[Avodah] maharat

[Daniel Israel via Avodah]

A few points that have been swirling around my head reading through this thread.

1. Why is the halachic question the primary point of discussion?  Let’s concede, for sake of argument, that there are halachically permissible ways for a woman to do much of what communal rabbis actually do in practice.  Not everything that is mutar is advisable.  I don’t see why we should be embarrassed that community policy is being set by Torah principles which are not purely halachic.  And while we are all entitled to our own opinions, community policy must be set by gedolei Torah of a certain stature.  I don’t believe any of the Rabbaim who are supporting these ventures, with all due respect to their legitimate scholarship and accomplishments, are among the select few who a significant portion of the Torah world look to for answers to these kinds of questions.  They were never among those who set gedarim for the community before they become involved in this issue, and so it should be no surprise that their taking the initiative on this issue is widely not accepted.

2. As far as hora’ah, we are discussing it like there is a clear line: halacha p’sukah and hora’ah.  (And some comments make a third distinction, between what a local Rav can pasken, and what requires phone call.)  But every case requires some amount of shikul hada’as.  Sometimes it is so trivial we don’t notice it (“is this specific package of meat marked ‘bacon,' treif?”).  But there are lots of questions we essentially MUST pasken for ourselves.  Things like, “is my headache painful enough to justify taking asprin on Shabbos?”.  OTOH, most of the questions we ask a Rav (“is this spoon okay?”) aren’t really about shikul hadaas, they are more about his knowing all the relevant sugyos.  I.e., they are topics that we could (should?) learn enough to answer for ourselves.  Note also that any responsible Rav is continually evaluating which questions he feels capable of answering on his own.

Just to be clear, I’m not saying there is no distinction to be made.  Given that hora’ah lifnei Rabo is assur, clearly there is such a category.  But what it is is not so clear cut.  Also, I’m not pointing this out to support Rabbanus for women (although one could formulate such an argument), rather to suggest that hora’ah is not this place this needs to be argued out.

3. RBW wrote regarding who can decide on these kinds of questions: "My example for this would be chassidut.  The changes that it brought were huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher.”

I think this is a good model.

First, I would note that there are definitely still circles which strongly disagree with aspects of the chassidic approach.  What has changed is that no one is seriously concerned that it will degenerate into widespread k’firah.  (Keep in mind there was precedent.  Chassidus arose soon after exactly that happened with regard to the Sabbateans.)

That said, I think we are indeed looking at something where there are two camps, with extremely strong opposition partly based on a concern that this is a change which, even if one finds a way to make it technically okay, will open the door to a slide away from proper halachic practice, much as happened with the Conservative movement.  Fifty years from now, if that happens, the question will be answered.  If it doesn’t happen, then those who are still opposed may be willing to make their peace with it as part of Orthodoxy, even they don’t themselves hold that way.

Given this long term view, perhaps the vehement opposition is an important part of the processes (as it may well have been with regard to chassidus).

4. Related to the prior point, RnIE (I think) suggested that this is less of a big deal in E”Y.  And RSS posted a link to an article by Dr. Rachel Levmore that concludes with a list of reasons the situation may be different in E”Y and the US.  For myself, WADR to those involved, who I am sure really feel they are acting l’sheim shemayim, I share RMB’s concern that they are aiming at a glass ceiling (extremely well put!).  And, consequently, I suspect that there will eventually be a schism with at least some of that camp transforming into a neo-Conservative movement.

After reading the above mentioned article by DrRL, perhaps another reason for the difference is that in E”Y these developments are fundamentally a response to a need.  That is, there are specific issues having nothing to do with female clergy which are creating a need, and in some natural way it has come out that the best solution is the creation of these new roles for women.  Whereas, in the US, the driver seems to be a conviction that there should be some form of female clergy, in and of itself.

Which leads to a concern I’ve long had about many issues where people point to historical halachic change to justify contemporary changes.  Perhaps certain changes are okay if they happen on their own, but we really shouldn’t be pushing for them to happen.

—
Daniel Israel
dmi1 at cornell.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170608/ed5116a9/attachment-0004.htm>