In Response to “Exclusion That Creates Mediocrity”

Originally published: May 12, 2026

This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.

Article Contents

In Response to “Exclusion That Creates Mediocrity”

By Rabbi Michael Abraham, Parashat Mishpatim issue

Courageous and Cautious Steps

Let me begin by saying that despite disagreements on various issues, Rabbi Abraham is one of my teachers and mentors. He ushered me into the gates of in-depth Talmud study as part of the Talmud study program for doctoral students at the women’s study hall at Bar-Ilan University. His contribution to Torah study for women is great, and the significant issue he raised in the previous issue was raised by someone who knows it very well from within. And now to my reservations.

Rabbi Abraham presents an approach according to which one should distinguish between first-order legal decision-making and second-order legal decision-making, and argues that the prohibition on appointing a woman to positions of authority stems from second-order decision-making and can therefore be changed as reality changes. This approach undermines the foundations of halakhic decision-making from generation to generation, which grants great weight to the rulings of the sages of the generations, early and later authorities alike. No one disputes that the Mishnah and the Talmud have a different normative rank from those who came after them, but the accepted halakhic conception is that each generation of sages interpreted and applied the views of its predecessors. Legal ruling proceeds directly from the later generations, and one cannot shrug them off and lightly leap backward.

Rabbi Abraham noted that strong halakhic-interpretive arguments are required in order to depart from the sources, yet he did not shoulder the burden of examining the sources and their interpretations in depth and making the necessary distinctions. Instead, he was satisfied with raising general questions about the legal midrashim that establish the basic principles in this issue, and from there hurried to reach far-reaching legal conclusions.

I also want to address Rabbi Abraham’s description of reality, according to which women’s achievements in study are rather “poor.” Unfortunately, my experience is similar, but I would not presume to set that in stone with regard to women who study Torah in general. I also share his view that, in the absence of a worthy professional horizon, it is difficult to expect a change in the situation. Even so, I think that viewing women’s Torah-study achievements only through the prism of classical yeshiva-style scholarship misses the point.

Of course, scholarship is very important for cultivating a Torah scholar of real stature, but it is not for nothing that we see more and more heads of yeshivot and Torah scholars for whom yeshiva-style scholarship is not necessarily their strong point, yet they shape the path and worldview of their students thanks to the scope of their legal knowledge and/or their developed spiritual-intellectual world, which serves as a source of inspiration. True, one can argue that this cheapens the institution of the rabbinate, but it seems that this phenomenon arises from a genuine need of the public, which seeks answers to its diverse religious dimensions through spiritual leaders of differing character.

Many women can fit into these niches. Even if they have not managed to reach an impressive level of yeshiva-style scholarship, they possess extensive legal knowledge, and they can certainly contribute in a generation in which commitment to Jewish law is steadily weakening. Quite a few women are already contributing greatly to the strengthening and deepening of the spiritual-intellectual world for which so many yearn.

In conclusion, I would like to offer another point of view—softer and more inclusive. When a child is only beginning to walk or speak, we are excited and encourage him for every small step, because we know how much effort it requires of him, and how important it is to encourage him so that he will dare to take the next steps. Let us value with the same appreciation the courageous and cautious steps of women in the Torah world, even if, in a sober view, this is not yet a fully ripened product.

Shifra Mishlov

Dr. Shifra Mishlov is director of the Jewish Law Clinic at Bar-Ilan University

————–

Please Help Us

I believe that many of Rabbi Abraham’s assessments do not withstand the test of reality (neither regarding the level of the women nor regarding the level of the men), but above all I believe that the points he identifies as responsible for the situation are not the main thing. True, the absence of platforms for publication is a problem. So too is the absence of a worthy professional horizon, and a sufficient scholarly horizon for long-term study. There are not enough frameworks, not enough work in the field, and no platforms for developing writing. But platforms for publication are only the merest tip of a far more threatening iceberg—the religious education system.

Among women of my generation there are talented women who conquered impressive heights in science, medicine, and law. They never dreamed of directing their talents to the world of Torah. Only a few insisted on walking a hard road with no paved path at all, and many of them, once they reached a dead end, directed their energies to academia. It seems as though the situation has improved since then, but this is true only for a small group of women. The possibility of Torah study has not broken into the broad consciousness of women and girls from Dan to Eilat.

Women who study Torah did not study Torah, Talmud, and Jewish law during their many years in the education system. More than that: they were educated, both explicitly and implicitly, that this was not for them, and that it was better left to men. I will not discuss here the many private and supplementary frameworks from which boys benefit in the community, but I will point a finger at the formal education system. Even today, still, the default setting of the religious education system is that women do not need deep religious-legal training, and that the girls’ curriculum in the Oral Torah is fundamentally different from that of the boys.

And what will happen in the next generation?

The best girls’ religious high schools educate our best daughters to become judges, scientists, and physicians. The best of these schools continue to argue that “girls do not need to study Talmud,” while to their brothers, who complain about the burden of studies, they explain that “Talmud is the basis of everything. For observing Jewish law, for fear of Heaven. For everything.” Some of these wonderful girls will courageously make their way into the world of Torah for which their souls yearn. Despite having completed twelve years of study in impressive religious institutions (and even paid expensive tuition), they will have to feel like Rabbi Akiva in his day, encountering for the first time what every child already learns at age ten. Is it really fair to expect them to be like Rabbi Akiva?

I agree with Rabbi Michael Abraham that female religious leadership is an unavoidable necessity. Women need a female address. They thirst for it. They need learned and knowledgeable leaders. The decision to continue excluding girls from Talmud study at a young age harms our resilience as a religious society.

Please, help us. Start at the root. Do not withhold Torah from us and from our daughters. We will all pay the price.

