We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
And the difference between a rabbi on the one hand and a scholar, halachic adviser and pastoral counselor on the other hand is? That sounds like a rabbi to me. You keep coming to t'fila b'tzibur but that is the chazan's, not the rabbi's role.
Look, if you want to oppose women rabbis, go ahead. But let's not pretend that at the same time you are also in favor of women doing all the roles that rabbis traditionally do.
What is a Rabbanit?
In colloquial Hebrew, it means the wife of a Rabbi.
In משלי לא:כו פִּ֭יהָ פָּֽתְחָ֣ה בְחָכְמָ֑ה וְתֽוֹרַת־חֶ֝֗סֶד עַל־לְשׁוֹנָֽהּ
We see that women have the Torah(teaching) of Chesed.
To get an idea of a Rabbanit with Toras Chesed see
Sorry, what is this supposed to be?
Near the end of אשת חיל from משלי said after שלום עליכם.
I mean, why did you post this? What is the connection?
Follow the links. This Rabbanit has an advanced curriculum vitae like the "Rabbis" that RHM cites. She has international recognition for her work in תורה. AND SHE IS ACCEPTED ORTHODOX. There are others like her. The Rabbanit is here to stay. RHM thinks this will cause a schism in OJ. It has not. Old news.
OK, got it now. Thanks.
בבקשה, על לא דבר
Well, I would be more careful about using the word "never". I think that Orthodoxy will eventually accept women rabbis. We will just have to wait and see. Of course, I have no problem belonging to a shul that has no rabbi in a pulpit position. So I can afford to wait a long time.
Aside from disagreeing with you about the appropriateness of women rabbis, I fail to see the validity of your argument that they cannot perform the functions of a congregational rabbi. If a given congregation agrees with you, then they will simply not hire a woman for that post. But if the congregation feels that a woman rabbi does fill their needs, why should it bother you if they hire her? They are the ones that will be dealing with her.
And membership in the RCA? I suppose that it used to be worth something. i do not believe that now. The shutting out of most of the RCA by the Israeli rabbanut has changed things. That is the danger of frumkeit. If you are going to say that a rabbi isn't religious enough for you to recognize him, and you do this often enough, eventually people will say that they will just do without your recognition.
Top membership benefit of RCA: they have a very good retirement / investment plan. Otherwise, few rabbis woule pay their pretty steep membership dues.
Okay--I didn't know that membership in a rabbinical organization involved any of that.
its a "fraternal organization" meaning good deals on insurance (used to be / may still be), but they happen to have someone who is very good at investments doing it for members. don't know what that means, but I'm told he has (or had) very good results.
if true, its a good membership benefit. otherwise, many rabbonim wouldn't bother to join, unless they want to get into rabbinic politics (like some of the big names who got into trouble.)
"Most' of RCA membership "shut out" by the Rabbanut? I'm an RCA member, and unaware of this. In other words - your statement is incorrect on face value. Maybe you need to define "shut out"?
I mean the rabbis whose conversions are not considered valid by the Israeli rabbanut.
That's an issue of uniformity of standards; not them being "shut out". And it is a single issue. It does not extend to kiddushin, kashrut, or many other issues. It is a topic that, in fact, the RCA and the Rabbanut came to an agreement on. So, according to you, the RCA is also "shutting out" their own members?
Some of them did so indeed. And since when was there such an issue of "uniformity of standards" of various batei din regarding coversions?
There has always been at least a loose consensus in halachah. If someone operated outside that consensus, then if fact they were not relied upon for matters of halachic responsibility by other rabbanim. Sometimes it was debatable, as we see in centuries of halachic literature. Sometimes it was not. And let's be clear: the Rabbanut and the RCA agreed upon a certain uniformity so as to remove much of the vagueness and uncertainty regarding what goes in communities across North America. If a local rabbi wants to do conversions 'his way', no one is stopping him. But he can't force someone else, somewhere else, to validate his actions with no assurances as to how he does his work. Our ability to assure a certain fealty to halachic standards and consensus is much diminished, compared to even a century ago. There are a lot more 'rabbis' (talking just Orthodox, for now), being educated to a broader and vaguer range of educational standards, in many more places than previously. That's why the RCA also has 'semicha standards'. Not every guy who has semicha can join the RCA. Applications are regularly vetted and reviewed by the Executive Board. And not every guy who has semicha will have that recognized by the Rabbanut when he makes aliyah and wants to function as a rav in Israel. Creating some uniformity in conversion standards hasn't really changed anything for anyone who doesn't want it changed; but it is an attempt to remove some of the fog and uncertainty from what goes on in the Jewish world.
