This letter may be of academic interest to a historian, religious sociologist, or even fans of my father. Others may find useful comparisons or contrasts with the current state of liberal Orthodox Judaisms. For myself, it represents a salient moment in the life of the person who has imparted to me most of my Torah and approach to Judaism and life. I would also venture to say that this letter is so indicative of my father's hadracha that if one keeps the essence of the logical argument while substituting names and institutions, this letter could be reprinted by him today. My father has told me privately that he patterned his letter after Abraham Joshua Heschel's own letter of resignation.

With my father's permission I am publishing his letter of resignation from the Rabbinical Assembly and his disaffiliation with Conservative Judaism. I have kept the formatting, emphasis (though substituting underlines with italics - the original letter was composed on a "typewriter"), and typos (it's genetic), and I have embedded a PDF of the original letter at the end.

Dr. Robert Gordis
JUDAISM
15 East 84th Street
New York, New York 10028

Dear Dr. Gordis:

Thank you for your solicitious letter of July 31, 1987. While
I am always interested in what you have to say and write, my
decision to leave the Conservative Movement remains firm.

For many years you have advocated the formulation of a
philosophy statement for Conservative Judaism, which you
described as having "both feet planted firmly in mid-air."
As this emerging Conservative self-definition developed,
it became clear to me that I do not belong.

While Conservative Judaism talks about halakhah, it practices
Jewish style. Your discomfort with hilkhot niddah at the
last conference and in your book on Jewish sexuality indicates
to me that what you mean by halakhah is very different from
what I believe and practice. Historical method is not the
issue. Professor Menahem Elon also studies Jewish law "Historically,"
but he never advocates the position that requires suspension
of difficult, inconvenient, or embarrassing rules. I believe
in a Metsaveh and mitzvah; at best, Conservative rabbis take these
words metaphorically. For Conservative Judaism, critical scholarship
teaches that one must understand the tradition through relativist
eyes; I use scholarship to help me understand the words of my
sacred literature so I can understand exactly what my religious
obligations happen to be.

It is unpleasant to always raise objections, and it is not nice
to be cast as the obstinate reactionary. Ugly ducklings must find
appropriate ponds. I am not a Conservative Jew any more. How can
I remain a Conservative rabbi?

I have come to realize that for most people, "ethics" refers to the values that make
them feel good. But we are commanded to be holy, not happy. The values encoded in
Jewish Tradition are not congruent with the values of the secular academy, and all
liberal Judaisms, Conservative Judaism included, look to this knowledge class
for approval. This secular community has decided that gender neutrality is a dogma,
so Conservative Judaism, in its desire to be current, agrees on "ethical" grounds.

I believe that the modern Jew is given the choice to choose between two irreconcilable
orthodoxies. Given the vehemence, which has assumed eschatological proportions, in
which the issues of women rabbis and cantors has been pushed--Dr. Schorsch pointed
to a 9-3 decision of the CJLS in 1974 without telling anyone that the 9 votes
opposed women cantors and he waves the so-called "Roth responsum" which was not
even accepted by the CJLS or the faculty of JTS--it is clear that feminism
is now a new fundamentalism. I choose the orthodoxy of Jewish tradition over
the orthodoxy of current secular taste.

Continued debate is possible when the participants share a common theological
frame of reference. My positions are not recognized as "Conservative" by my
RA colleagues; you characterized my essay on patrilinearity with the words
"with enemies like me, orthodoxy is in no need of friends." Conservative
Judaism and I have both evolved, but in different directions. While I cannot
deny my biography, I must not ignore my conscience. It is for this reason
that I have resigned my position on the Committee on the Philosophy of
Conservative Judaism and have withdrawn my membership in the Rabbinical
Assembly of America. My views concerning the Authorship and content of the
Torah, the nature of my committment [sic] to halakhah, and the rabbinic community
that shares my ideals force me to look elsewhere for my religious home.
As a man who respects intellectual honesty and religious integrity, I do
hope that you can appreciate, even if you cannot agree, with the direction
that I have taken.

Sincerely yours,

Alan J. Yuter

AJY/ay

Alan Yuter - Letter of Resignation From the RA and Conservative Judaism by Rabbi Joshua Yuter

The post Why Rabbi Dr. Alan J. Yuter Resigned from the Rabbinical Assembly and Left Conservative Judaism appeared first on YUTOPIA.

