quantum leap forward for women (in the context of the ancient Near East), and the Rabbis were another quantum leap forward. Yes, both are a product of their times (and the societies in which they arose), and seem woefully inadequate to us now.
The focus correctly belongs on how the powers-that-be used (and continue to use) the power-they-have to resist the natural and inherent dynamic nature of halakhah. Continuing to invoke medieval and ancient reasoning assumes that we live in medieval and ancient societies. We ought not throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater, but stagnataion isn't going to help us, either.
DovEphraim, I read Rabbi Hauptman's "Re-reading the Rabbis" several years ago, and might well benefit from reading it again. At the time, I was impressed by her "Just the facts, Ma'am" approach--Rabbi Hauptman, it seemed to me, took great pains to read the text in its own historical context, rather than using her reading of the texts to further a pre-conceived contemporary agenda.
"The focus correctly belongs on how the powers-that-be used (and continue to use) the power-they-have to resist the natural and inherent dynamic nature of halakhah. Continuing to invoke medieval and ancient reasoning assumes that we live in medieval and ancient societies."
Amen. In Rambam's time, in Spain, it was considered a major big deal that he ruled that women should be allowed to leave the house twice a month. If no one thinks that ruling constitutes "progress" in the 21st century, why do we follow his other restrictive rulings concerning women? Surely there are other halachically-valid approaches.
That's not what you wanted to hear, I'm sure. :(
Judaism is not a religion of what I wnat either. :)
There is nothing wrong with having a desire to serve God in ways that suit you best - as long as Halacha is not violated.
This point is exactly what is under contention now between RWO and LWO. And that's where tradition (Mesorah) comes in.
RWO feels that breaking tradition is wrong if there is no inherent threat to Orthodoxy. LWO feels that if there is a need or desire for some in Orthodoxy to express themselves in their own non conformist way that is not against Halacha, tradtion should not stand in their way.
This is not a black and white issue for me either.
As I said in my response to your previous comment, "One of my pet peeves is that Orthodox Jews tend to assume that all Jews are yeshivah grads and understand all Jewish terminology and references." For the uninitiated, RWO = Right-Wing Orthodox, and LWO = Left-Wing Orthodox.
"RWO feels that breaking tradition is wrong if there is no inherent threat to Orthodoxy. LWO feels that if there is a need or desire for some in Orthodoxy to express themselves in their own non conformist way that is not against Halacha, tradtion should not stand in their way.
This is not a black and white issue for me either."
That's good to know. I think you can figure which side *I'd* be on, if I were Orthodox. :)
I think that Get/divorce is not a matter of the patriarchy, it's a matter os a VERY progressive system encountering a different system. Remember, the Gemara is slightly older than the Quran, and the Quran states that a man must simply announce his intentions to divorce three times in public, and he's divorced. We don't have that Western notion of cause, a man is permitted to divorce his wife if she burns the soup, for example. Further remember, that a family in the age of Gemara might have multiple wives in it, which wasn't common, but part of the legal regime.
To divorce a wife, she has to agree to the financial settlement, that's pretty damned progressive for 1500 years ago... and in the middle east, that was probably pretty progressive 62 years ago when Israel established a non-Islamic legal system.
The requirement of consent is at the heart of the Get, and isn't the problem. If a wife refuses to accept the Get, the husband is in a relatively equal bind in terms of remarriage. The "100 Rabbi letter" is mostly theoretical, going ahead and doing so (permission to take a second wife, since the state doesn't acknowledge your first one) is a major process, my wife knows someone doing it.
The problem is that the state will permit you to sever your marriage without dealing with the religious issue. If a Beit Din acknowledged a divorce decree as a Get, you wouldn't have a problem. So while some creativity is desirable, the Pre-nuptual solution will help minimize the issue going forward.
However, if the US had marriage-for-life without divorce, like some Catholic countries did, you'd be demanding a more progressive system like Orthodox Judaism. :) And if we were in a Middle Eastern state, you're be demanding a more progressive system like Orthodox Judaism.
The behavior of the modern Rabbanim towards this issue is another story.
Re: "Kol k'vodah bat melech p'nimah, All the glory of the king's daughter is within."
People may choose to read it as kvoda for purposes of interpretation, but it is actually, kvuda with a shuruk, not a holam.
So there are other ways to read it beyond the "honor" or "glory" of the King's daughter. The word kvuda also appears in Shoftim 18:21 (property or goods) and Yechezkel 23:41 (stately or heavy). The next time someone quotes that pasuk to you, tell them to open a Tanakh and see for themselves how it is written. :)
There's an explanation in Hebrew here.