Tamar Meir

Dr. Tamar Meir is head of the community study hall for women “Kulana” in Givat Shmuel and a member of the Beit Hillel organization of rabbis and women rabbis

———- An Impressive Achievement Rabbi Abraham points to the lack of professional and academic horizons as possible causes of mediocrity. In my view, the difficulties are much deeper: women’s advanced analytic study is a very new process. The advanced Talmud and Jewish law programs are only now beginning to celebrate their second decade, and even they are only programs: a course of study lasting several years in a structured framework, at the end of which one faces a choice between teaching in high school and academia. And indeed, many choose academia, and there they excel in research and writing, in articles whose character is academic rather than Torah-oriented. But whereas the women who integrate very successfully into all areas of academia entered academia itself, this is not so in Torah study. The women’s Torah world is not connected to the world of the yeshivot. This is a new world that must be created ex nihilo. The women who are blazing a trail in the tracks of advanced analytic and legal study have to walk an unpaved road, without personal study encounters with leading rabbis, without a yeshiva framework that allows continuous study over years and includes daily encounters with rabbis, teachers, and advanced study partners who serve as role models. Women must start from scratch in motivation, breadth of knowledge, and skills as well, without the guidance that for men begins already in kindergarten. Moreover, while dedicating oneself to analytic and legal study requires placing the Orthodox Torah world at the center of one’s life, an overwhelming majority of rabbis strongly oppose this study. How many men would enter a kollel for rabbinical judges if the overwhelming majority of rabbis opposed it? Therefore, when we are speaking of a mere handful who have reached significant achievements, that seems to me an impressive achievement. Opposite those few, Rabbi Abraham speaks of “women rabbis sprouting like mushrooms after the rain.” Really? Could we not count even those women rabbis with ease? To the best of my knowledge, there are no more than a few dozen women studying in advanced programs in the entire country, and the overwhelming majority do not see themselves as women rabbis. I see the sweeping declaration of mediocrity as the other side of the same impatience of those who hurry to declare women rabbis out of a desire for explicit equality. In both cases there is a certain disregard for the very preliminary point that we are in a long process still required in order to reach significant achievements both qualitatively and quantitatively. But whereas those who rush to appoint and ordain look upon the process sympathetically and with generosity, and also openly take into account social considerations and not only considerations of intellectual excellence, Rabbi Abraham’s words express lack of trust and disappointment. From an educational perspective, I think such trust on the part of those leading the process is essential to its success, as part of the vision and as part of the message that ability depends on intellectual capacity and not on gender. Not trust that denies reality, but trust born of an understanding that this is a difficult and exhausting process, which already suffers from so much scorn and lack of legitimacy, and yet is gradually managing to stand on its own feet. To create a meaningful process, we are indeed committed to setting the highest possible bar, but also to understanding that it is impossible to cross that bar all at once, and there will be many intermediate stages, both in terms of the height of the bar and in terms of the roles it will make possible to fill. Miri ( Laor ) Kahane Dr. Miri (Laor) Kahane is head of the Bible department at Efrata College — Investing in a Fundamentally Unsuitable Model Women’s Torah study expresses, to my mind, the message of redemption, the song of the people returning to its land, gradually discovering powers that had fallen asleep, living its aspirations in freedom. Therefore, the whole preoccupation—will they recognize or not, appoint or not—seems trivial to me. I was never a committed feminist, because it seemed to me like investing energy in the secondary matter (certainly, if I were to hear of a woman earning less than a man in the same position, it would outrage me, but like any other moral injustice). The prophetesses Miriam and Deborah did not need men to appoint them. On the contrary, the latter appointed the man as military commander. Her greatness did not depend on any man. I can tell only about myself, and for me the study of Talmud and in-depth Jewish law occupies a less central place. I cannot speak about the public of women. Let each woman speak for herself and study what her heart desires. Only let her do so from inner motivation, from longing and thirst, and not from all those external motives that surround us in this world of illusion. The writer of the article states that there are no worthy women, and he is not suspect of excluding them because of their gender—quite the opposite. Therefore, soul-searching is required: perhaps women and the frameworks built for them are investing in a model that is not fundamentally right for them? It is clear to me beyond any doubt that when a woman studies the content that is right for her, in the proper way for her, she will produce novel insights and create innovative work. I studied at Midreshet “Shuva” in Ofra for years. The greatness of Rabbanit Rivka Shapira in Torah and in personality required no external recognition. Generations of girls and women whose hearts recognized her unique Torah built their spiritual world and their homes thanks to a Torah that springs wholly from her femininity, from her being as a mother and wife. She is in no way lesser than a man, because she never tried to resemble him. She cleaved to her essence, and from there studies Torah and creates Torah and a language that no man can create as she does. By her power I too taught there. By the power of unqualified trust, a trust that builds and nurtures, which moment by moment turned Torah study in my life from a possibility into a necessity. From one more matter to the central matter. “Ho, all who thirst, come to the water” (Isa. 55:1). In conclusion, indeed, we still lack women great in Torah who will teach the girls. In my opinion, what is lacking is a framework that will train women for Torah study suited to women: Jewish law alongside aggadah, Rabbi Kook alongside Hasidism, Talmud, faith, thought, and inward spirituality. Not by chewing up the material and serving it, but by direct encounter with the texts, independent study, and providing foundations of depth and breadth that will enable them to grasp a multidimensional Torah perspective and pass on to the next generation of women what their souls thirst for. Yael Cohen Yael Cohen studied and taught at Midreshet “Shuva” in Ofra for about a decade ——————– A Rabbi Must Be Sensitive, Not Learned Rabbi Michael Abraham argues that, in his estimation, most women are not qualified for the role of community rabbi. He stresses that those who seek to do so and are not qualified may perhaps collect sources from various databases and answer basic legal questions; but, in his view—as the received tradition has it—a rabbi in Israel must be learned, with the ability to produce Torah-legal creativity at a good level and to give an in-depth Talmud lecture. But this “received tradition” is no longer accepted. In my unverified estimation, most laymen and laywomen in the Religious Zionist public are not interested in a learned rabbi who gives an in-depth Talmud lecture. They are interested in human sensitivity, spiritual guidance, interesting classes, and at times thoughtful intervention in issues that are a kind of “aggadah in practice.” These are things that a woman can and should offer if a page of Talmud is not foreign to her and she makes intelligent use of the internet and at times even of the resources of academia. Most of the public is not looking to the community rabbi for a decisor or a giver of in-depth Talmud lectures. That can be obtained through the internet. In a community that is not virtual, the thirst is often different. It is fitting for communities to be led by women because of their femininity (and let us put questions of gender aside). Many men often lack the understanding required in leading a community, in dealing with matters within the home. Therefore, it is fitting for women to make their voices heard beyond the partition in matters of spirit. Who knows? Perhaps in this way their thirst, and that of the public, for learned lectures from their mouths and from their writings will increase. But even if Rabbi Abraham is right not only in his assessments but also in his conception of the community rabbi, one must still regret his style. Precisely because