Reactions from Jews and non-Jews to Ordination of Modern Orthodox Female Rabbi

[Eurydice]

this is a little off topic, but what differentiates modern orthodox judaism from conservative judaism?
if the modern orthodox viewpoint is in opposition to this ordination, could this rabbi be removed or what happens in a situation like this?

I think it’s more a matter of history than anything. I don’t know that I’d put it as simply as meltzerboy, that Modern Orthodox try to keep as many of the 613 commandments as possible; at least, I’m quite sure conservative jews would also say that they are trying to follow as many of the 613 commandments as possible, and to a certain degree reform jews would say the same (but we can argue about that in private ). What’s really at issue is the interpretation of the commandments; for example, it’s not just taht conservative jews think its ok to drive on shabbat, but that the conservative rabbis ruled that driving to synagogue and back (but not just for pleasure or for other purposes) was not a violation of the law. Now, the orthrodox don’t agree with that ruling, of course, but there WAS a ruling that based itself on jewish law.

Historically, the conservative movement broke off from the reform movement when it became clear that the reform movement saw following the law as an individual choice; conservative jews broadly agreed that following the law was not “optional” or a matter of individual choice, but they were not prepared to interpret the law as strictly as the orthodox. Orthodoxy itself developed as an organized body only as a reaction to reform judaism.

 

[Eurydice]

I was quite interested in Sara Hurwitz’s ordination and the upshot of it. I’m hazy as to what exactly the legal barriers on the ordination of women are, but I think it won’t be long until orthodoxy will make some room for official female roles in some sort of rav-like capacity. I can see how it would be against Orthodox interpretation to have a woman lead services in which men participate; but, as has already been said on this thread, you don’t need a rabbi to do that, and that’s not what rabbis traditionally did anyway.

In terms of interpreting law, I don’t see why a woman can’t interpret law as well as a man. That’s not a legal argument, sure, but it works for me. Though I’d be surprised if there was a legal argument against it, seeing as nobody before the 20th century probably thought any woman would even try.

I think I once read an interview with Sara Hurwitz where she said that, legally, a woman rabbi could legally do about 90% of the things that a man rabbi could; only 10% of the male rabbi’s role was technically forbidden for women - and she wasn’t trying to take on that 10%, in her defense.

That being said, I don’t object to women not being ordained priests in Catholicism. Not only is it not my position, as a jew, to have a say in the matter, but I think that these are decisions that have to be made from within the religion and not from outside it. I’d find it objectionable if women could not have ANY positions of authority; but clearly, that’s not the case. I think the same way about orthodox judaism.

 

[meltzerboy]

I think it’s more a matter of history than anything. I don’t know that I’d put it as simply as meltzerboy, that Modern Orthodox try to keep as many of the 613 commandments as possible; at least, I’m quite sure conservative jews would also say that they are trying to follow as many of the 613 commandments as possible, and to a certain degree reform jews would say the same (but we can argue about that in private ). What’s really at issue is the interpretation of the commandments; for example, it’s not just taht conservative jews think its ok to drive on shabbat, but that the conservative rabbis ruled that driving to synagogue and back (but not just for pleasure or for other purposes) was not a violation of the law. Now, the orthrodox don’t agree with that ruling, of course, but there WAS a ruling that based itself on jewish law.

Historically, the conservative movement broke off from the reform movement when it became clear that the reform movement saw following the law as an individual choice; conservative jews broadly agreed that following the law was not “optional” or a matter of individual choice, but they were not prepared to interpret the law as strictly as the orthodox. Orthodoxy itself developed as an organized body only as a reaction to reform judaism.

Thanks for your valuable (name removed by moderator)ut from a Jewish perspective! I did answer 7 Sorrows’ inquiry rather too simply. You’re of course correct when you say Conservative Judaism interprets the Law differently, even though from the Orthodox viewpoint, it misinterprets the Law at best and rejects and distorts it at worst. I also appreciate your pointing out that the Conservative movement was born as a reaction to Reform Judaism’s perceived focus on the individual interpretation of the Law. That individual interpretation is founded among many Reform Jews on the belief that the Torah was not divinely inspired and therefore is not binding in a religious sense albeit it may have cultural value. Still, some in Reform Judaism pick and choose certain ritual teachings in a very basic way, such as refraining from eating pork and seafood, while disregarding all the other myriad rules of kashrut. Even so, much of the halacha are viewed as optional. Could you further explain your last statement regarding Orthodox Judaism’s development in reaction to Reform Judaism? I had thought it merely considered Reform Judaism in heretical terms as a distraction, similar to Conservative Judaism, without too much distinction between the two movements. Are you suggesting there has been an additional push, primarily among Jewish youth, to foster Orthodoxy, as a result of many Jews of each successive generation becoming further removed from or leaving the religion altogether?