Current Jewish Questions - Women of the Wall Sources (PDF)

Current Jewish Questions - Women of the Wall

The post Ep. 100 Current Jewish Questions 22 - Women of the Wall appeared first on YUTOPIA.

Introduction

This past week the International Rabbinic Fellowship (IRF), voted on whether or not women ought to be admitted to the organization. This was not the first time the IRF considered such a proposition. In 2008, before the advent of "Maharat" or "Rabba", the IRF recognized that women have been functioning as religious leaders within Orthodox Judaism. In Israel women serve as "To'anot Beit Din" - advocates for women in religious courts and "Yoatzot Halakha" - halakhic consultants regarding family purity. Even without formal titles women serve as Torah educators alongside men and several synagogues employ women in some religious capacity. In fact the Jewish Learning Initiative on Campus (JLIC), under Orthodox Union (OU), sends married couples to college campuses across the country with the expectation that the wife serves the campus Jewish community alongside her rabbinic husband. Regardless of the semantics of titles - or lack thereof - Jewish women assume professional roles similar to those performed by male rabbinic counterparts and thus should not be excluded from conversations affecting the Jewish community at large based solely on gender.

When I was first confronted with this question I supported the theoretical inclusion of women into the group, even if it meant removing "Rabbinic" adjective from the organization's name. I even submitted to a subcommittee my own proposal defining criteria for women to be treated as rabbinic colleagues given that no comparable title existed at the time.¹ And yet despite my earlier positions and after hearing passionate arguments in favor of admitting women, when the IRF finally voted on including women, I voted "no". My decision may appear at first glance to be inconsistent, dishonest, or indicative of intimidation from opposition. On the contrary, as I will explain in this essay my principles remain intact. My position is not based on the identity politics of gender but on what I perceive to be the role and function of rabbinic leadership in Judaism.

The Role of a Rabbi and a Rabbinic Organization

I have discussed at length nuances of the rabbinate elsewhere, and I am aware that rabbis may assume a variety of positions such as pulpit leaders, educators, or chaplains. For the purposes of this essay I will assume that the basic role of any rabbinic occupation is promoting and applying Torah in the world whether as a role model, educator, pastor, or community leader. Thus any competent professional rabbi would must at least identify and understand Torah and for those who work more with individuals, be able to communicate Torah to others appropriately to ensure its receptivity.

The influence of any given rabbi varies based the extent people are willing to be influenced by him. A rabbi with a large pulpit will reach more individuals than a colleague in a smaller community but may be less influential than rabbis with syndicated talk shows. Then we must consider the degree of rabbi's influence among certain communities. Rabbi Moses Feinstein is considered one of the more influential rabbis of the 20th century, but in his former community of the Lower East Side, his opinions are of greater significance than they are in other Jewish communities. For another example, R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik is called "The Rav" in America, but in Israel "The Rav" refers to R. Abraham Isaac Kook. Acceptance does not necessarily imply one rabbi is quallifiably superior, only that he has been able to influence certain individuals or communities.

Collaboration can be used to augment rabbinic influence. For specific issues, rabbis may collectively sign and disseminate positions, or join together in formal regional or national bodies. But just as the individual rabbi is held to a standard defined by Torah, so too must any rabbinic organization. Consider the constitution of the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) (PDF):

The purpose and objectives of the Rabbinical Council of America shall be:
1. To advocate, teach and promote the practice and study of Orthodox Judaism and to actively assist and encourage all efforts by groups and individuals with the House of Israel in that direction.

2. To advance the cause of continued Torah scholarship with the ranks of its membership.

3. To defend the honor of the Torah, to champion the rights and the dignity of the Jewish people everywhere and to help build and strengthen the religious and general welfare of the State of Israel.

4. To be ever on guard against any distortion or misinterpretation of Torah-true Judaism by individuals or groups within and without the House of Israel and to clarify through the written and spoken word the true teachings of the Torah.

5. To serve as a unifying force among Orthodox rabbis and roshei yeshiva in order that there be an authoritative voice expressing the Torah view on all questions of proper interest to the American Jew.

6. To encourage the forces of freedom and justice as expounded in the Torah and thereby help the continuity of the basic American institutions of equal liberty and justice for all.

7. To help promote the economic welfare and security of the Rabbi through the rights of tenure, health insurance and old-age retirement arrangements.