he encourages women’s justified struggle for equality and recognition, he ought not only to have marked the sorry state of women’s learning, but to have proposed a proposal, sounded a call, and not merely honestly acknowledged the mediocrity. Shlomi Brand Shlomi Brand works in the department for special programs in the Ministry of Education ———- It Will Lead to Fragmentation and Separatism Rabbi Abraham opened with a halakhic innovation according to which the restrictions on converts and women regarding various roles are connected to their social status, in accordance with the relevant period. But precisely according to his own approach, one must recognize that social changes are slow and gradual. Therefore, it is preferable not to attack “the exclusion of women” head-on, but to encourage a discourse that will allow society gradually to accept women into Torah roles and to be present in Torah discourse, מתוך recognition of their value and the building of mutual trust. Claims of discrimination and exclusion would have been even more valid against the Sages. Claims of this kind will not lead us to broad advancement of women, but only to fragmentation and separatism; their result will be a small group that integrates women in every respect, while most of the public takes several steps backward and recoils from any action in this direction—to my regret. Although Rabbi Abraham declared that he is not among the enthusiasts for unity, he must recognize that social prohibitions are connected to the state of society, and social changes are slow and gradual. Even if it is clear to us that women can serve in important roles in the secular world, there is great and understandable caution regarding matters of holiness, and the changes in this sphere are slow and measured; even the final goal may not be knowable at all. I would also like to comment on his words regarding the journal Asif. After presenting the policy in the previous paragraph—a policy he has every right to criticize, and to which we would not have responded—Rabbi Abraham added another paragraph in which he wrote: “In that journal they made me a degrading offer: to remove the author’s name (a student of mine) and thank her for her help in a footnote. I naturally gave up the honor and withdrew another article of mine.” Almost all readers understand from these words that the journal Asif knew the article had been written in partnership and suggested that the author harm his partner and erase the credit that rightfully belonged to her, and that the author, who refused to be honored through our disgrace, naturally rejected the offer. I was astonished to read this and asked him to remind us (the correspondence had been three years earlier) where we had made such a degrading offer. In response, the author recalled that at the beginning of the correspondence we had passed on to him remarks from a rabbi who is not part of the system, at an early stage of the initial inquiry, and there the rabbi explicitly conditioned his suggestion on it reflecting her involvement in the writing of the article (which was not known to us, nor precisely to that rabbi, and that rabbi did not even know how Rabbi Abraham intended to sign the article. We emphasized that the suggestion applied only if it was fair to her, certainly in terms of the extent of her involvement; such was the intent of that rabbi and my own intent as the secretary who conveyed the remarks). We were astonished to read this distorting interpretation of internal remarks from three years ago, and we do not know what led Rabbi Michael to slander us and to cause readers to think that we knowingly proposed harming the author’s credit. The fair credit due authors is sacred to us, and we would never think to suggest that an author harm a partner in writing (and later that very article was published under his name and hers in a no less respected journal, as was proper; and thank God there are additional platforms beyond the journal of the hesder yeshivot and the advanced yeshivot). Are the things he wrote about the degrading offer identical or even similar, in the understanding of the straightforward and ordinary reader, to internal remarks conveyed to him three years ago? We will leave the matter to the readers’ judgment, and regret it. Eyal Reznikovitz Eyal Reznikovitz is one of the editors of the journal Asif; Yeshivat Yeruham —————– The Primary Criterion Is Scholarship / Rabbi Michael Abraham Responds: First, I am glad at the response my words generated, and I hope it will contribute to improving the situation. Some of the writers are my students, and I am very happy and proud of their words and their independence of mind, and even more so that they do not hesitate to express it. The main response concerned a few sentences of mine about women’s scholarship, and I will therefore focus on that. My words were written because of a feeling of concealment and denial, even if unintentional, regarding the present state of women’s scholarship. Much has been achieved to date in the revolution of women’s Torah study, but as a matter of fact the scholarship there is still faltering. There are many objective reasons for this situation, and only a small part of it depends on the women themselves. It is also clear that we are only at the beginning of the process, and I hope and believe that this situation will change. I am full of appreciation for women who devote themselves self-sacrificially to study, and still, despite the vigorous protests I received, I have not seen material that would convince me I was wrong in my description of reality. One may perhaps belittle the importance of scholarship, and of course every kind of study has value, and all the more so self-sacrifice for study, but one cannot deny the fact that, at least as a matter of reality, it is considered among those rooted in the Torah world to be a primary measure of greatness (in my opinion, justly). And from here it follows that even one who does not agree with my principled conception of scholarship must agree that practically speaking it will be difficult for women to break the social glass ceiling without it. An important step on the way to improving the situation is to place the problems courageously on the table in order to think about how to move forward and remove barriers. That is what I tried to do, and if some were hurt by my words and by my style, at times barbed, I apologize. This certainly applies to my wonderful female students, both at the study hall at Bar-Ilan and at Matan, for whom my appreciation and my trust in them and in their abilities are great. I expect them to break that glass ceiling, and I wrote these things in order to help them do so. Unfortunately, I am unable here to respond in detail to the reactions, and I will do so on my website. My remarks on the methodology of halakhic ruling (first order and second order), which came up in the words of Shifra and Eyal, have already been explained, and I will elaborate further in a book that is currently being written. I do not know from where Miri learned that I have grave doubts regarding women’s abilities. My article was written on the opposite assumption, though indeed the burden of proof still rests upon them. That is why I also repeated above the opposite. I completely agree that there is added value in a woman serving in the role of rabba/Maharat. After all, that is what the article was about. My claim is that although in most cases scholarship is not practically required of the rabbi, it is not right to suffice with social skills. Those exist no less in a psychologist or even a priest. The added value of a rabbi over those two is Torah competence (of course it is important that he also have social and human skills, or that alongside him there be someone with such skills), and among these is scholarship, which contrary to the prevalent assumption is, in my view, very important to his functioning and standing in the community. In this I disagree with Shlomi’s words. Even if the community is not looking for a learned rabbi, it is still very important, both for them and for him, that he be one. I did not argue that all women need to focus on scholarship, just as not all men do. Each person studies where his or her heart desires. My claim is that as long as there is no learned female avant-garde, we will probably continue to make do with Maharats and will not find Torah figures like those Yael is seeking. The building of additional directions and levels, feminine or otherwise, must also be done on top of what already exists and not in its place. To Tamar’s words I of course join wholeheartedly. As for Eyal’s remarks regarding the journal Asif, regrettably they contain distortion and tendentious presentation of the facts, and it is very puzzling to me that he continues in this even after I clarified it to him in our correspondence. As stated, I will elaborate on this on my website. Published in the Shabbat supplement of Makor Rishon, 5 Adar 5777, 3.3.2017