 

[meltzerboy]

I was quite interested in Sara Hurwitz’s ordination and the upshot of it. I’m hazy as to what exactly the legal barriers on the ordination of women are, but I think it won’t be long until orthodoxy will make some room for official female roles in some sort of rav-like capacity. I can see how it would be against Orthodox interpretation to have a woman lead services in which men participate; but, as has already been said on this thread, you don’t need a rabbi to do that, and that’s not what rabbis traditionally did anyway.

In terms of interpreting law, I don’t see why a woman can’t interpret law as well as a man. That’s not a legal argument, sure, but it works for me. Though I’d be surprised if there was a legal argument against it, seeing as nobody before the 20th century probably thought any woman would even try.

I think I once read an interview with Sara Hurwitz where she said that, legally, a woman rabbi could legally do about 90% of the things that a man rabbi could; only 10% of the male rabbi’s role was technically forbidden for women - and she wasn’t trying to take on that 10%, in her defense.

That being said, I don’t object to women not being ordained priests in Catholicism. Not only is it not my position, as a jew, to have a say in the matter, but I think that these are decisions that have to be made from within the religion and not from outside it. I’d find it objectionable if women could not have ANY positions of authority; but clearly, that’s not the case. I think the same way about orthodox judaism.

Interesting point about the preponderance of things a female rabbi would legally be able to do and capable of doing. On the other hand, that 10% of tasks she is forbidden to perform may, arguably, be considered as limiting her full and proper functioning as a rabbi. Insofar as the role of women in Judaism, as you know, traditionally in the modern era (but not necessarily in ancient times), women’s religious and spiritual role is to sanctify the home: preparing for Sabbath, Holy Days, and festivals, keeping a kosher home, and so on. At the same time, Traditional Orthodox Jewish women attend their own yeshivas, are learned in Torah, and work outside the home, all of which satisfy the legal requirements of Judaic Law.

 

[Eurydice]

Thanks for your valuable (name removed by moderator)ut from a Jewish perspective! I did answer 7 Sorrows’ inquiry rather too simply. You’re of course correct when you say Conservative Judaism interprets the Law differently, even though from the Orthodox viewpoint, it misinterprets the Law at best and rejects and distorts it at worst. I also appreciate your pointing out that the Conservative movement was born as a reaction to Reform Judaism’s perceived focus on the individual interpretation of the Law. That individual interpretation is founded among many Reform Jews on the belief that the Torah was not divinely inspired and therefore is not binding in a religious sense albeit it may have cultural value. Still, some in Reform Judaism pick and choose certain ritual teachings in a very basic way, such as refraining from eating pork and seafood, while disregarding all the other myriad rules of kashrut. Even so, much of the halacha are viewed as optional. Could you further explain your last statement regarding Orthodox Judaism’s development in reaction to Reform Judaism? I had thought it merely considered Reform Judaism in heretical terms as a distraction, similar to Conservative Judaism, without too much distinction between the two movements. Are you suggesting there has been an additional push, primarily among Jewish youth, to foster Orthodoxy, as a result of many Jews of each successive generation becoming further removed from or leaving the religion altogether?

Yes, thanks for mentioning that the reform notion of individual interpretation is also complicated.

Well, what I meant by Orthodox Judaism’s development is the movement itself, not its principles. Obviously, the principles of Orthodoxy were around, but only when Reform Judaism created its own “interpretation” of Judaism (that’s a bad way of putting it, but I can’t find a better one at the moment) did those who opposed Reform Judaism have to say no, we stand for x and y principles - after which, you could only be an Orthodox Jew if you followed x and y principles. Before that, there were only stricter and looser interpretation of the law (and all of these interpretations were orthodox, in the sense that they were accepted by everyone as one possible valid position) - and people were either more stringent or less stringent in their adherence to the law. But everyone prayed at the same temple, for example, with the same liturgy, etc.

As far as I know that’s still mostly the case in the Sephardic community - people are more stringent or less stringent, but they’re all sephardic jews, full stop, no further denominational explanations necessary.

I find it kind of sad, personally, that denominations have become so overwhelmingly important. I’d much rather we all agree that there’s law, and whether we interpret it more or less loosely - and whether or not we abide by every stringency in the book - it’s still our law, and we’re all still Jews. But that’s just me.

I hope that made more sense - I’d love to hear your thoughts, as well.

 

[Eurydice]

Interesting point about the preponderance of things a female rabbi would legally be able to do and capable of doing. On the other hand, that 10% of tasks she is forbidden to perform may, arguably, be considered as limiting her full and proper functioning as a rabbi. Insofar as the role of women in Judaism, as you know, traditionally in the modern era (but not necessarily in ancient times), women’s religious and spiritual role is to sanctify the home: preparing for Sabbath, Holy Days, and festivals, keeping a kosher home, and so on. At the same time, Traditional Orthodox Jewish women attend their own yeshivas, are learned in Torah, and work outside the home, all of which satisfy the legal requirements of Judaic Law.