8. To establish the Rabbi as the religious authority of his community or synagogue and to rally to his defense whenever, by virtue of the execution of his proper duties, his position or authority should be challenged.

9. To help unite the Orthodox American synagogues into an effective organization for the Jewish laity; to work with and give religious direction to our recognized synagogue body, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, in the building and strengthening of Judaism on the American scene.

10. To promote religious instruction for adults and aid in the development of effective instruments for its implementation.

Of these ten points, two refer to protecting the professional welfare of its rabbinic members while eight are in some way related to disseminating Torah and its values. Thus the RCA - at least on paper - recognizes that any policies must be contingent on its obedience to the Torah.²

The IRF's own mission statement similarly assumes Torah and Halakha to provide the underlying context for the organization's existance.

Our Mission
Our mission is to bring together Orthodox Rabbis for serious study of Torah and Halacha, for open and respectful discussion, and to advocate policies and implement actions on behalf of world Jewry and humankind.

Core Values
We are committed to:
1.) The creation of "safe space" where every participant feels comfortable voicing his opinion

2.) Bringing together Orthodox rabbis from the Golah and from Israel to put a wide range of opinions on the table in terms of Halakha, Hashkafa and public policy.

3.) The right, responsibility and autonomy of individual rabbis to decide matters of halakha for their communities.

4.) Religious Zionism, recognizing the centrality of the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael) and the State of Israel (Medinat Yisrael) to world Jewry.

5.) Affirming the shared divine image (tzelem Elokim) of all people, our responsibility to improve the world and our capacity to be enriched by it.

Choosing Issues, Choosing Sides

Obviously there exists disagreement as to what it means to define and follow Torah given how even "Orthodox" rabbinic organizations are divided by ideology. However, once an organization issues enough proclamations and statements, we can examine patterns of thought - both in terms of what is said and what is not said - to better determine the true philosophy.

For any new organization the first decisions are the most crucial, since by implication these initial positions reflect the purpose and necessity for the organization's existence. In other words, an organization's first priorities would be to address the very issues which necessitated its formation. While such goals and missions mature and evolve over time, the organization's ideological trajectory and reputation is determined by its initial steps.

While I am one of the first official members of the IRF, I had no hand in its creation, nor am I in any official position to comment on its primary objective beyond what I cited above. It is my opinion and understanding that the IRF was initially formed with two primary motivations. First, to provide a religious professional network for graduates of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT) given the RCA's reluctance to admit them, and as a protest against the RCA's institutional overhaul of Jewish conversions in America. The first issue would be resolved automatically with the IRF's formation, while the second continues to be a work in progress.

It is my sense that other individuals affiliated with IRF would add the issue of including women as part of its primary agenda. After all, if the IRF was formed in part due to the RCA's arbitrary exclusion of YCT graduates, how could the IRF - mostly comprised of YCT graduates - exclude qualified Orthodox women based solely on gender?³ Thus the issue of women could either be seen as an agenda item for the IRF, or integral part of its overall mission.

Politics vs. Halakha

It is important to note that of the two catalysts for the IRF's formation, one concerns halakha while the other is best described as social or political. For many Orthodox Jews social politics are indistinguishable from Torah, but for our purposes this distinction is crucial. If we assume as religious Jews that Torah represents the divine will of God, we cannot confuse the divine Torah with mundane pettiness of social infighting. Thus were we faced with a choice, we should expect those who dedicate their lives as shomrei Torah, guardians of Torah, to prioritize halakha over politics.

As I have described at length, the current treatment of converts in Orthodox Judaism has itself become more political than halakhic. Despite explicit biblical mandates to love and support the convert (Dt. 10:18-19) and prohibitions against oppressing the convert (Ex. 22:2, 23:9), the current challenge for any convert is not that the conversion be done in accordance with Jewish law but if it will be "accepted" by the Orthodox community. When the Israeli Rabbinate reversed its default position to recognize even conversions done by Orthodox rabbis, the RCA abdicated any pretense of defending halakha by capitulating to the Rabbanut, by enacting unprecedented national standards and denying its own membership the ability to judge conversions for themselves. With the RCA prioritizing its political status over halakha, the IRF is perfectly positioned to establish itself as a truly halakhic organization.