———-

An Impressive Achievement

Rabbi Abraham points to the lack of professional and academic horizons as possible causes of mediocrity. In my view, the difficulties are much deeper: women’s advanced analytic study is a very new process. The advanced Talmud and Jewish law programs are only now beginning to celebrate their second decade, and even they are only programs: a course of study lasting several years in a structured framework, at the end of which one faces a choice between teaching in high school and academia. And indeed, many choose academia, and there they excel in research and writing, in articles whose character is academic rather than Torah-oriented.

But whereas the women who integrate very successfully into all areas of academia entered academia itself, this is not so in Torah study. The women’s Torah world is not connected to the world of the yeshivot. This is a new world that must be created ex nihilo. The women who are blazing a trail in the tracks of advanced analytic and legal study have to walk an unpaved road, without personal study encounters with leading rabbis, without a yeshiva framework that allows continuous study over years and includes daily encounters with rabbis, teachers, and advanced study partners who serve as role models. Women must start from scratch in motivation, breadth of knowledge, and skills as well, without the guidance that for men begins already in kindergarten.

Moreover, while dedicating oneself to analytic and legal study requires placing the Orthodox Torah world at the center of one’s life, an overwhelming majority of rabbis strongly oppose this study. How many men would enter a kollel for rabbinical judges if the overwhelming majority of rabbis opposed it? Therefore, when we are speaking of a mere handful who have reached significant achievements, that seems to me an impressive achievement. Opposite those few, Rabbi Abraham speaks of “women rabbis sprouting like mushrooms after the rain.” Really? Could we not count even those women rabbis with ease? To the best of my knowledge, there are no more than a few dozen women studying in advanced programs in the entire country, and the overwhelming majority do not see themselves as women rabbis.

I see the sweeping declaration of mediocrity as the other side of the same impatience of those who hurry to declare women rabbis out of a desire for explicit equality. In both cases there is a certain disregard for the very preliminary point that we are in a long process still required in order to reach significant achievements both qualitatively and quantitatively. But whereas those who rush to appoint and ordain look upon the process sympathetically and with generosity, and also openly take into account social considerations and not only considerations of intellectual excellence, Rabbi Abraham’s words express lack of trust and disappointment.

From an educational perspective, I think such trust on the part of those leading the process is essential to its success, as part of the vision and as part of the message that ability depends on intellectual capacity and not on gender. Not trust that denies reality, but trust born of an understanding that this is a difficult and exhausting process, which already suffers from so much scorn and lack of legitimacy, and yet is gradually managing to stand on its own feet.

To create a meaningful process, we are indeed committed to setting the highest possible bar, but also to understanding that it is impossible to cross that bar all at once, and there will be many intermediate stages, both in terms of the height of the bar and in terms of the roles it will make possible to fill.

