Orthodox Women Rabbis: A Rejoinder to Rabbi Wolkenfeld

letter-447577_1280

By Avrohom Gordimer

In response to “Ordaining Women and the Role of Mesorah”, R. David Wolkenfeld, Vice President of the International Rabbinic Fellowship (IRF – the rabbinic umbrella organization under which graduates of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (and others of the Far Left) group), posted an article that attempts to justify Orthodox ordination of women and to refute the many halachic arguments raised in objection to this most recent innovation.

While R. Wolkenfeld does his best to argue his case, at times being matter-of-factly dismissive of opinions expressed by renowned halachic authorities and arguably using a tone of stridency and force that others would not use when waging battle against eminent poskim many times their age, he fails to muster any mekoros for his position to sanction the Orthodox ordination of women, and, in fact, his major caveat to circumvent the most potent objection to such ordination is disproven and undermined by the very people who are granting the ordination.

Let’s evaluate this all carefully.

After issuing a long and fierce shot across the bow, R. Wolkenfeld proceeds on an effort to dissect and discount R. Hershel Schachter’s initial objections to ordaining women:

Rav Schachter’s halakhic arguments are unconvincing and an argument based on “traditional communal norms” is more subtle than Rav Gordimer admits…Unfortunately, the three arguments that Rav Shachter (sic) presents in opposition to women rabbis are weak, perhaps reflecting his well-documented and idiosyncratic antipathy towards Jewish feminism.

Rav Shachter presents the halakhic prohibition of women exercising serarh (sic) using the words, “the Tanna’im understood the pasuk in Chumash as implying that women may not be appointed to the position of King” as though it were a well attested and universally accepted halakhic position. In fact, this halakhah is found nowhere in the Talmud, is mentioned by Rambam alone among the rishonim, and is not codified by the Shulhan Arukh (Rav Soloveitchik’s hiddush in Hilhot Shechitah notwithstanding).

Despite R. Wolkenfeld’s depiction of the prohibition of appointing women to positions of serarah (Rambam, Hil. Melachim 1:5) as non-normative Halacha, the Rambam’s position (which is in fact shared by the Ritva – Shevuos 30a) is not disputed by other Rishonim and has the support of many later authorities. To dismiss this halachic issue of serarah out-of-hand and with such brevity is troubling.

R. Wolkenfeld then argues that:

As an added element of irony, the entire profession of the rabbinate is entirely illegitimate according to Rambam, who categorically forbids earning a salary for teaching Torah. Since the entire Orthodox rabbinate rejects Rambam’s position on whether rabbis and Torah teachers can be paid for their work. How can we present Rambam’s purported opposition to women rabbis as though it were the only halakhic voice?

This is baffling! The Rambam’s position on accepting payment for Talmud Torah is totally irrelevant as regards his position on serarah for women. Using his own logic, R. Wolkenfeld should be taken to task for quoting R. Aharon Lichtenstein in his article, for R. Lichtenstein presented the RCA with a lengthy paper at its convention three years ago in which he argued against the ordination of women, in direct opposition to R. Wolkenfeld’s article. (Please also see a fuller treatment of the issue here.)

R. Wolkenfeld then takes on the issue of tzni’us, treating it as a separate factor in R. Schachter’s argument, even though R. Schachter explained in his essay about ordaining women that the prohibition of serarah is a function of the requirement for tzni’us. In this section of his article, R. Wolkenfeld musters no sources; he merely argues that since people in practice do not conduct themselves and do not harbor sentiments in consonance with R Schachter’s position, the position must therefore be incorrect:

This argument (of R Schachter) constructs a theory of tzniut that, however plausible it may be, is entirely irrelevant to the way that contemporary Orthodox Jews live. Do men with prominent communal positions experience their public leadership as though it were a painful but necessary sacrifice? Is it even true that contemporary Orthodox women refrain from speaking in public or serving the community in a visible and public way?… Rav Shachter’s theory of tzniut is incompatible with the choices that pious Orthodox Jews, men and women, make each day.