In contrast, while converts are a biblically protected class in Judaism, women rabbis are not. Even were we to grant women rabbis equal status as their male counterparts there is no obligation for any individual to accept their authority. Furthermore, according to the Rabbinic system we would expect if not demand any rabbi to forgo his or her honor when the very observance of Torah is at stake based on the principle bimkom sheyeish hillul hashem ein holkin kavod larav - where there is a desecration of God's name we do not appropriate honor to the rabbi. In all rabbinic contexts, these "desecration of God's name" refer to instances where the Torah itself is violated (B. Berachot 19b, B. Sanhedrin 82a, B. Eiruvin 63a). Therefore aside from expecting the IRF to prioritize halakha as a matter of rabbinic principle, there is a rabbinic obligation on all rabbis set aside their egos and honorifics for the sake of Torah.

Resistors, Accommodators, and Halakhic Pragmatists

The next question to consider is if accepting women and conversion reform are in fact mutually exclusive agendas since at face value one issue has nothing to do with the other. While there are numerous positions on this matter, I am personally of the opinion that given the current state of the Jewish community accepting women as rabbinic peers would delegitimize the IRF as an "Orthodox" institution and thus aversely affect any potential in protecting converts. My reasoning is that in reality the social acceptance of conversions is dependant on the reputation of the officiating rabbi (or organization). Rabbis who are considered "straight-shooters" will not have their conversions questioned as much as rabbis who take "controversial" positions. Regardless of the halakhic legitimacy of a conversion, for a convert to be accepted by the Jewish community at large he or she must meet a socially accepted standard.

When a rabbi officiates a conversion, at the moment he signs his name to the conversion document, he creates a bond with that indivudal. Regardless of fairness, his future actions and statements may be scrutinized to the point where the very legitimacy of his observance and qualifications will be called into question, and in turn any conversion which he has overseen. Far from being a hypothetical issue, an Israeli court has already overturned all conversions officiated by Rabbi Chaim Druckman. This is in no way an ideal situation, but in determining halakhic policy, one must consider the realities of the world in which one lives. Therefore in order to educate and advocate for reestablishing the conversion process according to halakha, it is my opinion that unnecessarilly alienating segments of the Jewish community would be irresponsible if not reckless.

Some may consider this position to be one of cowardice and overly concerned with reputation or others' perceptions. Furthermore, since the more right-wing elements will never legitimize insubordinate individuals or organizations, there is no reason to take their opinions into account.

I do believe that the answer to this objection may be found in the precedents of Rabbinic responses to the Tzedukim or Sadducees. A complete analysis of the Sadducees is beyond the scope of this essay, but it is clear they were a sect of Jews who did not follow the Rabbinic legal tradition. Even though this sect participated in the Temple service, the Rabbinic sages disputed their halakhic status as Jews to the extent Sadducees are considered idol worshippers (B. Horayot 11a) or even gentiles (B. Eiruvin 68b).

And yet despite the total delegitimization of the Sadducees, the Sages modified Jewish law in response to their criticisms. In some instances these changes were combative, demonstrating a public rejection of Sadducean philosophy (B. Berachot 45a). In other instances they avoided taking actions which would invite needless ridicule (M. Para 3:3, 3:7) and the great Tanna R. Akiva explicitly exhorted his students, "do not give the Sadducees a reason to rebel!" (B. Yoma 40b). It is not that the Sages were "looking over their shoulder" for acceptance, but they realized that not every battle is worth fighting.

It is crucial to recognize that what appear to be halakhic accomodations to the Sadducees are nothing of the sort. In no instance did the Sages contradict Jewish law by permitting the forbidden nor did they prohibit that which the Torah requires. However, when confronted with their own political challenges, they restricted halakhically legitimate options for the greater good. Just as the Sages prioritized the obligations of Torah - even at the expense of pefectly valid opinions - I would argue that modern day Shomrei Torah should be willing to make such compromises.

Conclusions

Let me conclude by stating that I still do not oppose the admission of qualified women in the IRF, nor am I implying that my current opposition is not subject to change based on social realities. From a professional perspective, I do not reject the opinions or contributions of female colleagues based solely on their gender. I should also add that had the IRF vote gone the other way I would not have resigned; just because I disagree with certain organizational decisions does not preclude me from remaining a member.⁴

However, I am personally disheartened that such discussions are first framed in terms of politics with Torah selectively applied (at best) for the sake of rhetoric. As I stated in the beginning of this essay, the primary function of any rabbinic organization ought to be its unquestioned commitment to Torah, with each halakhic or policy decision framed and defended in such a context. This is not to say that rabbinic organizations should not engage in political discussions - that is a debate for another time - but rather acknowledge that halakha and politics are two matters, and where there is a conflict, Torah ought to emerge as the deciding factor.