Miri ( Laor ) Kahane

Dr. Miri (Laor) Kahane is head of the Bible department at Efrata College

— Investing in a Fundamentally Unsuitable Model Women’s Torah study expresses, to my mind, the message of redemption, the song of the people returning to its land, gradually discovering powers that had fallen asleep, living its aspirations in freedom. Therefore, the whole preoccupation—will they recognize or not, appoint or not—seems trivial to me. I was never a committed feminist, because it seemed to me like investing energy in the secondary matter (certainly, if I were to hear of a woman earning less than a man in the same position, it would outrage me, but like any other moral injustice). The prophetesses Miriam and Deborah did not need men to appoint them. On the contrary, the latter appointed the man as military commander. Her greatness did not depend on any man. I can tell only about myself, and for me the study of Talmud and in-depth Jewish law occupies a less central place. I cannot speak about the public of women. Let each woman speak for herself, and study what her heart desires. Only let her do so from inner motivation, from longing and thirst, and not from all those external motives that surround us in this world of illusion. The writer of the article states that there are no worthy women, and he is not suspect of excluding them because of their gender—quite the opposite. Therefore, soul-searching is required: perhaps women and the frameworks built for them are investing in a model that is not fundamentally right for them? It is clear to me beyond any doubt that when a woman studies the content that is right for her, in the proper way for her, she will produce novel insights and create innovative work. I studied at Midreshet “Shuva” in Ofra for years. The greatness of Rabbanit Rivka Shapira in Torah and in personality required no external recognition. Generations of girls and women whose hearts recognized her unique Torah built their spiritual world and their homes thanks to a Torah that springs wholly from her femininity, from her being as a mother and wife. She is in no way lesser than a man, because she never tried to resemble him. She cleaved to her essence, and from there studies Torah and creates Torah and a language that no man can create as she does. By her power I too taught there. By the power of unqualified trust, a trust that builds and nurtures, which moment by moment turned Torah study in my life from a possibility into a necessity. From one more matter to the central matter. “Ho, all who thirst, come to the water” (Isa. 55:1). In conclusion, indeed, we still lack women great in Torah who will teach the girls. In my opinion, what is lacking is a framework that will train women for Torah study suited to women: Jewish law alongside aggadah, Rabbi Kook alongside Hasidism, Talmud, faith, thought, and inward spirituality. Not by chewing up the material and serving it, but by direct encounter with the texts, independent study, and providing foundations of depth and breadth that will enable them to grasp a multidimensional Torah perspective and pass on to the next generation of women what their souls thirst for. Yael Cohen Yael Cohen studied and taught at Midreshet “Shuva” in Ofra for about a decade ——————– A Rabbi Must Be Sensitive, Not Learned Rabbi Michael Abraham argues that, in his estimation, most women are not qualified for the role of community rabbi. He stresses that those who seek to do so and are not qualified may perhaps collect sources from various databases and answer basic legal questions; but, in his view—as the received tradition has it—a rabbi in Israel must be learned, with the ability to produce Torah-legal creativity at a good level and to give an in-depth Talmud lecture. But this “received tradition” is no longer accepted. In my unverified estimation, most laymen and laywomen in the Religious Zionist public are not interested in a learned rabbi who gives an in-depth Talmud lecture. They are interested in human sensitivity, spiritual guidance, interesting classes, and at times thoughtful intervention in issues that are a kind of “aggadah in practice.” These are things that a woman can and should offer if a page of Talmud is not foreign to her and she makes intelligent use of the internet and at times even of the resources of academia. Most of the public is not looking to the community rabbi for a decisor or a giver of in-depth Talmud lectures. That can be obtained through the internet. In a community that is not virtual, the thirst is often different. It is fitting for communities to be led by women because of their femininity (and let us put questions of gender aside). Many men often lack the understanding required in leading a community, in dealing with matters within the home. Therefore, it is fitting for women to make their voices heard beyond the partition in matters of spirit. Who knows? Perhaps in this way their thirst, and that of the public, for learned lectures from their mouths and from their writings will increase. But even if Rabbi Abraham is right not only in his assessments but also in his conception of the community rabbi, one must still regret his style. Precisely because he encourages women’s justified struggle for equality and recognition, he ought not only to have marked the sorry state of women’s learning, but to have proposed a proposal, sounded a call, and not merely honestly acknowledged the mediocrity. Shlomi Brand Shlomi Brand works in the department for special programs in the Ministry of Education ———- It Will Lead to Fragmentation and Separatism Rabbi Abraham opened with a halakhic innovation according to which the restrictions on converts and women regarding various roles are connected to their social status, in accordance with the relevant period. But precisely according to his own approach, one must recognize that social changes are slow and gradual. Therefore, it is preferable not to attack “the exclusion of women” head-on, but to encourage a discourse that will allow society gradually to accept women into Torah roles and to be present in Torah discourse, מתוך recognition of their value and the building of mutual trust. Claims of discrimination and exclusion would have been even more valid against the Sages. Claims of this kind will not lead us to broad advancement of women, but only to fragmentation and separatism; their result will be a small group that integrates women in every respect, while most of the public takes several steps backward and recoils from any action in this direction—to my regret. Although Rabbi Abraham declared that he is not among the enthusiasts for unity, he must recognize that social prohibitions are connected to the state of society, and social changes are slow and gradual. Even if it is clear to us that women can serve in important roles in the secular world, there is great and understandable caution regarding matters of holiness, and the changes in this sphere are slow and measured; even the final goal may not be knowable at all. I would also like to comment on his words regarding the journal Asif. After presenting the policy in the previous paragraph—a policy he has every right to criticize, and to which we would not have responded—Rabbi Abraham added another paragraph in which he wrote: “In that journal they made me a degrading offer: to remove the author’s name (a student of mine) and thank her for her help in a footnote. I naturally gave up the honor and withdrew another article of mine.” Almost all readers understand from these words that the journal Asif knew the article had been written in partnership and suggested that the author harm his partner and erase the credit that rightfully belonged to her, and that the author, who refused to be honored through our disgrace, naturally rejected the offer. I was astonished to read this and asked him to remind us (the correspondence had been three years earlier) where we had made such a degrading offer. In response, the author recalled that at the beginning of the correspondence we had passed on to him remarks from a rabbi who is not part of the system, at an early stage of the initial inquiry, and there the rabbi explicitly conditioned his suggestion on it reflecting her involvement in the writing of the article (which was not known to us, nor precisely to that rabbi, and that rabbi did not even know how Rabbi Abraham intended to sign the article. We emphasized that the suggestion applied only if it was fair to her, certainly in terms of the extent of her involvement; such was the intent of that rabbi and my own intent as the secretary who conveyed the remarks). We were astonished to read this distorting interpretation of internal remarks from three years ago, and we do not know what led Rabbi Michael to slander us and to cause readers to think that we knowingly proposed harming the author’s credit. The fair credit due authors is sacred to us, and we would never think to suggest that an author harm a partner in writing (and later that very article was published under his name and hers in a no less respected journal, as was proper; and thank God there are additional platforms beyond the journal of the hesder yeshivot and the advanced yeshivot). Are the things he wrote about the degrading offer identical or even similar, in the understanding of the straightforward and ordinary reader, to internal remarks conveyed to him three years ago? We will leave the matter to the readers’ judgment, and regret it. Eyal Reznikovitz Eyal Reznikovitz is one of the editors of the journal Asif; Yeshivat Yeruham —————– The Primary Criterion Is Scholarship / Rabbi Michael Abraham Responds: First, I am glad at the response my words generated, and I hope it will contribute to improving the situation. Some of the writers are my students, and I am very happy and proud of their words and their independence of mind, and even more so that they do not hesitate to express it. The main response concerned a few sentences of mine about women’s scholarship, and I will therefore focus on that. My words were written because of a feeling of concealment and denial, even if unintentional, regarding the present state of women’s scholarship. Much has been achieved to date in the revolution of women’s Torah study, but as a matter of fact the scholarship there is still faltering. There are many objective reasons for this situation, and only a small part of it depends on the women themselves. It is also clear that we are only at the beginning of the process, and I hope and believe that this situation will change. I am full of appreciation for women who devote themselves self-sacrificially to study, and still, despite the vigorous protests I received, I have not seen material that would convince me I was wrong in my description of reality. One may perhaps belittle the importance of scholarship, and of course every kind of study has value, and all the more so self-sacrifice for study, but one cannot deny the fact that, at least as a matter of reality, it is considered among those rooted in the Torah world to be a primary measure of greatness (in my opinion, justly). And from here it follows that even one who does not agree with my principled conception of scholarship must agree that practically speaking it will be difficult for women to break the social glass ceiling without it. An important step on the way to improving the situation is to place the problems courageously on the table in order to think about how to move forward and remove barriers. That is what I tried to do, and if some were hurt by my words and by my style, at times barbed, I apologize. This certainly applies to my wonderful female students, both at the study hall at Bar-Ilan and at Matan, for whom my appreciation and my trust in them and in their abilities are great. I expect them to break that glass ceiling, and I wrote these things in order to help them do so. Unfortunately, I am unable here to respond in detail to the reactions, and I will do so on my website. My remarks on the methodology of halakhic ruling (first order and second order), which came up in the words of Shifra and Eyal, have already been explained, and I will elaborate further in a book that is currently being written. I do not know from where Miri learned that I have grave doubts regarding women’s abilities. My article was written on the opposite assumption, though indeed the burden of proof still rests upon them. That is why I also repeated above the opposite. I completely agree that there is added value in a woman serving in the role of rabba/Maharat. After all, that is what the article was about. My claim is that although in most cases scholarship is not practically required of the rabbi, it is not right to suffice with social skills. Those exist no less in a psychologist or even a priest. The added value of a rabbi over those two is Torah competence (of course it is important that he also have social and human skills, or that alongside him there be someone with such skills), and among these is scholarship, which contrary to the prevalent assumption is, in my view, very important to his functioning and standing in the community. In this I disagree with Shlomi’s words. Even if the community is not looking for a learned rabbi, it is still very important, both for them and for him, that he be one. I did not argue that all women need to focus on scholarship, just as not all men do. Each person studies where his or her heart desires. My claim is that as long as there is no learned female avant-garde, we will probably continue to make do with Maharats and will not find Torah figures like those Yael is seeking. The building of additional directions and levels, feminine or otherwise, must also be done on top of what already exists and not in its place. To Tamar’s words I of course join wholeheartedly. As for Eyal’s remarks regarding the journal Asif, regrettably they contain distortion and tendentious presentation of the facts, and it is very puzzling to me that he continues in this even after I clarified it to him in our correspondence. As stated, I will elaborate on this on my website. Published in the Shabbat supplement of Makor Rishon, 5 Adar 5777, 3.3.2017