Miami Al, the get was certainly progressive for its time, but it's ended up backfiring in ours. I certainly hope that a halachic pre-nuptual agreement will solve the problem.
Mich, thanks for the corrections. In the process of checking your statement, I discovered that I'd written that the quote was from verse 18, whereas it's really from verse 14. So I ended up with a double correction, since I had to go back and correct my post!
I'm sorry to say that I'm not nearly fluent enough in Hebrew to be able to read what you linked. :(
"One of my pet peeves is that Orthodox Jews tend to assume that all Jews are yeshivah grads and understand all Jewish terminology and references." For the uninitiated, RWO = Right-Wing Orthodox, and LWO = Left-Wing Orthodox.
You're right and I apologize. I'll try and avoid doing that in the future.
Harry, it took me about six months as a blogger to get up the nerve to ask someone who RYBS was. I thought it might be Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, but I knew him only as Joseph, and while I know enough Hebrew to know that Joseph is English for Yosef, I didn't even known that Rav/Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik had a middle name (Ber). :( I never cease to be amazed at the details that the Orthodox world expects every Jew to know. See this post on “hiding” Judaism from the non-Orthodox and non-Jews.
I'm happy to have made you more aware of that issue.
WestBankMama, I'm concerned that I did not respond full to your statement, "Saying that a Rabbi will rule one way in order to keep his power is an insult to the halachic system."
I can't remember where I read this, since it appeared some time back, but there was a report that some rabbis wished to withdraw authorization for the use/and or existence of toanot (women trained as counselors in religious divorce cases). The theory of the person writing about this crisis was that the rabbi(s) in question resented the encroachment of females on the all-male turf of the Bet Din/Jewish relgious court (in which only men are permitted to serve as judges). This viewpoint most certainly does *not* represent that of most rabbis, but it may very well represent the viewpoint of some.
There were also many complaints (in 2008 or 2009, if I remember correctly) that, while some of the more right-wing rabbis are constantly calling conferences on the subject of modest dress for women, they forced the cancellation of a conference on solutions to the agunah problem (the problem of the woman "chained" to her husband in a dead marriage because her husband refuses to give her a get/Jewish religious divorce).
It's to this sort of attitude, held by some, but certainly not all, right-wing Orthodox rabbis, that I was referring when I said, "Some of those in power may simply not wish to share it."
I hope that I've clarified my point.
Here's an exchange I had by e-mail (with an individual who may wish to remain anonymous) that may further clarify my viewpoint.
"Are you advocating complete halachic egalitarianism?"
"Let me put it to you this way, . . . : Do you think that a recalcitrant man brought before a Bet Din [Jewish religious court]for refusing to give a get [religious divorce] would continue to be quite so stubborn if one of the dayanim [judges in a Bet Din, always male] were a dayenet (dayana?) [female judge]?
The Torah sheh-bi-ch'tav [written Bible] says that a man shall give a get. Rabbinic law, rather than punishing the woman who remarries without a get, punishes her future children by making them mamzerim [bastards, since she's considered still married to her first husband, and therefore, an adulteress], illegible for marriage under almost all circumstances. Call me naive and/or partial to my own gender, if you wish, but I find it extremely difficult to believe that a female sage would have dreamed up such a blatantly unjust punishment, which targets only the innocent. As I said, "almost the entire corpus of halachah/Jewish religious law has been determined by men," and women and children have sometimes paid the price. Open the door to Poskot [female decisors on Jewish religious law] (and, I hope someday, Dayanot [female Bet Din judges]), and let's see what happens."
It seems clear to me that those extremists who think that women's clothing is more important than women's freedom are more interested in controlling women than in acknowledging them as autonomous human beings.
With all due respect, Shira, it would help if we first stopped apologising for our opinions, experience, knowledge, analyses and cogent arguments.
I think that in a venue like this, the arguments pro and con are pretty predictable and I have yet to learn anything new and startling. For me, it's a question of perception. And you just can't argue with a lot of the stock rhetoric, because it is so entrenched.
I'm fine affiliating Conservative, and what happens within the movement concerns me more than what the Os are up to. It's pointless, I think, to bang my head against a brick wall. Personally, I think that there is a huge bias against women in O no matter how they spin it. It is about power and sexism wrapped up in "holiness". No one knows what G-d wants of me so I wish they'd stop reminding women of focussing on "obligations" and not what we "want". What am I? 5?
Barefoot Jewess, while I do tend to be careful about how I express my opinions when blogging, I've always considered my caution more a matter of avoiding unnecessary offense than being apologetic. I don't hide my opinions, but I also insist on mutual respect. I simply want readers of all stripes to feel comfortable reading and commenting here.
