 |
| Navit Tzadik (L) and Amira Ra'anan - Rabbis? (Jewish Press) |
As most people know by now, despite a few renegade institutions
under the banner of ‘Open Orthodoxy’ or Liberal Orthodoxy’ the ordination of
women as Orthodox rabbis is prohibited. This is the view of virtually all of Orthodoxy, from the Charedi Agudah; to the
Centrist OU and RCA; to the European Rabbinate; to the Israeli Rabbinate.
While this may not seem fair to the egalitarian eye, it is
nevertheless a fact. However, despite that
fact a few women do get some sort of ordination every year. In some cases have been hired by OU
member synagogues for rabbinic positions. That of course did not sit well with the OU
leadership.
After these hires became public some OU member rabbis protested with a threat to break away from the OU if
that was not corrected - by either ejecting the violators or getting
them to fire those rabbis.
Ever treading a fine line - the OU came up with a compromise
that forbade any Shul from hiring a female rabbi; no Shul that had a woman in that position
could become a member of the OU; those OU
member Shuls that had already hired women had 3 years to correct that situation by complying with guidelines delineated
by OU Poskim – on pain of expulsion if at the end of that period they did
were not in compliance
Happily that ‘compromise’ seemed to satisfy both sides.
The question is - what exactly does compliance mean? In order
to understand that we need to know exactly what role a woman may have in an
Orthodox Shul. That was described in great
detail in a lengthy statement issued by OU Poskim which included an explanation of
how they arrived at their conclusions.
The short version is that women may serve in a variety of
capacities but not as clergy in any way.
They may for example serve as teachers, scholars in residence, executive
directors, programming directors, professional counselors, communal spiritual
advisers and even Halachic advisors such as Yoatzot Halacha (women that can
advise other women on matters of Taharas Hamishpcha).
The question remains, how can we recognize achievement in any of
these areas without giving them a title implying some version of being a rabbi?
I’m not sure how to answer that question. But I do think that any person, man or
woman, who achieves a certain level of expertise in any field, has a right to
be recognized. No different than a PhD or Masters Degree is recognition of expertise in
a particular field. How to apply that to women without breaking the taboo of
calling them a rabbi is beyond my pay grade.
One thing is certain. There is no Halacha stopping any Jew –
man or women - from studying Torah to their hearts content and achieving a high
degree of expertise in Torah knowledge. It is the title ‘rabbi’ and its implication that is
the problem.
I should note that the greatest Torah scholars of our time were
not necessarily ordained as rabbis. Famously, the Chafetz Chaim was recognized as a Gadol HaDor (if not THE Gadol HaDor) for his Torah scholarship long before he
was ordained. Out of his great sense of humility, he did not need nor care
about that title. He was ordained late in life out of necessity (for a technical
reason that I no longer recall). Having the title ‘rabbi’ does not mean all that much in terms of recognizing
achievement in Torah study.
Perhaps those women that want to be ordained for purposes of
being recognized for their achievement can look to the Chafetz Chaim as a role
model.
Most Yeshiva students on the right don’t ever bother getting
it, unless they need it for a job. In fact there are plenty of ‘rabbis’ that
were never ordained and yet use the title in their jobs. It may very well be the most abused title in
Judaism these days.
All of which brings me to Rabbi Shlomo Riskin. The Jewish Press recently reported that he conferred titles of ‘spiritual leaders’ and’
teachers of Halacha’ upon 3 women who passed his rigorous exam. (Participating
in the ceremony was Rabbi David Stav and Rabbi Kennneth Brander.) On the surface it seems like he has violated
the near universal prohibition against ordaining women. And yet he denies it:
It should be noted that, despite a misleading headline in Srugim, “On the eve of the giving of the Torah, two more women were ordained as Rabbis,” the title that was awarded the three women stops short of a rabbinic ordination, recognizing them instead as spiritual leaders and teachers of halacha – after they had completed the first and unique program of training women as authorized to rule on halachic issues and to become spiritual leaders.
But after denying it he goes about explaining why today’s
Semicha (ordination) is not real Semicha anyway. Real Semicha actually ended in the 4th
or 5th century. As such he proclaims that today’s Semicha is nothing more than a degree recognizing
their accomplishment. Which seems to contradict his denial. Why bother explaining
that title if that is not what has been given? Furthermore, calling them Rabbaniot hardly a makes his denial persuasive.
It is also not entirely true that there is no connection to
the real Semicha. That was noted by the
Poskim of the OU:
Consideration of the ordination of women also raises questions regarding the nature of semikhah. While contemporary semikhah differs from classic semikhah (as described in the Talmud) in many regards, it must, nevertheless, be viewed as an extension of the original institution of semikhah (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 242:5-6).
It appears to me that Rabbi Riskin’s intent is to have his
cake and eat it too. He seems to want to comply with the prohibition against giving women Semicha and at the same time granting 3 woman a version of it. While I
completely understand his motives and explanations – which I believe he bases
on his sense of equity and understanding of Halacha, I have to question his execution
of them. At the end of the day, his clarifications are anything but clear. And denials
notwithstanding he appears to have given a form of Semicha to these women.