—

Investing in a Fundamentally Unsuitable Model

Women’s Torah study expresses, to my mind, the message of redemption, the song of the people returning to its land, gradually discovering powers that had fallen asleep, living its aspirations in freedom.

Therefore, the whole preoccupation—will they recognize or not, appoint or not—seems trivial to me. I was never a committed feminist, because it seemed to me like investing energy in the secondary matter (certainly, if I were to hear of a woman earning less than a man in the same position, it would outrage me, but like any other moral injustice). The prophetesses Miriam and Deborah did not need men to appoint them. On the contrary, the latter appointed the man as military commander. Her greatness did not depend on any man.

I can tell only about myself, and for me the study of Talmud and in-depth Jewish law occupies a less central place. I cannot speak about the public of women. Let each woman speak for herself, and study what her heart desires. Only let her do so from inner motivation, from longing and thirst, and not from all those external motives that surround us in this world of illusion.

The writer of the article states that there are no worthy women, and he is not suspect of excluding them because of their gender—quite the opposite. Therefore, soul-searching is required: perhaps women and the frameworks built for them are investing in a model that is not fundamentally right for them? It is clear to me beyond any doubt that when a woman studies the content that is right for her, in the proper way for her, she will produce novel insights and create innovative work.

I studied at Midreshet “Shuva” in Ofra for years. The greatness of Rabbanit Rivka Shapira in Torah and in personality required no external recognition. Generations of girls and women whose hearts recognized her unique Torah built their spiritual world and their homes thanks to a Torah that springs wholly from her femininity, from her being as a mother and wife. She is in no way lesser than a man, because she never tried to resemble him. She cleaved to her essence, and from there studies Torah and creates Torah and a language that no man can create as she does. By her power I too taught there. By the power of unqualified trust, a trust that builds and nurtures, which moment by moment turned Torah study in my life from a possibility into a necessity. From one more matter to the central matter. “Ho, all who thirst, come to the water” (Isa. 55:1).

