 |
| R' Hershel Schachter - a signatory to the OU Psak |
The debate goes on. And it is as divisive as ever. Those who
seek an egalitarian goal in Orthodoxy see denying women the ability to be serve
as rabbis as a denial of their basic human rights. There is no argument that
will dissuade them. Having been raised in a culture that sees egalitarianism as an inviolable value makes them seek to insert into Judaism
wherever they can.
It is as though these advocates of egalitarianism believe
that this value is on par with all the Mitzvos of the Torah. Denying them this perceived
right is seen as denying them their ability to be fulfilled as a Jewish woman…
or even as Jew… or perhaps even as a human being!
How sad it is that the concept of equality between the sexes
- a value which is otherwise quite noble - is used to attack the rabbis of our generation
as nearancient relics of the past who refuse to recognize how badly they treat
half of their own people. They deny them the right to serve God in ways they
feel they best could. That these rabbis do not in any way have that as their motivation
does not even occur to them. But the truth is that they are only motivated by
what they believe God wants of His people. And as the most Torah knowledgeable
Jews of our generation who are very aware of the culture in which they live, it is they who are most qualified to determine that. Certainly
not JOFA or rabbis of far lesser stature that are sympathetic to their egalitarian
cause.
But this post it is not really about that. It is to point
out a comment made by Rabbi Gil Student in his own defense
of the OU’s statement. Because of the hot debate over this topic, that point can
easily be overlooked. I think it is too important to let slide. Here is what he
said:
In terms of process, the OU followed the right path. It did not turn to poskim in Israel, who might not fully understand the situation in the US. It turned to poskim in the U.S. – rabbis who lead their own shuls and/or visit communities across the country. They received written and oral input from leaders of many different communities. And after reaching a decision, they communicated it to the public in a lengthy document explaining their reasoning and providing their sources.
I cannot emphasize enough the importance of what Rabbi Student
said here. As I have said in the past, the 2 worlds of Orthodoxy cannot be farther
apart on a variety of issues. Although there is the obvious commonality of
following Halacha that all of Orhtodoxy shares, the Hashkafos seem to divide us
more than they unite us. It is wishful thinking to say that the Charedi Hashkafa
of the US and Israel are the same. (I should add that even in America there are
communities like Satmar that fall more into the Israeli camp than they do into
the American camp. But the divisions are clear.)
Just to cite a few examples of the differences: the way the
internet and smartphones are treated; the way secular studies in elementary and
high schools are treated; the way participatory sports are treated; (or even
spectator sports in some cases)… all of these issues are treated in an almost
opposite fashion by the US and by Israel. It is almost as if there were 2
Torahs. One for America and one for Israel (and Satmar like communities).
The problem is that after the Petirah (death) of major Poskim
in America like Rav Moshe Feinstein, his successors have looked eastward for
guidance in some cases. So that even after they had ruled on a public matter,
they allowed themselves to be overruled by Israeli Poskim.
The most famous (or should I say infamous) case of this was
when Rabbi Natan Slifikn’s books attempting to reconcile Torah and science were
deemed to be heretical by major Charedi Poskim in Israel . Rabbi Slifkin had
vetted his books via a number of Poskim who gave them their approbation. But
when senior Israeli Poskim ruled that those books contained heresy, those rabbis
withdrew their approbation.
I am not going to get into the exact issues that led to this
ban. (Been there and done that.) I am only pointing out how looking at Israel
whose culture is so radically different than ours is not the way American
Poskim should feel obligated to rule. And I’m happy to see that the OU Poskim followed
that principle.
That episode caused untold grief to Rabbi Slifkin and his
family. And it caused many American –even Charedi Rabbonim and Roshei Yeshiva that
were teaching that the views expressed in Rabbi Slifkin’s books were acceptable
- to have to backpedal. I recall speaking to one Charedi Rosh Kollel in America
who told me that his outreach efforts would now be hampered by the Psak of those Senior Israeli Poskim. In
the past he allowed people who advocated Rabbi Slifkin’s approach to speak to even
in his own Avreichim about that view, right in his own Beis HaMedrash! But… no
more. I asked him what he was going to do. He basically shrugged – not really
having an answer.
This is why it is important to know the environment in which
one Paskins. So that a Posek will not just arbitrarily take the Israeli Psak
and apply it to his own environment. This is why the OU took the opportunity of
their statement to not only forbid, but to permit… ruling where the role of
women may be expanded within the limits of Orthodoxy. Even if not always
applicable in all circumstances.
The Poskim of the OU have gone out on a limb here to do the
right thing. My hope is that the leading Poskim to their right will follow
their lead in this regard and allow for such an expansion when circumstances
demand it. They have broken ranks with Israeli Poskim in other areas, as mentioned
above. I hope they will do it here as well.
