![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Nov. 5th, 2015 01:22 pmI am still thinking about the RCA resolution about female clergy. I mean, let me state unequivocably that I don't like it, but the why of it is still complex and uncertain for me. And I also think people less knowledgeable than me are misinterpreting it.
So let me start by saying that no side of this debate is denying that women are capable of being effective and important scholars of Torah and leaders of the Jewish people. There are right-wing Jews, I think, who believe that, but I have not seen it from anyone in this debate. The historical facts don't support that kind of contention, so anyone making that argument is living in denial, but I don't think I need spend much time refuting it. Women have always been important scholars and leaders in the Jewish community, in spite of the lack of official acknowledgement.
Given that this is the case, the confusing thing for me is whether this is an argument about whether women can hold authority positions or an argument over whether women can be given titles of authority, or both. In other words, is the question "Can women be appointed as the leader of a Jewish community?" or is the question "Can women be given smicha?" The RCA, apparently conflicted, is muddled in their resolution, which is the third by the group in five years on the subject.
This distinction is not semantic for a few reasons, the first being that the titles often are not associated with the functions, in several important ways. First, ordained Rabbis may serve in positions that don't offer community authority such as pastoral counseling, education, outreach, administrative positions, etc... Positions that in general nobody involved in the dispute thinks women can't perform. However, the possession of Rabbinic ordination may bolster their credentials for these positions. So that if the question is just about the authority, then it's incumbent on the RCA to design programs to give women the credentials they need to serve in these positions without giving them credentials to serve as communal authorities.
And there are also Jewish communities that function without a Rabbi, led effectively by lay leaders. So if the question is just about smicha, then it's incumbent on the RCA to provide training to women to lead communities effectively without smicha.
And if the question is about both, the RCA needs to explain why, because the resolution doesn't.
And those are my thoughts, but I feel like it's the wrong tone for this blog, because most of the readers of this blog are not frum Jews or knowledgeable about the frum world. And I usually try to put a lot more context in my posts about religion, for that reason, and also to spend a lot more time justifying the ways in which my religious outlook is different from people who aren't observant Jews.
So here's a little more: Traditional Judaism is premised on the idea of mitzvot- commandments. We follow God's commandments because they are God's commandments and because our tradition says that an all-knowing, merciful God has a plan for Creation that we are part of. We often don't understand these commandments and we often find that these commandments seem to burden us, and it is incumbent on us as observant Jews to do them anyway, in spite of our lack of understanding.
I am not certain that the Torah forbids female Rabbis or 'Maharats' or female communal authorities, but I know that it is the opinion of some of the most important figures in the line of transmission that the Torah does. The Rambam, for example, in a quotation I've seen a bunch in this debate, says "We may not appoint a woman as king. When describing the monarchy, the Torah employs the male form of the word king and not the female.This principle also applies to all other positions of authority within Israel. Only men should be appointed to fill them."
Rambam doesn't say anything here that I can easily object to. He doesn't make some assertion about female capability to lead, he doesn't make any claims about male capability to follow female authority, he just says that as he reads the Torah, this is the law. I don't like this law, and for all I know, Rambam may not like it either, but Torah as a system doesn't weigh my enjoyment or comfort in making decisions.
On the other hand, of course, there are halachic authorities who find other ways to read the same verses. I am not endorsing the Rambam's opinion, just noting its weight.
The RCA, though, is a different story. Their responsibility is not merely to Halacha, their responsibility is to the communities they serve. If their conviction is that the halacha is unambiguously opposed to gender equality in leadership, they need to find a way to communicate a Judaism that functions within the bounds of halacha and still offers meaning and value to the women within the community who are struggling within those bounds. And the resolution they offered is an absolute failure on those terms.
So let me start by saying that no side of this debate is denying that women are capable of being effective and important scholars of Torah and leaders of the Jewish people. There are right-wing Jews, I think, who believe that, but I have not seen it from anyone in this debate. The historical facts don't support that kind of contention, so anyone making that argument is living in denial, but I don't think I need spend much time refuting it. Women have always been important scholars and leaders in the Jewish community, in spite of the lack of official acknowledgement.
Given that this is the case, the confusing thing for me is whether this is an argument about whether women can hold authority positions or an argument over whether women can be given titles of authority, or both. In other words, is the question "Can women be appointed as the leader of a Jewish community?" or is the question "Can women be given smicha?" The RCA, apparently conflicted, is muddled in their resolution, which is the third by the group in five years on the subject.
This distinction is not semantic for a few reasons, the first being that the titles often are not associated with the functions, in several important ways. First, ordained Rabbis may serve in positions that don't offer community authority such as pastoral counseling, education, outreach, administrative positions, etc... Positions that in general nobody involved in the dispute thinks women can't perform. However, the possession of Rabbinic ordination may bolster their credentials for these positions. So that if the question is just about the authority, then it's incumbent on the RCA to design programs to give women the credentials they need to serve in these positions without giving them credentials to serve as communal authorities.
And there are also Jewish communities that function without a Rabbi, led effectively by lay leaders. So if the question is just about smicha, then it's incumbent on the RCA to provide training to women to lead communities effectively without smicha.
And if the question is about both, the RCA needs to explain why, because the resolution doesn't.
And those are my thoughts, but I feel like it's the wrong tone for this blog, because most of the readers of this blog are not frum Jews or knowledgeable about the frum world. And I usually try to put a lot more context in my posts about religion, for that reason, and also to spend a lot more time justifying the ways in which my religious outlook is different from people who aren't observant Jews.
So here's a little more: Traditional Judaism is premised on the idea of mitzvot- commandments. We follow God's commandments because they are God's commandments and because our tradition says that an all-knowing, merciful God has a plan for Creation that we are part of. We often don't understand these commandments and we often find that these commandments seem to burden us, and it is incumbent on us as observant Jews to do them anyway, in spite of our lack of understanding.
I am not certain that the Torah forbids female Rabbis or 'Maharats' or female communal authorities, but I know that it is the opinion of some of the most important figures in the line of transmission that the Torah does. The Rambam, for example, in a quotation I've seen a bunch in this debate, says "We may not appoint a woman as king. When describing the monarchy, the Torah employs the male form of the word king and not the female.This principle also applies to all other positions of authority within Israel. Only men should be appointed to fill them."
Rambam doesn't say anything here that I can easily object to. He doesn't make some assertion about female capability to lead, he doesn't make any claims about male capability to follow female authority, he just says that as he reads the Torah, this is the law. I don't like this law, and for all I know, Rambam may not like it either, but Torah as a system doesn't weigh my enjoyment or comfort in making decisions.
On the other hand, of course, there are halachic authorities who find other ways to read the same verses. I am not endorsing the Rambam's opinion, just noting its weight.
The RCA, though, is a different story. Their responsibility is not merely to Halacha, their responsibility is to the communities they serve. If their conviction is that the halacha is unambiguously opposed to gender equality in leadership, they need to find a way to communicate a Judaism that functions within the bounds of halacha and still offers meaning and value to the women within the community who are struggling within those bounds. And the resolution they offered is an absolute failure on those terms.