In conclusion, indeed, we still lack women great in Torah who will teach the girls. In my opinion, what is lacking is a framework that will train women for Torah study suited to women: Jewish law alongside aggadah, Rabbi Kook alongside Hasidism, Talmud, faith, thought, and inward spirituality. Not by chewing up the material and serving it, but by direct encounter with the texts, independent study, and providing foundations of depth and breadth that will enable them to grasp a multidimensional Torah perspective and pass on to the next generation of women what their souls thirst for.

Yael Cohen

Yael Cohen studied and taught at Midreshet “Shuva” in Ofra for about a decade

——————– A Rabbi Must Be Sensitive, Not Learned Rabbi Michael Abraham argues that, in his estimation, most women are not qualified for the role of community rabbi. He stresses that those who seek to do so and are not qualified may perhaps collect sources from various databases and answer basic legal questions; but, in his view—as the received tradition has it—a rabbi in Israel must be learned, with the ability to produce Torah-legal creativity at a good level and to give an in-depth Talmud lecture. But this “received tradition” is no longer accepted. In my unverified estimation, most laymen and laywomen in the Religious Zionist public are not interested in a learned rabbi who gives an in-depth Talmud lecture. They are interested in human sensitivity, spiritual guidance, interesting classes, and at times thoughtful intervention in issues that are a kind of “aggadah in practice.” These are things that a woman can and should offer if a page of Talmud is not foreign to her and she makes intelligent use of the internet and at times even of the resources of academia. Most of the public is not looking to the community rabbi for a decisor or a giver of in-depth Talmud lectures. That can be obtained through the internet. In a community that is not virtual, the thirst is often different. It is fitting for communities to be led by women because of their femininity (and let us put questions of gender aside). Many men often lack the understanding required in leading a community, in dealing with matters within the home. Therefore, it is fitting for women to make their voices heard beyond the partition in matters of spirit. Who knows? Perhaps in this way their thirst, and that of the public, for learned lectures from their mouths and from their writings will increase. But even if Rabbi Abraham is right not only in his assessments but also in his conception of the community rabbi, one must still regret his style. Precisely because he encourages women’s justified struggle for equality and recognition, he ought not only to have marked the sorry state of women’s learning, but to have proposed a proposal, sounded a call, and not merely honestly acknowledged the mediocrity. Shlomi Brand Shlomi Brand works in the department for special programs in the Ministry of Education ———- It Will Lead to Fragmentation and Separatism Rabbi Abraham opened with a halakhic innovation according to which the restrictions on converts and women regarding various roles are connected to their social status, in accordance with the relevant period. But precisely according to his own approach, one must recognize that social changes are slow and gradual. Therefore, it is preferable not to attack “the exclusion of women” head-on, but to encourage a discourse that will allow society gradually to accept women into Torah roles and to be present in Torah discourse, מתוך recognition of their value and the building of mutual trust. Claims of discrimination and exclusion would have been even more valid against the Sages. Claims of this kind will not lead us to broad advancement of women, but only to fragmentation and separatism; their result will be a small group that integrates women in every respect, while most of the public takes several steps backward and recoils from any action in this direction—to my regret. Although Rabbi Abraham declared that he is not among the enthusiasts for unity, he must recognize that social prohibitions are connected to the state of society, and social changes are slow and gradual. Even if it is clear to us that women can serve in important roles in the secular world, there is great and understandable caution regarding matters of holiness, and the changes in this sphere are slow and measured; even the final goal may not be knowable at all. I would also like to comment on his words regarding the journal Asif. After presenting the policy in the previous paragraph—a policy he has every right to criticize, and to which we would not have responded—Rabbi Abraham added another paragraph in which he wrote: “In that journal they made me a degrading offer: to remove the author’s name (a student of mine) and thank her for her help in a footnote. I naturally gave up the honor and withdrew another article of mine.” Almost all readers understand from these words that the journal Asif knew the article had been written in partnership and suggested that the author harm his partner and erase the credit that rightfully belonged to her, and that the author, who refused to be honored through our disgrace, naturally rejected the offer. I was astonished to read this and asked him to remind us (the correspondence had been three years earlier) where we had made such a degrading offer. In response, the author recalled that at the beginning of the correspondence we had passed on to him remarks from a rabbi who is not part of the system, at an early stage of the initial inquiry, and there the rabbi explicitly conditioned his suggestion on it reflecting her involvement in the writing of the article (which was not known to us, nor precisely to that rabbi, and that rabbi did not even know how Rabbi Abraham intended to sign the article. We emphasized that the suggestion applied only if it was fair to her, certainly in terms of the extent of her involvement; such was the intent of that rabbi and my own intent as the secretary who conveyed the remarks). We were astonished to read this distorting interpretation of internal remarks from three years ago, and we do not know what led Rabbi Michael to slander us and to cause readers to think that we knowingly proposed harming the author’s credit. The fair credit due authors is sacred to us, and we would never think to suggest that an author harm a partner in writing (and later that very article was published under his name and hers in a no less respected journal, as was proper; and thank God there are additional platforms beyond the journal of the hesder yeshivot and the advanced yeshivot). Are the things he wrote about the degrading offer identical or even similar, in the understanding of the straightforward and ordinary reader, to internal remarks conveyed to him three years ago? We will leave the matter to the readers’ judgment, and regret it. Eyal Reznikovitz Eyal Reznikovitz is one of the editors of the journal Asif; Yeshivat Yeruham —————– The Primary Criterion Is Scholarship / Rabbi Michael Abraham Responds: First, I am glad at the response my words generated, and I hope it will contribute to improving the situation. Some of the writers are my students, and I am very happy and proud of their words and their independence of mind, and even more so that they do not hesitate to express it. The main response concerned a few sentences of mine about women’s scholarship, and I will therefore focus on that. My words were written because of a feeling of concealment and denial, even if unintentional, regarding the present state of women’s scholarship. Much has been achieved to date in the revolution of women’s Torah study, but as a matter of fact the scholarship there is still faltering. There are many objective reasons for this situation, and only a small part of it depends on the women themselves. It is also clear that we are only at the beginning of the process, and I hope and believe that this situation will change. I am full of appreciation for women who devote themselves self-sacrificially to study, and still, despite the vigorous protests I received, I have not seen material that would convince me I was wrong in my description of reality. One may perhaps belittle the importance of scholarship, and of course every kind of study has value, and all the more so self-sacrifice for study, but one cannot deny the fact that, at least as a matter of reality, it is considered among those rooted in the Torah world to be a primary measure of greatness (in my opinion, justly). And from here it follows that even one who does not agree with my principled conception of scholarship must agree that practically speaking it will be difficult for women to break the social glass ceiling without it. An important step on the way to improving the situation is to place the problems courageously on the table in order to think about how to move forward and remove barriers. That is what I tried to do, and if some were hurt by my words and by my style, at times barbed, I apologize. This certainly applies to my wonderful female students, both at the study hall at Bar-Ilan and at Matan, for whom my appreciation and my trust in them and in their abilities are great. I expect them to break that glass ceiling, and I wrote these things in order to help them do so. Unfortunately, I am unable here to respond in detail to the reactions, and I will do so on my website. My remarks on the methodology of halakhic ruling (first order and second order), which came up in the words of Shifra and Eyal, have already been explained, and I will elaborate further in a book that is currently being written. I do not know from where Miri learned that I have grave doubts regarding women’s abilities. My article was written on the opposite assumption, though indeed the burden of proof still rests upon them. That is why I also repeated above the opposite. I completely agree that there is added value in a woman serving in the role of rabba/Maharat. After all, that is what the article was about. My claim is that although in most cases scholarship is not practically required of the rabbi, it is not right to suffice with social skills. Those exist no less in a psychologist or even a priest. The added value of a rabbi over those two is Torah competence (of course it is important that he also have social and human skills, or that alongside him there be someone with such skills), and among these is scholarship, which contrary to the prevalent assumption is, in my view, very important to his functioning and standing in the community. In this I disagree with Shlomi’s words. Even if the community is not looking for a learned rabbi, it is still very important, both for them and for him, that he be one. I did not argue that all women need to focus on scholarship, just as not all men do. Each person studies where his or her heart desires. My claim is that as long as there is no learned female avant-garde, we will probably continue to make do with Maharats and will not find Torah figures like those Yael is seeking. The building of additional directions and levels, feminine or otherwise, must also be done on top of what already exists and not in its place. To Tamar’s words I of course join wholeheartedly. As for Eyal’s remarks regarding the journal Asif, regrettably they contain distortion and tendentious presentation of the facts, and it is very puzzling to me that he continues in this even after I clarified it to him in our correspondence. As stated, I will elaborate on this on my website. Published in the Shabbat supplement of Makor Rishon, 5 Adar 5777, 3.3.2017