For if rabbis cannot put their personal politics, morals, or ethics aside in the name of Torah, how can we in good consience expect others to do so?

1. My expectations to consider women as professional rabbinic colleagues parallel what normally passes for semikah. Specifically, my proposal entailed studying in at least a three year post-collegiate program primarily focusing on halakha (did not matter which area) with at least one year of shimush or professional experience.
2. How well the RCA meets its own expectations is a matter of debate for another time. However, in this essay we will briefly mention one notable failure, specifically regarding the RCA's position regarding conversions.
3. Out of respect for confidentiality I will neither cite nor pretend to speak for proponents of admitting women in the IRF. What I offer here is the most basic explanation given my understanding of the issue and does not necessarily provide a complete argument for the position.
4. Case in point, I am also a member of the RCA.

The post Why I Voted "No": An Essay on Rabbinic Leadership appeared first on YUTOPIA.

If the above seems like an oversimplification, I refer you to my personal hashkafa series, however it should suffice for today's post. I recently received an email from The Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance (JOFA) responding to a recent statement by the Orthodox Union (OU) on the issue of women leading Kabbalat Shabbat services for men. The OU's statement is simple enough:

With regard to the matter of a woman leading Kabbalat Shabbat services before an audience of men and women, the position of the Orthodox Union is that such practice is improper and constitutes an unacceptable breach of Jewish tradition.

JOFA's responded in the form of an article by Dr. Debby Koren, available as a PDF here. From the introduction, we notice that Dr. Koren misses the crucial distinction between Jewish Law and Jewish Policy:

Thus it was disquieting to see a recent statement issued by the Orthodox Union as to the impropriety of a woman leading Kabbalat Shabbat when men are present, and interesting to note that the statement did not include any halakhic discussion or analysis. What are the possible reasons that it would be considered improper for a woman to lead Kabbalat Shabbat services with men present, and for such a practice (in the words of the Orthodox Union) to "constitute an unacceptable breach of Jewish tradition"? We address a number of possible concerns below.

Dr. Koren correctly notes that the OU did not include any "halakhic discussion or analysis." This lacuna is of not only true, but necessary for two important and related reasons. The first is that that OU is itself not a halakhic body, nor to my knowledge does it ever claim to be. Rather, it is the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) which is responsible for determining matters of Jewish Law for the OU. Secondly, the OU's statement did not employ the objective legal language of "assur" forbidden, but rather that it was "improper" and "unacceptable breach of Jewish tradition." These statements are inherently subjective viewpoints relating to Jewish Policy, not Jewish Law. In fact, even RCA member R. Michael J. Broyde's detailed analysis never claimed women leading Kabbalat Shabbat was "forbidden", but rather concluded that it was a point of confusion. In other words, at no point did the RCA or OU issue a statement regarding Jewish Law, but rather Jewish Policy.

Practically speaking the ramifications are less halakhic than they are social. Even assuming an Orthodox approach to Jewish Law, one could easily justify permitting women to parts of the service for men, as Dr. Koren does in her article. However while the OU does not represent all of Orthodox Judaism, it does represent a non-trivial subset. The OU is not the arbiter of what is considered "Orthodox" but rather what is acceptable for its networked organization of synagogues. As such, the OU is free to set whatever policies it wishes for its member synagogues, and if a community wishes to be a part of this organization it has to consider the interests of the greater membership. Thus any synagogue may allow a woman to lead Kabbalat Shabbat and still be considered "Orthodox", but it will have to accept the consequence of not being an OU member community.

This is where the distinction of Jewish Law vs. Jewish Policy becomes essential for meaningful dialogue. Dr. Koren's article, however valid her arguments, is ultimately irrelevant for a discussion regarding inherently subjective organizational public policy.

The post Jewish Law vs. Jewish Policy appeared first on YUTOPIA.

However Jewish society has discriminated against both men and women in leadership positions for generations, often with the communal complicity of self-identified feminists. I am referring here to the expectations and demands of the Rabbi's wife, better known as The Rebbitzen.