The lack of halachic weight, logic and methodology in the above critique of R. Schachter’s position needs no elaboration.
R. Wolkenfeld’s final argument is that one can circumvent the prohibition on ordaining women by calling female ordainees by a different title – not “Rabbi”, but “Rabba”, “Maharat”, or the like:

R. Lieberman’s concern can be overcome with a simple “heker” – a distinguishing feature that makes it easier to separate between two things with different halakhic statuses. Male rabbanim are indeed receiving an imitation semikhah that is a carryover to the original Biblical semikhah, whereas women who serve in positions of spiritual leadership can be given another title to make clear that they are not eligible to serve as dayyanim (or to perform any other ritual role that halakhah limits to men). Indeed, R. Lieberman was opposed to the Conservative Movement ordaining women with the title “rabbi” – but Orthodox women have gravitated towards uniquely female titles (yo’etzet, maharat, hakhamah, rabbah etc.) that do not carry any of the connotations that concerned R. Lieberman.

According to this line of reasoning, R. Lieberman would have accepted “Maharat” and “Rabba” ordination, and we must conclude that R. Lieberman committed obvious and fatal omissions by not including this incredible and indispensible caveat in his ruling and by not suggesting to the JTS administration that it bestow a title such as Rabba upon its female ordainees, as that would have solved R. Lieberman’s whole problem with ordaining women according to R. Wolkenfeld’s logic. (The fact that the Conservative movement allows women to perform the same exact halachic functions as men is not pertinent, as those functions are not rabbinic in nature.) The notion that using a different title for a female rabbi renders it permissible to ordain female rabbis (or rabbas – excuse me) is a real stretch. (Much more on this later; please keep reading.)

R. Wolkenfeld then once again misunderstands a point in the article he critiques. R. Wolkenfeld presents that article’s explanation of Mesorah and the RCA’s position on it as whimsical or commonplace “traditional communal norms…(such as ) rabbinic sermons in the vernacular; congregational singing during tefilot, or clean-shaven men” – as opposed Mesorah being an halachic or hashkafic-based concept. The whole point of the article critiqued by R. Wolkenfeld was that, to quote it, “Mesorah is based upon halachic or hashkafic reasoning” and that “every aspect of our multi-millenia traditional religious communal modality is embedded in or predicated upon halachic or hashkafic axioms. These axioms may not be apparent to the uninitiated, yet failure to perceive them does not grant license to negate, dismiss or reform.“ After asserting that commonplace traditional communal norms, such as congregational singing and the like, are of course subject to change – something that no one contests – R. Wolkenfeld proceeds to apply this thesis to the coming of age of women in the Orthodox rabbinate (or whatever title or term one uses) in his permitting and promoting it.

Again, and I am sorry to be so blunt, this argument misses the boat. The reason that Mesorah is meaningful to the topic at hand and militates against ordaining women is due to the halachic and hashkafic underpinnings of Mesorah, insomuch that it reflects halachic and hashkafic axioms (such as, in this case, serarah/tzni’us, and the legal underpinnings of Semicha), and is not because Mesorah reflects some type of sentimental or comfort-based sort of tradition that can be changed at will or by popular consensus. This point is the whole thrust of the article Ordaining Women and the Role of Mesorah that R. Wolkenfeld is critiquing! Rabbi Wolkenfeld, rather, overlooked the legally-binding definition of Mesorah and instead adopted a totally different, sentimental definition of Mesorah, and used it to justify ordaining women.

Let us now examine the Orthodox ordination of women that R. Wolkenfeld supports and posits is distinguishable from rabbinic ordination, Semicha, that is conferred upon men. After all, R. Wolkenfeld has provided a caveat, a heker, to grant the former legitimacy despite the clear and well-sourced objections of R. Lieberman that R. Schachter and others feel are so compelling.

The Yeshivat Maharat website tells us that, “Yeshivat Maharat is changing the communal landscape by actualizing the potential of Orthodox women as rabbinic leaders”, and “students will participate in courses in Pastoral Education, Practical Rabbinics and Professional Development”; the website is loaded with laudatory articles such as “Yeshivat Maharat to Ordain Women Rabbis on Sunday”, ““Orthodox Women Rabbis By Any Other Name”, “Orthodox Women Rabbis; It’s About Time”. It is eminently clear that the use of the terms “Rabba” and “Maharat” are a mere artifice. Yeshivat Maharat and its YCT and IRF affiliates have always sought to have female rabbis in the fullest sense possible; any argument to now distinguish female ordainees into a different “halachic category” is an afterthought that arose as a way to placate critics.

In fact, the Maharat ordination certificate utilizes full “Semicha” phraseology for the women being ordained, just like the Semicha certificate issued to male ordainees!

