It's interesting that despite the strong participation from both men and
women on this mailing list, only one (private) response to my previous post
on this subject came from a woman. The writer was Conservative, and
inspired the following clarification: I have no particular trouble with
women as Rabbis or other full participants in non-Orthodox movements. There
was and is still male chauvenism in society, and if one does not believe
that G-d gave both the written and Oral Torahs, then one has no reason
_not_ to believe that chauvenistic men created the laws. So our
disagreement is about the fundamental nature of Torah, not about women's
prayer groups!
The remainder of my post is therefore concerned with a Halachic
perspective, and is at least as relevant to an understanding of the
Halachic process overall, as it is to this specific issue. For though my
first effort on this topic attempted to point out a certain
self-contradiction within women's Tefillah groups from a feminist's own
perspective, the objections (as received from other men) have concerned
primarily Halachic issues, and it is to these that I wish to respond.
As Rabbi Michael Broyde pointed out, there is a difference between the
technical issues - what a group of women can do when they pray - and the
issue of what practices might be prohibited in a group from a Torah
Hashkafic perspective. It is primarily the latter issue that is actively
debated, and to my understanding, the Halachic opinions expressed do not
depend on whether or not there is a minyan for men available.
Adam Szpiro termed my last post on the topic "[my] personal opinion as to
why women's tefilah groups are inappropriate." Juxtaposed against a defense
of Rabbi Avi Weiss, this could give the mistaken impression that Rabbi
Weiss represents the majority view. I may have explained the issues - the
"why" - in my own words, but I do not merit a personal opinion on Halachic
issues of this nature, and would not express that which I do not have.
In the Torah, Parshas Yisro, Yisro gave his son-in-law Moshe some valuable
advice. He saw that Moshe was responsible for judging the entire nation,
and realized that the job could not be done by one individual. He suggested
that Moshe create a system using "ministers of thousands, ministers of
hundreds, ministers of fifties, and ministers of tens. And they will judge
the nation at all times, and it will be that they will bring you every
great thing, and judge themselves every small thing, and lighten [the
burden] from upon you and lift it with you." [Exodus 18:21-22]
Clearly, in order for a system such as this to function properly, each
judge must recognize where he fits. According to the numbers of judges
provided by Rashi (600 ministers of thousands, vs. 60,000 ministers of
tens), it is clear that each minister of tens was himself under the
authority of the ministers of hundreds, etc. One of my own teachers once
spoke at some length about this topic; how after Moshe's lifetime, we had a
Sanhedrin, and after them the few leading scholars of each generation - the
ministers of "revavos," or tens of thousands. He also spoke of the great
troubles created not only by ministers of hundreds who fancied themselves
ministers of thousands, but even by ministers of thousands who fancied
themselves ministers of revavos.
Adam and my friend Chaim Frazer both asked how I could possibly question
Rabbi Weiss' Halachic opinion without reading his book. The answer is
derived entirely from the above. First, let me say that when I referred to
Rabbi Weiss as a "PR maven," I was attempting to avoid any judgment of him
either positive or negative - no one questions his central role in keeping
the issue of Jonathan Pollard on the public agenda.
Nonetheless, this does not make him a leading Halachic authority. Reading
the book would not change that. Reading the book might offer me evidence
that Rabbi Weiss knows how to learn, knows how to think, knows how to
write. But an issue such as the one we are discussing, a Halachic ruling
with global impact, is not to be made by ministers of tens, hundreds or
even thousands - but by the ministers of revavos. Even the most convincing
presentation cannot give one who is not a minister of revavos the "last
word on the subject." And I do not believe myself qualified to judge
whether a given writer is a Halachic authority or minister of revavos,
based upon reading his book.
We know the ministers of revavos, not by reading their books, but by
consulting our more knowledgeable teachers, ministers of hundreds. And they
consult theirs, the ministers of thousands - and _they_ tell us who are
ministers of revavos. Rabbi Weiss is not one of them. Neither are those
individuals listed by Adam from the book's dust jacket, though they may be
beloved leaders of holy Jewish congregations.
But we know who our leaders are, and we can learn their opinions. We need
not even ask about the positions of leading Halachic authorities in Israel
such as Rabbi S.Z. Auerbach zt"l, or ylc"t Rabbi Y.S. Elyashiv or Rabbi
C.P. Scheinberg, or about those of the leading Lithuanian and Chassidic
Rabbis in this country. Is the name of Rabbi Herschel Schachter, Rosh
Kollel of Yeshiva University, found on the dust jacket? No, because he and
four other Roshei Yeshivos of Yeshiva University, students of Rav
Soloveitchik zt"l, issued a ruling expressing their absolute opposition to
groups of this nature.
Chaim Frazer wrote:
>I think this is somewhat unfair. Having read Rabbi Weiss' book, I can tell
>you that he recounts conversations that he had on this matter with Rav
Yosef >Dov Soloveitchik, zt'l, and his understanding of Rav Moshe
Feinstein, zt'l. >In the latter case, Rabbi Weiss clarified his views of
Rav Moshe with Rabbi >Mordecai Tendler, Rav Moshe's grandson and personal
assistant, and reports >the results of Rabbi Tendler's responses to him.