The position of Rebbitzen is unusual in that it is more social than an occupation, yet it assumes innumerable obligations to the community. As the son of a longtime pulpit rabbi, I have observed first hand how much my mother did - and does - for the community, often without recognition let alone compensation. Depending on the community, rebbitzens can be expected to do any number of the following tasks:

• Entertain: shopping / cooking / cleaning / playing hostess
• Organize and run shul functions and programs such as events, Shabbat groups / day care, or kiddushes
• Accompany her husband to communal and private functions in an official role
• Train bat mitzvah girls
• Give classes
• Answer halakhic questions
• Provide personal counseling
• Anything else the community demands or expects.

Furthermore, the rebbitzen is often expected to do all these things while raising a family and likely holding down a job on her own.

There are some synagogues which disclose their expectations of the rebbitzen up front in the job description or contract, in which case it is up to the couple to accept or decline the position. But even in these instances, the salary offered by the synagogue rarely takes into account the labor and time required of the rebbitzen in which case she is essentially expected to work for the shul without proper compensation.

This reality would appear to violate the feminist dictum of "equal pay for equal work." As described by the National Organization for Women:

Women still are not receiving equal pay for equal work, let alone equal pay for work of equal value. This disparity not only affects women's spending power, it penalizes their retirement security by creating gaps in Social Security and pensions. [Emphasis Added]

Given that a rebbitzen may perform similar functions as her husband - often providing coverage if the rabbi is indisposed - then it is hard to argue that she is not providing similar value to the congregation with minimal if any payment in return.

While such an arrangement may not be consistent with feminist ideals, it is obviously financially beneficial to the communities. In fact the inequality is continually perpetuated by congregations not only their treatment of the rebbitzen, but even in the search process of a new rabbi. Based on my reading of placement lists, the majority of congregations seeking rabbis will only seriously consider married couples even though being married is not necessary to perform rabbinic duties. Even though this type of discrimination is very likely illegal, congregations often ignore the law and their own sense of purported ethics in the prospect of getting cheap, if not free, labor.¹

My intent is not to disregard the perceptions of gender-inequality in Jewish society - for the moment I will accept them at face value - but I would like to use the example of the rebbitzen to reframe the conversation. For better or worse, the reality is that Jewish culture (and perhaps all cultures) accepts and legitimates various forms of discrimination, and it is hardly rare for individuals to compromise their beliefs when it is expedient to do so. If the goal of a Jewish community is to incline towards egalitarianism, then it must be willing to do so even it is socially and financially inconvenient. Otherwise, Jewish feminist advocacy will be rightly considered by critics as specific issue-driven politics, rather than a commitment to a true ideology of equality.

The post Defending the Rebbitzens appeared first on YUTOPIA.

Let's start at the beginning. Over the past few months Mt. Sinai community had been confronting a new round of controversies with respect to women's role in the synagogue. As the frustrations mounted, many people felt or were insulted, including disrespectful comments directed at R. Schnaidman.

Recognizing that there was a severe breakdown in communication, R. Schnaidman approached the ritual committee requesting a program to discuss the issues. Think about this for a moment: not only does a Rabbi acknowledge a communication problem between himself and his congregants, but proactively suggests a solution which potentially subjects himself to a potentially hostile audience. This degree of integrity is rarely matched by more prominent Rabbis in more prestigious positions.

In preparing for the event, it was essential to have clearly defined and realistic goals. The major purpose was to hold a dialogue, not a debate. Debates are confrontational where one party is forced to defend one's position in the face of rebuttals. Dialogues are discussions meant for people to safely express their opinions. Furthermore, in order to have a constructive and effective dialogue there could not be the expectation of an immediate definitive resolution. While it could have been possible that R. Schnaidman would change his mind on the spot, people could not approach the discussion with this assumption - but only to know there was a forum for the expressing of opinions.

As far as the event itself, I was impressed with the candor, passion, and respect displayed by both the Rabbi and those critical of the shul's existing policies. It helped that some questions were submitted beforehand which enabled an articulate starting point for the discussion. The exchanges were spirited, emotional, intense, occasionally humorous, and most importantly respectful.
Efforts were made to ensure that all questions were answered, and clarifications were requested when necessary. I'm certain some attendees may have been dissatisfied with some of the answers or that R. Schnaidman did not say what they wanted him to say. There was some points for which R. Schnaidman was intentionally evasive, and several for which he responded tzarich iyyun which may actually be a sign of a Hacham (M. Avot 5:6).