"And let's be clear: the Rabbanut and the RCA agreed upon a certain uniformity so as to remove much of the vagueness and uncertainty regarding what goes in communities across North America."
What a coincidence that this came at the time of an attempt by a (subsequently disgraced) hareidi rabbi to enforce standards of "giyur l'chumra". It's also very interesting that the standards enforced are the most stringent, and people who convert through via thoroughly orthodox batei din may not be recognized--and indeed this has occurred.
One of your objections against women rabbis is that there is no precedent in Judaism. Well, here is an example of something done for which there is no precedent--and it does not seem to bother you much.
Interesting that "Rabbi" Berkowitz, who is a married woman, is pictured "learning" with hair uncovered and sleeves way above the elbow. Wonderful role model for an Orthodox rabbi.
So don't use her as your rabbi. Just the fact that you concentrate on her appearance, and put "learning" in quotations, says volumes about you. If there was a picture of a couple of hareidi rabbanim with open gemarot, what would you think if the caption stated " Rav X and Rav Y "learning"? Most people would consider that a snide insult. But it is okay for you to use it to describe women.
according to many halachic authorities, one would not be allowed to learn, or say a beracha in that room, where a woman was dressed the way that woman is. Don't get me wrong- she can dress any way that she pleases- but it is just strange that one who calls themselves an orthodox rabbi would dress in an manner that would prohibit her congregants from davening in her presence.
Is that "many" halachic authorities, or "all" halachic authorities?
A congregation that would not feel comfortable davening in her presence would simply not hire her. Nobody is saying that all shuls should have female rabbis, halachic advisors, or whatever. And any shul can institute any dress code that it wants for both men and women. If you or I don't like it, we go to the shul down the block, start our own shul, or whatever.
RYS's point is clear enough...these rabbis will also be moderate in tzniyus.
I would respond differently. I would say obviously they will be moderate. Go to the web site of any of the MO shuls we have been discussing, Riverdale, the Hamptons, Washington, the other shul in Palm Beach where Rabbi Schneier is scholar in residence half a year...in all these place the women do not cover their hair and many wear short sleeved dresses. This is the reality in many MO shuls, so why should it be more stringent in an OO shul.
I am more interested in their learning than in their manner of dress.
Then maybe you want an academic or professor; not a rav. Because the sages established that a rav must also set an example.
And those who are concerned with such a dress code are welcome to find a rav that suits them, Obviously a congregation that hires a woman rabbi will amke sure that they know what they are getting. And if the example that she sets suits them, who are you to intervene?
Nobody was discussion "intervening". You made a comment that indicates you aren't so concerned with the example being set. An example whose standards should be determined by Torah and tradition; not popular sentiment. To that, I responded that a rav is supposed to set an example. In fact, the way the sages put it - the person seeking a rav should ensure that the rav does set the appropriate example. Hence my comment that otherwise, what you want (your preference for their "learning") is a professor, not a rav.
There are certainly O rabbis whose wives don't cover their hair, whose wives wear pants, and who themselves (the rabbis) wear shorts and polo shirts and go mixed swimming. Is that "setting an appropriate example"?
I'm going to avoid that question, which I think you addressed to my comment. My comment is to the principal - that we should require them to set and example; not to the particulars. Starwolf had stated that s/he was more interested in their learning, less so in the example they set. If we want to completely redefine our requirements and expectations of a rav, ignoring established tradition; then let's not call that 'maintaining tradition' or 'orthodox'.
See my comment above. Not all MO Jews feel that such dress is ignoring established tradition.
"Feel"? Or think so based on solid halachic scholarship? If the latter, then so be it. And if they are operating outside a broader historical consensus, then their scholarship will lead them to know they're going to have to withstand scrutiny and defend clearly the halachic position they've staked out.
There is a difference between solid halachic scholarship and historical consensus.If yhere was a solid halachic objection to women in rabbinical positions, we would certainly have heard it from you, right? Your entire argument is based on "but we never did it before".