It's upsetting, but people hear what they want to hear. Concerning Rav
Soloveitchik, it is clear what his leading Talmidim (students) say, as
mentioned above. Concerning Rabbi Moshe Feinstein zt"l via ylc"t Rav
Mordechai Tendler shlit"a, it has just been my pleasure to converse with
the latter on this subject. I wanted to be certain that the Igros Moshe,
Orach Chaim 4, Siman 49, applies in this case. It does, as Rav Tendler
wrote to Reb Meir Fund thirteen years ago.
In that Teshuvah, Reb Moshe discusses the attempt to move Women's
Liberation from the workplace - where there is real chauvenism - to the
synagogue. He emphasizes that any differences between men and women's
obligations in Judaism are _not_ because women are in any way "less" or
"lower" than men in levels of holiness, or anything of this nature.
"Judaism is not chauvenistic," said Reb Mordechai. "This isn't to say that
there aren't chauvenistic Jews, but they get that from the surrounding
culture, not from the Torah."
But at any rate, the discussion there concerns women wearing a Tallis,
which is a "doubly optional" Mitzvah. A Mitzvah! Because there is benefit
to doing even an optional Mitzvah, "it is possible for a woman who so
desires to wear a garment which is different from the garments of men, but
which has four corners, and to place Tzitzis upon it in order to fulfill
this Mitzvah." But then he adds, several lines later: "However, it is
obvious that this only applies where her heart desires to fulfill even a
Mitzvah which she has not been commanded to perform, but because their
intention is not this, but rather emanates from their complaint against
HaShem and His Torah, this is no Mitzvah action at all, but rather quite
the opposite, a transgression..."
What is Reb Moshe z"l saying? That with pure motivations, it _is_ possible
to find a woman who puts on a four cornered garment with Tzitzis, and does
a Mitzvah. But it's rare - and in that case, the woman would feel no
special inclination to have a Tallis that looked anything like men's.
Concerning the women who put on a man's Tallis, it is appropriate "to
object... to not change any item of the holy customs of Israel."
Now again, communal prayer is - for men - a Rabbinic edict. Not even a
Torah Mitzvah. So is it _possible_ to find a woman who wants to create a
similar structure for women? Reb Mordechai took a liberal view - he said
yes! Ah, but it's not likely that you could find ten such people in the
entire country, much less one city. You need a holy and pious woman who
knows all of Tanach (the Bible) and Sifrei Mussar (books of Jewish ethics),
who is exceptional in charity, visiting the sick, and everything else - and
_still_ wants more.
Are those the participants in these groups? Honestly? Is that their
motivation, or is it the novelty of it... or even, as Reb Moshe said, a
complaint against Judaism because they really don't understand the beauty
of G-d's Torah? Reb Mordechai in his own words: "you don't institutionalize
novelty... We don't get our kicks out of modifying Minhagei Yisrael [the
customs of Israel]." As his grandfather said, we must object.
This is entirely borne out by Chaim Frazer's experience with the women's
Tefillah group in his hometown - as he himself noted, the educated
daughters of the "strongest adherents" do not participate. "I suspect that
this phenomenon appeals to a very small section of the Orthodox community,"
he wrote, "one which does not have the experience of a thorough Jewish
education. Most of those girls and young women who do not have an interest
repeat almost verbatim the substantive comments and objections that Rav
Menken mentioned in the rest of his message as their basis for non-interest."
So why did Rabbi Weiss understand Rabbi Tendler as permitting these groups?
Because if you want to learn the Halacha, you learn the Halacha. "If you're
looking to hang your hat, you find a nail." Reb Mordechai's own statement
on this subject. Hardly a ringing endorsement.
Adam Szpiro wrote:
>(2) Rabbi Menken describes women's tefilah groups as "pale imitations
[sans >Kaddish or Kedushah (in more ways than one)] ..." (of minyans). I
limit >myself to requesting that Rabbi Menken clarify the above comment.
What are >the multiple ways in which women's tefilah groups lack Kedushah?
Kedushah means holiness. Colloquially, it also refers to the declaration of
G-d's holiness found in the Chazzan's repetition of the Amidah prayer -
which is done only with a minyan of ten. So clearly, this latter is lacking
in a "women's Tefillah group." According to Reb Moshe z"l, any participant
who is not in the
holy-and-righteous-and-knowing-all-Tanach-and-Mussar-and-kind-and-charitable
-and-constantly-visiting-the-sick-and-burying-the-dead-and-still-wants-more
category (phew!) is doing not a Mitzvah, but a transgression. It's bad
enough to do a transgression - you want the Divine Presence to show up, too?!
>(3) It appears to me that the main thrust of Rabbi Menken's post is that
>women's tefilah groups do not represent an authentic way for women to
>achieve spiritual meaning. ... I >offer a potential answer to Rabbi
Menken's charge: There are multiple >dimensions to the religious
significance of the standard communal prayer >service. ... intensified
kavvanah, praying together with >coreligionists (regardless of quantity or
gender), and creating a sense of >human community. ... women's >tefilah
groups afford a unique opportunity to emphasize the more human >qualities
of communal prayer.
It must be clarified what advantage such services would have over a
communal Tehillim (Psalm) reading, such as those sponsored by the KEY
organization (an unaffiliated effort by women to increase love among Jews).
It would appear that the latter activity has the advantage: what _they_ are
doing fulfills Reb Moshe's criterium - that it be "different from the
garments of men!" And indeed, if you would look at the participants, you
would see that many participants in Tehillim groups are far, far closer to
the type which, according to Reb Mordechai, might have a legitimate claim
to desiring a "Tefillah group." And yet, they do something entirely different.
Yaakov Menken