In the end the feedback on the whole was positive. Even if people may not have had all their issues addressed or resolved, there seemed to be a genuine appreciation for the discussion. While we are not certain of what practical changes will come of the discussion, I can say that those who would like to see changes made have certainly made a more favorable impression.

The quiet words of the wise are more to be heeded than the shouts of a ruler of fools Kohelet 9:17

The post Anatomy of a Dialogue appeared first on YUTOPIA.

Like all Jewish communities Washington Heights has its share of internal controversies, but rarely do they become publicized. Most discussions on the Maalotwashington message board did not get circulated and at times they were moderated when the discussion happened to get out of hand. In the rare instances that a significant problem arose, we have usually been able to achieve some resolution or at least mutual understanding and do so with minimal fanfare.
But as the community continues to grow and the transient community constantly changes, the internal dynamics will naturally have to adapt. Having more people in the community means more ideas and opinions among the congregation, but fewer outlets for an individual to express them. In Washington Heights this can be particularly frustrating since the community is ideologically diverse (relatively) there are more opinions and perspectives which would be ignored or in some cases suppressed. From the other point of view, it is likely that an established community would have confronted many of the "new" issues at some point and would not wish to repeatedly revisit old arguments every few years given the high turnover of members. The mutual question at hand then becomes how can individuals express themselves, and in turn, how does the community respond.
The past few weeks have been unusually eventful with a heated debate over women speaking in the synagogue and the formation of a new "progressive" minyan. While both could be considered controversial to varying degrees, the discussions surrounding them demonstrate different examples of expression within a religious community.

Let us begin with the issue of women speaking in the synagogue. In an attempt to liven up (and ideally shorten) the tedium of shul announcements, the ritual committee1 decided to hold open auditions in which anyone could volunteer to give the announcements and the members would cast their votes on the shul website. The operative word in the previous sentence is "open," implying anyone could participate. However, it was decided that women should be excluded on the grounds of religious and communal policy, ultimately confirmed by R. Schnaidman.
Naturally, there was opposition to this decision. Not only are there women in the community who would be more than qualified (and entertaining) to make the announcements, but the reasons R. Schnaidman gave for his decision were unsatisfying to say the least. According to one account, quoted and confirmed by Jewess, R. Schnaidman, "...believes that a woman making announcements may create a sexual sort of atmosphere that would be inappropriate for a holy place."
Here is a response posted to the Maalotwashington message board (also via Jewess):

the question is do our male counterparts want to acknowledge our abilities to participate and contribute to the Jewish community? Unfortunately, many are not interested and are willing to hide behind the false guise of misinterpreted or non-existent halakhha [sic] in order to hold the ground of the man's territory, which also happens to be the same sanctuary that us women are supposed to pray and maybe even be included in. Thus far my phone has rung in order to plan and help execute fundraisers and various shul functions. Mt. Sinai is happy to take my time and money as long as the following actions are done behind the scenes.

As could be expected, this comment and blog post was not well received on the message board which quickly devolved into a flame war to the extent that the moderator subsequently blocked the thread.
This is not the first time women have been offended or felt excluded by religious policies in Washington Heights, nor is it the first time religious dialogue has gotten out of hand. When I was an intern at the Bridge shul in 2002, both shuls were reluctant to allow women to have a Sefer Torah for both communal and halakhic reasons.2 For example, the communal arguments were that Breuer's would disapprove or that the shul would get an undesired reputation as "one which had women's hakafot" as its defining characteristic. Others objected to its halakhic permissibility for various reasons. Regardless of either Rabbi's opinions there was also division within the community itself with both men and women taking both sides, and the Rabbis left to find compromise. From personal experiences, one congregent thumped R. Schachter's article from Ikvei Hazton, while others criticized my lack of vocal support in favor of women's rights.3
In the short-term this sort of dialogue only served to increase the tensions in the community - the less said about that year's hakafot the better - but it was an important learning experience for everyone involved. People realized that as the community was changing that there would be new challenges and that interpersonal confrontations would not be the most effective means towards an amenable resolution. Even today the issue of women's hakafot is discussed annually, but both the shul and congregants have improved the tone and atmosphere of the dialogue.
But while the issue of announcements itself has not been as polarizing among the larger community as the hakafot debate, the rhetoric among the individuals has been comparably hostile. Over the message boards both a member of the ritual committee and the Rabbi of the shul were demeaned and this past week there was an ad hominem insult from the auditioning announcer.4 Despite the frustrations involved, this sort of "dialogue" is inexcusable on a personal level and counter-productive communally. This is not only applicable for the shul membership, but certainly for the Rabbi whose job and halakhic responsibility is to define his synagogue's religious policy.5
If the status quo of a synagogue is not optimal for whatever reasons, one is not obligated to attend. This brings us to the new Migdal Ohr minyan which will have its first meeting this Friday night. According to their facebook group profile:

