Not Fear But Fealty

letter-447577_1280

Dear Readers,

My posting this week is an essay from Agudath Israel of America’s executive vice president, Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel.

It was written in response to a lengthy and prominent editorial that appeared in The Jerusalem Post.

To its credit, that paper published Rabbi Zwiebel’s rejoinder, and has graciously offered permission for its republication, with due credit to where it originally appeared.

NOT FEAR BUT FEALTY

Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel

An editorialist in the Jerusalem Post was greatly exercised by the fact that Orthodox rabbinic leaders, including most notably Agudath Israel of America’s Council of Torah Sages (Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah), have gone on record stating what is and is not acceptable for Orthodox congregations (“Women’s rabbinical rights”, 1/03/10).

So exercised, in fact, that the editorialist saw fit to distort the words of the rabbinic sages in an effort to score debating points.

The distortion begins with the editorial’s very first word: “‘Assertive’ Orthodox women are making some men very nervous.” The placement of quotation marks around the word “assertive” is designed to imply that the pejorative is taken from the mouths (or pens) of the “nervous” rabbis themselves – when in fact it is the invention of the editorialist.

In the scientific world, one invention often leads to another. So too, apparently, in the editorial world. The second sentence of the editorial informs readers that the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah “has excommunicated the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale…for recognizing Sara Hurwitz…as a rabbi.” In fact, the rabbinic sages excommunicated no one and no thing. Stories of excommunication may make for interesting reading, but at least in this case it is absolute fiction.

What the Council of Torah Sages did say is that placing a woman in a rabbinic position is outside the bounds of Jewish Orthodoxy. The Council’s members, deeply respected senior rabbis and heads of American yeshivot, felt it important to make clear that Rabbi Avi Weiss’ conferral of rabbinical status on a woman, and her assumption of certain traditional rabbinic functions at the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, represent a “radical and dangerous departure from Jewish tradition,” and that “any congregation with a woman in a rabbinical position of any sort cannot be considered Orthodox.” A strong position, to be sure – as befitting the gravity of the issue – but a far cry from excommunication.

The editorial then proceeds from distortion to armchair analysis with its assertion that fear of “challenge to their hegemony” motivated the rabbinic sages.

“The male-dominated rabbinic establishment seems to have a visceral (Freudian?) fear,” the editorial explains, “that female clergy will outperform them on the pulpit.” The rabbis’ rejection of the ordaining of women is further motivated, says the editorial, by their chauvinistic conviction that women should be relegated to their traditional roles of “cooking, cleaning and rearing children.” One can only marvel at the editorialist’s psychoanalytic prowess.

It is worth recalling, though, that the Torah itself establishes Judaism as a deeply role-based faith. There is a role for a Cohein, a role for a Levi, roles for men and roles for women. Contemporary feminism insists that women fill every conceivable role traditionally filled by men. And many are the Jews who have stumbled over one another in a rush to jump on that bandwagon. But from an Orthodox perspective, the Torah’s truths, including the role-assignments so deeply embedded in our tradition, transcend contemporary notions, today as in the past.

That Jews faithful to their religious tradition reserve the role of rabbi for men is no insult to women. What truly insult women are insinuations, like the editorialist’s, that the traditional roles of wives and mothers – including “raising children” – are somehow demeaning.

Anyone interested not in reacting to the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah’s statement from a preconceived stance but in actually understanding it would do well to focus on what it said. To wit: that creating a rabbinic role for women is a radical departure from the Jewish mesorah, or religious tradition.

Now, to be sure, many in our anchorless world would react with a shrug and a “so what?”. But a refusal to jettison any part of the Jewish religious tradition is precisely what defines Orthodoxy. Yes, changes can occur, and have occurred, in normative Orthodox practice. But such changes are rare, and they are instituted only after the deepest deliberations of the greatest Torah leaders of a generation, not as fiats motivated by the Zeitgeist.

And so there should be nothing shocking about recognized rabbinic leaders rejecting a proposed radical change in Jewish tradition. The rejection is born not of fear but of fealty – to the tradition that is the heritage of all Jews.

AM ECHAD RESOURCES

[Rabbi Zwiebel is executive vice president of Agudath Israel of America.]

The above essay was published in the Jerusalem Post, which has granted permission for its republication with the appropriate credit.

You may also like...

Baruch Pelta
5 years 5 months ago

DG,

If the leadership of the rabbi and those who follow his daas in this matter are to be considered non-orthodox, I’m afraid I fail to see how this is not an excommunication. I also fail to understand why they’re referring to him as “rabbi” if their reference to the synagogue is to his heterodox leadership. I must be missing the “obvious.” Thanks anyways for your efforts. :)

dg
5 years 5 months ago

Baruch,
Of course not. The shul means the leadership of the rabbi, not the building (obviously).
An individual can attend even a non-Orthodox congregation and be Orthodox. A whole community can theoretically for a while until it is inevitably influenced.

Jewish Observer
5 years 5 months ago

I base that percentage on:

(1) What has pretty much always been the case throughout Jewish history before the last 30+ years

>> If you measure by strict full time learnres you could be right, but, to my point, today you may need a large core of full timers to avergae out to 10% across all of klal yisrael

(2) The reality that the 90% formula is not working

>> doesn;t prove 10% is right

Dr. E
5 years 5 months ago

<>

Jewish Observer:

I base that percentage on:

(1) What has pretty much always been the case throughout Jewish history before the last 30+ years
(2) The reality that the 90% formula is not working, as potentially capable people have been chronically unemployed or underemployed, and cannot support their families or pay their communal obligations. All you need to to to validate this is talk to the Administrators of the schools, the Rabbis of the shuls, with the Gabbai Tzedaka, and count up the number of Meshulachim and Tzedaka fundraising ads.

While this thread has gotten off-topic of the original post, the fact is that the aforementioned paradigm shift is also a departure from tradition. And the consequences are more far-reaching to Klal Yisrael than what Rabbi Avi Weiss is doing at HIR (which for the record, I am not in favor of either).

Baruch Pelta
5 years 5 months ago

DG,

Am I understanding correctly? Are you saying that just the building that’s heterodox, but the worldview of the community and the rabbi are to be considered Orthodox?