Yeshivat Maharat And Orthodoxy
Tue, 06/11/2013

Zelda R. Stern and Elana Maryles Sztokman’s May 31 Opinion piece, “Orthodox Women Reach Another Milestone,” makes three fundamental errors. First, the authors repeatedly assert the Orthodoxy of Yeshivat Maharat and its graduates, without clarifying the word. If Orthodoxy rules out women rabbis, for example, their loud declarations become meaningless. To be convincing, we’d need to know what they mean by Orthodox.

That makes their second error so interesting. They note the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) refers to mesorah (tradition) and communal norms, and assume that means there is no halachic (Jewish legal) basis for opposition to the event. This is, first, not nearly obvious. It might be, for example, that the halachic aspects would take too much space to clarify and the RCA chose to adopt a briefer, more easily digested locution.

But suppose for a moment that this was purely a matter of mesorah and norms; that wouldn’t be enough to say this leaves Orthodoxy? Take a less fraught example: suppose I opened a restaurant, following an unacceptable version of halacha (such as by relying on a rejected or ignored lone opinion of an early scholar). Is that restaurant kosher? Is someone who insists on living by that standard Orthodox? The mesorah of what’s acceptable, and the norms of the community, define Orthodoxy in many ways.

The third problem is their open assertion that “maharats” will be women rabbis.  My understanding is that when Rabbi Avi Weiss ordained a “rabbah,” Sara Hurwitz, he explicitly stated that she was not a rabbi, and that, given the confusing title, he would not be ordaining more rabbahs in the future. Since then, she and others have repeatedly referred to herself and to the women coming through the Maharat program, as women rabbis. The general Orthodox community, and especially its halachic leaders, have made clear that this is a step that cannot be allowed to happen. So how can it be seen as Orthodox?

The sad irony is that much of this is semantics. As the article notes, and has been true for decades if not generations, women have long visited the sick, comforted the bereaved, counseled the troubled and taught classes. The real (and important) challenge was a title, no small matter in a culture that limits its respect to those with titles. Money comes into it, too, since untitled, unofficial functionaries won’t receive the compensation they deserve.

All of that could have been dealt with, but for the insistence on the word “rabbi.” That blurs lines between men and women that the mesorah and the community put in place for reasons far beyond the question of which particular communal tasks women do or don’t perform. Trying to erase those lines just isn’t Orthodox, no matter how often its proponents claim it is.

Riverdale, The Bronx

 

Comment Guidelines

The Jewish Week feels comments create a valuable conversation and wants to feature your thoughts on our website. To make everyone feel welcome, we won't publish comments that are profane, irrelevant, promotional or make personal attacks.

Comments

Taking R. Rothstein's argument to its logical conclusion, one would have to conclude that R. Soloveitchik wasn't orthodox either, since he encouraged the teachers at Maimonides to teach Gemara to their female students, ignoring the fact that it was against the mesorah-nobody else was doing it at the time. The fact that he did that shows that the relationship between tradition/orthodoxy and change is a but more nuanced and not as straight forward as R. Rothstein claims it to be.

"All of that could have been dealt with"

Perhaps, but it wasn't. Indeed, it's still not being dealt with and thus the issues of title and respect and money are still there, waiting to "be dealt with" by someone other than R. Weiss

Not that Rabbi Rothstein needs my approbation, but this article is spot on. Thinking it through to the next level, the question will be whether this school (along with other schools, synagogues, and individuals with a similar approach to Judaism) will continue to call themselves Orthodox, or whether they will find another name to be more appropriate. The other possiblity is that mainstream Orthodox will find a new name for themselves (after all, the term Orthodox isn't written in stone).

Add comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.