We are a new minyan in Washington Heights that is a reflection of the growing progressive Orthodox spirit in our community.
Our mission is to create a warm, participatory environment dedicated to enhancing kavanah (devotion) and forward mindedness in tefillah (prayer), while working within the context of halacha (Jewish law). Building upon this paradigm, our goal is to foster a spirit of social action within the larger context of Washington Heights. We challenge members to take an active role in their religious expression. This includes, but is not limited to, more participation by all members of the community.

Some people with whom I have spoken have considered this a "break away" minyan from Mt. Sinai, but in fact Migdal Ohr is following also a model well established years ago when the young people began holding regular kabbalat shabbat or mozaei shabbat minyanim in 182 Bennett. Then, as now, there were those who felt dissatisfaction with the existing institutional minyanim and instead of demanding or expecting accommodation they decided to create their own alternative. Neither minyan were formed in opposition to the status quo or to create a schism within the community.6 There were no declarations of independence nor missives against the shuls, but rather there was an open invitation to those who would be interested.
Migdal Ohr's non-confrontational approach is an improvement in that any potential hostility is minimized; they are not attacking anyone so there is no need for defense. Even if someone were to publicly oppose the minyan, I doubt that there would be a retaliatory response. However, I'm not entirely sure that the absence of dialogue entirely is beneficial to the community either. I suspect that given how poorly the announcements were handled that people felt discussion would be pointless. If so, I find that unfortunate.
A community such as Washington Heights can only grow and develop when there is input and activity from the various members. That it has changed as much as it has since I first moved in is a testament to the individuals who put in the time and effort to make the community their own. Just as in conversations one sometimes needs to adjust how one speaks in order to be heard, both the younger members and the synagogues have adapted to each other over time. And while cannot interject in the middle of a conversation with expectations of immediate understanding, remaining silent (or demanding silence) only ensures that a voice would remain stifled.
Despite the current setbacks, I have full confidence that the community will survive mostly because Washington Heights is fortunate to have several talented and intelligent people who know how to handle the diversity of so many different needs and opinions.
As long as people remember how to talk to each other, there will be those around to listen.

1. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a sitting member of Mt. Sinai's ritual committee. It was the decision of the committee to hold the competition, but not on who could or could not participate. Also, let me be clear that I am not writing on behalf the committee. All opinions presented here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other individual committee members or the committee as a whole.
2. Interestingly, R. Schnaidman's position regarding women's announcements is consistent with his approach to women's hakafot. Based on my conversations with him regarding hakafot, R. Schnaidman's concern is that some men could or would stare inappropriately at the women and while this would be bad enough on its own would be far too incongruous when women would have a Torah. But it is important to remember that R. Schnaidman's pesak is not one of halakha per se, but of halakhic policy. R. Schnaidman does not consider women having a sefer Torah or in speaking publicly to be intrinsically prohibited - indeed, women have given shiurim in Mt. Sinai's sanctuary and have in the past delivered divrei torah for seudah shelishit.
3. This led to one of the more amusing exchanges in my internship year. See footnote 7 in my post Understanding Orthodox Judaism.
4. The offending comment could be classified as a "botched joke," but even the intended comment was thoroughly inappropriate. I will not dignify it further by repeating it.
5. On this point, in my discussion with R. Schnaidman I suggested that given today's culture and the maturity of the congregants that the odds of improper thoughts would be minimized. Specifically I referred to the principles in the laws of modesty of "darkan lechasot" (that which is covered) which applies the principles of cultural relativity to the halakhic application. R. Schnaidman agreed with the logic - even reporting that R. Soloveitchik used principle in certain cases - but he had a different social assessment of the congregation, that men (or at least some men) would still react inappropriately.
6. Many Migdal Ohr attendees are members of Mt. Sinai and were in shul for Shaharit.

The post A Voice In The Heights Is Heard appeared first on YUTOPIA.