Yes, I went searching for that interview, but didn’t find it. I don’t remember if she said what specifically she couldn’t do, and I don’t know enough to venture a guess as to what she meant.

I don’t know. I’m hesitant to say what I think - which would be that of course she can be a rabbi - because I’m not Orthodox, so obviously my opinion is different (and wouldn’t matter, legally speaking). But I think even Orthodox-wise, there ought to be room for women to take on some of the roles mostly reserved for rabbis: e.g., teaching Torah and Talmud, giving their opinion on law (perhaps specifically on matters pertaining to women?), and so on. Now, whether such women should have the title of “rabbi” if they can’t technically perform all the duties of a rabbi - that, I think, is a different question, and to that I would answer that absolutely they should have a different title - if that’s the only problem, here.

Is the problem that she’s taken on the duties of a rabbi, or that she’s taken on the name of “rabba”?

 

[Catherine_k]

I was quite interested in Sara Hurwitz’s ordination and the upshot of it. I’m hazy as to what exactly the legal barriers on the ordination of women are, but I think it won’t be long until orthodoxy will make some room for official female roles in some sort of rav-like capacity. I can see how it would be against Orthodox interpretation to have a woman lead services in which men participate; but, as has already been said on this thread, you don’t need a rabbi to do that, and that’s not what rabbis traditionally did anyway.

In terms of interpreting law, I don’t see why a woman can’t interpret law as well as a man. That’s not a legal argument, sure, but it works for me. Though I’d be surprised if there was a legal argument against it, seeing as nobody before the 20th century probably thought any woman would even try.

Rashi’s daughters were HIGHLY educated in Jewish law…
I think I once read an interview with Sara Hurwitz where she said that, legally, a woman rabbi could legally do about 90% of the things that a man rabbi could; only 10% of the male rabbi’s role was technically forbidden for women - and she wasn’t trying to take on that 10%, in her defense.

 

[7_Sorrows]

7 Sorrows, the title of Rabbi may be taken away from her and in effect she can be removed. Modern Orthodox Jews are more orthodox than Conservative Jews, which means they keep as many of the 613 Torah commandments as possible. For example, a Conservative Jew might drive to the synagogue on the Sabbath and carry money, although they would not go to work, go shopping or to a party, whereas a Modern Orthodox Jew (as a Traditional Orthodox or a Chasidic Jew) would walk to the synagogue and not carry money. One difference between Modern Orthodox and Traditional Orthodox is that yeshivas of the former are co-educational and those of the latter are single-sex. Also, I don’t believe Chasidic or Litvish Jews even have yeshivas for women, but that may have changed. Some followers of Orthodox Judaism believe that ALL Jews are Orthodox since they don’t accept the branches of Conservative or Reform. For them, it’s a matter of degree: some are more Orthodox, while others are less so. They prefer the label Torah Judaism to Orthodox Judaism. The term Ultra-Orthodox is regarded by Chasidic and Litvish Jews as derogatory.

thank you for taking the time to explain this. very interesting. would the modern orthodox
also have to have two refrigerators for dairy and meat like the orthodox? most conservative Jews that i knew did drive to the synagogue. my hebrew teacher was born in canada and raised orthodox, but she later became a member of reform judaism.
in reference to the female rabbi, i was wondering if the itle of rabbi could be removed. in the Catholic church, if women try to be ordained or have their own ordination ceremony, they are excommunicated. probably, they would not go to that extreme in judaism.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Yes, thanks for mentioning that the reform notion of individual interpretation is also complicated.

Well, what I meant by Orthodox Judaism’s development is the movement itself, not its principles. Obviously, the principles of Orthodoxy were around, but only when Reform Judaism created its own “interpretation” of Judaism (that’s a bad way of putting it, but I can’t find a better one at the moment) did those who opposed Reform Judaism have to say no, we stand for x and y principles - after which, you could only be an Orthodox Jew if you followed x and y principles. Before that, there were only stricter and looser interpretation of the law (and all of these interpretations were orthodox, in the sense that they were accepted by everyone as one possible valid position) - and people were either more stringent or less stringent in their adherence to the law. But everyone prayed at the same temple, for example, with the same liturgy, etc.

As far as I know that’s still mostly the case in the Sephardic community - people are more stringent or less stringent, but they’re all sephardic jews, full stop, no further denominational explanations necessary.

I find it kind of sad, personally, that denominations have become so overwhelmingly important. I’d much rather we all agree that there’s law, and whether we interpret it more or less loosely - and whether or not we abide by every stringency in the book - it’s still our law, and we’re all still Jews. But that’s just me.

I hope that made more sense - I’d love to hear your thoughts, as well.

in regards to your last paragraph, i also think it is sad that we have so many denominations in judaism and and the same goes for christianity. it would be nice if everyone could agree on the same interpretation. hopefully, judaism will never have as many denominations as christianity. if i had my way, i would wish that all christians could believe in the Catholic faith.