Many rabbis, far more authoritative than I, have commented throughout the years that the Open Orthodox movement is very much on the same trajectory as the Conservative Movement was half a century ago, in which the goal was to revise Halacha and assimilate it to reflect contemporary secular mores, and then to conjure up the halachic arguments in favor of such, as forced as such arguments may have to be. Although R. Wolkenfeld is sincere in his belief in the legitimacy and permissibility to ordain women (as rabbas or Maharats), the movement with which he affiliates has yet again demonstrated that it first shoots the arrows wherever it wishes and only afterwards draws the targets around them.

Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer is a member of the Rabbinical Council of America and the New York Bar.

You may also like...

moshe
2 years 2 months ago

I basically agree. My claim is that the ordination issue is for RAL essentially technical. This does not mean that it is a minor issue. But many men who are called “rabbis” in every segment of the Orthodox community lack any smicha or have a “smicha” rav umorah, which is not the “Heter horaah” that the term “smicha” traditionally represents. IF women can function in the same way as these “rabbis” but with out the title “Rabbi” the result is little different from what Rabbi Wolkenfeld advocates. They are arguing about the title used and the text of the diploma.
again I do not deny chas veshalom that there are not significant differences between RAL and the far left. Rather I am arguing that there is a middle position between the two which is rather poorly represented in the American Orthodox community. It is the lack of this middle ground that makes this conflict so divisive.

Avrohom Gordimer
2 years 2 months ago

Moshe:

RAL asked those at the RCA convention three years ago, to which he sent his paper, and which I attended, to vote for the RCA resolution. The resolution barred ordination of women under any title.

While I agree with you that RAL is more liberal with the involvement of women in Talmud Torah and perhaps associated leadership roles than is RHS, I would be very hesitant to identify RAL with R Wolkenfeld’s position (even if RAL is more sympathetic to feminism), as it is a radical jump from RAL’s position to that of R Wolkenfeld’s position that supports ordaining women. RAL himself made it very clear that he opposes ordination of women.

moshe
2 years 2 months ago

RAL clearly alludes to Serara in his final paragraph when he refers to the halakhic issue of “the role
of [an] officer in a shul, and makes it quite clear that that he does not see it as an obstacle to women serving communal functions in a shul. He said this in other contexts as well. This would presumably include most rabbinic functions which do not require ordination.
it is disingeuos to suggest the the RCA resolution reflects RAL’s position. He did not approve or sign off on it to the best of my knowledge. Even if had said that women rabbis’ were %100 percent fine the RCA would no doubt, legitimately, have taken R. Shachter’s position.

I admit that on re-reading RAL is ambiguous about what constitutes “ordination” of the sort that he finds problematic for women. I would not be so presumptuous as to assume what he thinks of the title “maharat”.

still there can be no doubt that RAL is not satisfied with the current status of women in the Orthodox community and feels that more can and should be done, even acknowledging the risks involved. He makes it clear that while he sees a unsurmountable technical barrier in the way of actual ordination of women, he is interested in promoting women’s spiritual and halakhic community to the extent that is permitted in his understanding of the halakhah. And his understanding of the halakha allows for a much great role for women than does R. Shachter’s. In the penultimate paragraph he concludes his general discussion of the status of women in Orthodoxy by declaring that poskim should
“I believe, give greater weight than, in recent
generations, has been assigned, to the dispensation of לעשות נחת רוח לנשים, cited in
the Gemara and in Shulhan Arukh as the basis for permitting what might otherwise
have been proscribed.”

This position is radically more sympathetic to the feminist cause than R. Shachter or any of his colleagues and not all that far from Rabbi Wolkenfeld’s.

Avrohom Gordimer
2 years 2 months ago

Moshe:

The logic of RAL applies to ordaining women with any clergy title, including Rabba and Maharat; the RCA resolution that immediately followed his written presentation to the RCA also evidences this.

It is true that RAL did not invoke serara in his paper, but the point of his argument precludes any ordination.

Also, as my article states, the proponents of Maharat ordination continue to describe Maharats as rabbinic figures; the lack of the title “Rabbi” is to placate critics and is an issue of semantics.

moshe
2 years 2 months ago

R. Gordimer seriously distorts Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstien’s position on these matters. His letter to the RCA rejected only the bestowal of the title “rabbi” upon women, something that not relevant to the discussion, since we are discussing people who call themselves “Maharat” not “Rabbi” or “Rabba”. RAL does not not feel that serera is major issue and is quite sympathetic to women’s desires for greater leadership positions and is an aggressive advocate for women learning gemara and halakha at the highest levels. He is much closer to R. Wolkenfeld’s position to than to Rav Shachter’s.