"I'm fine affiliating Conservative, and what happens within the movement concerns me more than what the Os are up to." I guess I have two responses to that statement. One is that, as someone with a limited formal Jewish education, I learn "new and startling" things about Judaism all the time, from Jews of every, or no, denomination, and have been particularly surprised to see what a vast range of opinions exists even among members of the same denomination. The other is that I've concluded that I'm not likely to be completely comfortable in any denomination. My own Conservative crew is not nearly observant enough for my personal preference, but I'm too much of an egalitarian and also too much of an independent thinker to be comfortable in the Orthodox camp, either. So I do tend to keep an eye on both camps.
Shira,
Well, if you have an opinion or state a conviction, I am sure it is going to offend someone somewhere. I don't see those of opposing opinions walking on eggshells beforehand. I think healthy debate/discussion doesn't require that.
I do agree that we learn from all and I have learned a lot. But on the net, after several years, I've found the same circular arguments and same dead-end debates and discussions. Been there, heard it, you haven't convinced me and I haven't convinced you. Neither does a ton of knowledge make for a mensch.
I sympathise with your straddling two worlds. Like you, as a woman who wants more for her soul and who will ever be on the fringes, it's always going to be a challenge. That "different drummer" thing has its place too.
I keep thinking of that view that points out that G-d creates everything within you, including the hunger and desire to be closer to Him. I believe that. So, in my view, you are doing exactly what G-d is asking of you. Kol HaKavod!
"Well, if you have an opinion or state a conviction, I am sure it is going to offend someone somewhere."
:)
"I sympathise with your straddling two worlds. Like you, as a woman who wants more for her soul and who will ever be on the fringes, it's always going to be a challenge."
Welcome to my world.
"That "different drummer" thing has its place too.
. . . in my view, you are doing exactly what G-d is asking of you. Kol HaKavod!"
Thank you for your encouraging and kind words.
Another thought about Orthodoxy being progressive for its time: I suspect that at the time of the Talmud, women (other than upperclass women with lots of servants, and maybe even including them) were very busy having children every year. And so the last thing they wanted was extra halachic obligations.
Times have changed. Why hasn't Orthodoxy kept up with those changes? In part because, for some, the refusal to change makes the system seem more sacred. After all, a religion that flows with the times isn't very distinctively religious, as mainline Protestantism has discovered.
In part because Judaism has splintered by denomination, so the people who stay in Orthodoxy by definition tend to be OK with the status quo. Its kind of like the difference between Democratic primaries in the South 40 years ago and today: when everyone, even the most conservative people, was a Democrat, nominees reflected the populace as a whole. Now, the party has shrunk to the most liberal X percent of the electorate, so they nominate people similar to national Democrats. Similarly, Orthodox Judaism has shrunk to the most traditional base, so they tend to produce more sexist halacha than would a Judaism that had to respond to everyone.
"Woodrow/Conservadox"
Correct, when learning RAMBAM in a small group, we learned that if a Beit Din created an extra restriction (basically a chumrah, but formally), and the population didn't adopt it, it was as though the Beit Din didn't rule.
Halachah (Jewish Law) requires that onerous rules NOT apply.
As 90% of the Ashkenazi population threw off the yoke of Halachah, then the restrictions only had to be adopted by the 10% most stringent people. This has caused our leadership to switch from focus on leniency to get as much compliance as possible to restrictions to keep shrinking that 10% to a "pure" group.
If you look in the Sephardic world, where individuals chose their personal levels of observance, but the world generally hewed to the same "halachic ruleset," you have MUCH more reasonable rulings and practices. Despite being stringent in "formal" areas (prayer, ritual slaughter, etc.), they don't have a history of silliness in chumrot than the Ashkenazim have. The Sephardic leaders needed to rule for the community, not the "right wing base."
Modern communications also play a role. Since Eastern European Judaism was defeated by the Nazis, then resurrected as an idol by the neo-shtetl clan of the NYC/Jerusalem Rabbinate, combined with revisionism.
We have the strange environment where our predominately German-Jewish American Jewish population and Middle Eastern Sephardic Israeli population are somehow adopting the customs, dress, manners, and chumrot of the Eastern European Yeshivot that wasn't even followed by the masses in Eastern Europe -- the masses dismissed as Am Haaretz in the same literature! People follow "family minhagim" of Eastern Europe that were NEVER in their family.
Reunifying the "Halachic" Judaism is critical to fixing this. Instead the MO/Chareidi split results in the Charedim issuing sillier and sillier rulings that have weight, because they ignore 50%-75% of Orthodox Jews.