I am sure that similar objections were raised by those opposed to educating women. And those opposed to rabbis giving a sermon in languages other than Yiddish.
I suspect that the people who criticize the mode of dress of women rabbis, or the type of/lack of hair covering of these rabbis, are exactly the ones who object to women rabbis in any way, shape or form.
These women could dress like The wives of hareidi gedolim, and you would still not accept them as figures of authority.
You say taht the example should be determined by torah and tradition. i agree, but the needs of the congregation should also determine the example. And those needs may also require a female spiritual authority. a congregation that wishes to have such a figure presumably has its own ideas of what type of dress code is appropriate.
So, you're back to - it should be determined by popular sentiment, not necessarily Torah and tradition.
Not popular sentiment. What the congregation feels that it needs. And though it may not have much precedent, some of us do not feel that it is anti-Torah.
It does, in fact, have precedent. No one suggests it is anti-Torah. But if those perceived "needs" are not in accord with Torah and tradition, then there's problem. A rav must uphold Torah and tradition, and set an example. There's lots of ways to do that; but they aren't endless or without bounds. Would you say that Orthodox congregations in the 50s or 60s that decided that they "need" to do away with a mehitzah (something that was done with much thought and angst, in some cases) were acting in accord with Torah? Or would you say that they chose to violate Torah and tradition, but it was what they (and maybe their rabbi) chose to work with? Those are very different perspectives on the situation. Orthodox rabbinim who went to such congregations knew that they had a responsibility to set an example as best they could, and educate towards a vision of greater fealty to halachah and tradition. You don't clearly distinguish between "popular sentiment" and what the congregations "feels it needs". I, for one, would argue that they have to "think" about what they "need". If it is based on their "feelings", it may be their true sentiment; but that wouldn't be a way to lead a congregation on a path of Torah.
Except that a great many women (50% of the Jewish population) do feel that they need increased participation in Jewish public life, as well as female rabbinical advisers to deal with problems about which they are uncomfortable consulting with men. And you may feel that that is not a way to "lead a congregation on path to Torah", but you cannot show any halachic problems with it, and the only argument that you have going for you is that there is no precedent (conveniently ignoring precedents of biblical female leadership).
When they came to take a picture of someone with rav Elyashiv on Motzei yom Kippur the camera guy opened rav elyashiv's gemorah and said that would make a better picture. Rav Elyshiv slammed the Gemorah shut and asked the camera guy why he is trying to make him a liar right after Neilah. I somehow doubt that this picture was just a spontaneous picture in the middle of their "Chevrusa".
I kind of agree with you. Looks very much like a posed picture with them staring at the camera.
Reminds me of a story from the other spectrum. One of my sons once related to me how when he was in Yeshiva there was a certain gentleman who used to come every night after work and learn there with a chavrusa. One year this person was chosen as the guest of honor at the yeshiva dinner. Naturally a video crew came to film him learning with his chavrusa. My son was amazed that the entire time the crew was doing their work, the man barely looked up from his gemara and continued learning as if nothing was going on
Perhaps because you would not give the benefit of the doubt to women seeking a more public role for women in Communal jewish life.
Pictures of rabbanim often show them with an open sefer. Do you usually question whether that sefer was opened for the picture? Or is it just the case with women scholars?
No, I do not usually question those Rabbonim but those Rabbonim aren't usually trying to change the inherent nature and anceints traditions that are intergral to Torah Judaism. Also, did you even read the story I posted about Rav Elyashiv? (if you did I think you completly missed the point)
When do the ancient traditions start? If women were to be called up for aliyot in an O shul would that be OK. since they used to be ?
You're gonna confuse him. He thinks his Judaism is really really old.
really teally insightful comment. Thanks so much for adding to the discussion. Unfortunately, you seem to be the confused one as my comment had nothing to do with the antiquity of tradition or Judaism rather just the fact that they are mainstream tradition that certain organizations and women wish to uproot.
>> but those Rabbonim aren't usually trying to change the inherent nature and anceints tradition
You may not pay too much attention to what you write, but some of us unfortunate enough to read it do. You mentioned the ancients, does that not have something to do with the "antiquity of tradition" that you claim to *not* be reffering to?
If we are going to be nitpicking, then you forgot a comma before do in you first sentence "enought to read it, do".
Way to answer the question. (I don't mind insults, but at least include some content as well)