A few decades ago, Young Israel Shuls held coed dances and were within the mainstream of Orthodoxy. If Orthodoxy maintained it's practices instead of it's 10% proportion, a larger segment of the Jewish world would be within the Orthodox "Tent" instead of just defining themselves more narrowly. However, each Shul is happy to maintain/grow their membership base, ignoring that people that would have been comfortable 2 decades ago aren't now, because they are able to grow themselves.
Woodrow and Miami Al, your comments bring to mind a lament I read a while back that the establishment of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School attracted a high-enough proportion of left-wing Orthodox rabbinical students that there weren't enough left-wingers remaining in the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS) at Yeshiva University to keep it from being pulled ever farther to the right.
Woodrow, you said, " . . . Orthodox Judaism has shrunk to the most traditional base, so they tend to produce more sexist halacha than would a Judaism that had to respond to everyone."
I think that Miami Al's comment illustrates your point: "As 90% of the Ashkenazi population threw off the yoke of Halachah, then the restrictions only had to be adopted by the 10% most stringent people. This has caused our leadership to switch from focus on leniency to get as much compliance as possible to restrictions to keep shrinking that 10% to a "pure" group."
It would appear that some of the right-wing Orthodox community has written off the rest of the Jewish world--Orthodox and non-Orthodox-- as "apikorsim [Aramaic?]/kofrim [Hebrew?]" (heretics) who can be ignored.
"We have the strange environment where our predominately German-Jewish American Jewish population and Middle Eastern Sephardic Israeli population are somehow adopting the customs, dress, manners, and chumrot of the Eastern European Yeshivot . . . " How sad, that the Chief Rabbi of Ethiopian Jews dresses like a "yeshivish" Ashkenazi. To wear "Western-style" clothing is one thing, but since when do Ethiopian Jews restrict their clothing color choices to black and white?
If Orthodoxy maintained it's practices instead of it's 10% proportion, a larger segment of the Jewish world would be within the Orthodox "Tent"
I think that's true. All the nonsense about the slightest deviation from current minhag/custom, including the all-mighty "levush" ("uniform," dress code) are a real turn-off for some of us from the non-Orthodox community who might have considered making the switch. I posted previously about how some obnoxious guy had yelled "Change your hat!" at my Orthodox-ordained rabbi because he'd had the unmitigated chutzpah (gall, nerve) to wear a straw hat, instead of a black one, in the middle of the summer. And I'm fed up to here with all the complaints about Rabba Hurwitz not covering enough of her hair. Yes, I know that many in the Orthodox community believe that a married woman must cover her hair in public, but there is, and should be, various opinions on what constitutes a proper hair-covering. Why do so many people expect the obviously-Modern-Orthodox Rabba Hurwitz to dress like a Satmar Chassid?
I think that Rabbah Hurwitz should fully cover her hair. Hands down. There are liberal opinions and conservative opinions on this.
However, she is a trailblazer, and should show an EXTRA degree of sensitivity to the community that she is trailblazing.
I remember learning that a Rabbi (real semicha, not our modern "degrees") must appear impeccable at all times, reflecting their status. If a Rav appears in public with a stain on his shirt, he should be put to death.
Here is an analogy, I do NOT know the particulars of the law, when this applies, etc., this is NOT halachic advice, just a concept. If the gentile authorities demands the execution of a Jew being held in the community, and will otherwise kill indiscriminately, there are conditions that permit turning him over to the galus, there is something about the possibility/expectation of guilt in there, I don't know what it is. However, the person turning him over should NOT be a religious leader. This is unusual, because in most areas where we expect someone to do something questionable, we have the Rabbi do it because presumably the Rabbi will know the details of the law and won't screw up, while a layman might violate the technical details... hence using a Rabbi to sell Chometz, despite the questionable Heter (for businesses) that we rely upon in our personal life. However, in areas where it might give a massively wrong impression to people, we have someone else do it, so people don't mistakenly follow the Rabbi's appearances.
These are some illustrations that the Rabbi is expected to be beyond reproach in their behavior, for a myriad of reasons.
So while I am certain that Rabbah Hurwitz knows the laws governing her hair, and is no doubt following them, this is an area where our leader must be held to a higher standard, less our people who don't know the details attempt to emulate her and screw up.
Think about it, she's the defacto Chief Rabbah of the World... :) There is NO OTHER Rabbah to turn to as an example.
Given that her professional capacity is on the Rabbinic Staff, there isn't a professional reason that she needs to hide that she is covering her hair, so I think that she should do so completely, fully, and WITHOUT a sheitel, completely consistent with both Ashkenazi and Sephardic restrictions, since she's the trailblazer.
You want to blaze trails, you have to accept some personal limitations.
That's what I get for opening my big mouth and going off on a tangent. Now I've had to go and write another post.
Post a Comment
<< Home