——————–

A Rabbi Must Be Sensitive, Not Learned

Rabbi Michael Abraham argues that, in his estimation, most women are not qualified for the role of community rabbi. He stresses that those who seek to do so and are not qualified may perhaps collect sources from various databases and answer basic legal questions; but, in his view—as the received tradition has it—a rabbi in Israel must be learned, with the ability to produce Torah-legal creativity at a good level and to give an in-depth Talmud lecture.

But this “received tradition” is no longer accepted. In my unverified estimation, most laymen and laywomen in the Religious Zionist public are not interested in a learned rabbi who gives an in-depth Talmud lecture. They are interested in human sensitivity, spiritual guidance, interesting classes, and at times thoughtful intervention in issues that are a kind of “aggadah in practice.” These are things that a woman can and should offer if a page of Talmud is not foreign to her and she makes intelligent use of the internet and at times even of the resources of academia.

Most of the public is not looking to the community rabbi for a decisor or a giver of in-depth Talmud lectures. That can be obtained through the internet. In a community that is not virtual, the thirst is often different. It is fitting for communities to be led by women because of their femininity (and let us put questions of gender aside).

Many men often lack the understanding required in leading a community, in dealing with matters within the home. Therefore, it is fitting for women to make their voices heard beyond the partition in matters of spirit. Who knows? Perhaps in this way their thirst, and that of the public, for learned lectures from their mouths and from their writings will increase.

But even if Rabbi Abraham is right not only in his assessments but also in his conception of the community rabbi, one must still regret his style. Precisely because he encourages women’s justified struggle for equality and recognition, he ought not only to have marked the sorry state of women’s learning, but to have proposed a proposal, sounded a call, and not merely honestly acknowledged the mediocrity.

Shlomi Brand

Shlomi Brand works in the department for special programs in the Ministry of Education

———- It Will Lead to Fragmentation and Separatism Rabbi Abraham opened with a halakhic innovation according to which the restrictions on converts and women regarding various roles are connected to their social status, in accordance with the relevant period. But precisely according to his own approach, one must recognize that social changes are slow and gradual. Therefore, it is preferable not to attack “the exclusion of women” head-on, but to encourage a discourse that will allow society gradually to accept women into Torah roles and to be present in Torah discourse, מתוך recognition of their value and the building of mutual trust. Claims of discrimination and exclusion would have been even more valid against the Sages. Claims of this kind will not lead us to broad advancement of women, but only to fragmentation and separatism; their result will be a small group that integrates women in every respect, while most of the public takes several steps backward and recoils from any action in this direction—to my regret. Although Rabbi Abraham declared that he is not among the enthusiasts for unity, he must recognize that social prohibitions are connected to the state of society, and social changes are slow and gradual. Even if it is clear to us that women can serve in important roles in the secular world, there is great and understandable caution regarding matters of holiness, and the changes in this sphere are slow and measured; even the final goal may not be knowable at all. I would also like to comment on his words regarding the journal Asif. After presenting the policy in the previous paragraph—a policy he has every right to criticize, and to which we would not have responded—Rabbi Abraham added another paragraph in which he wrote: “In that journal they made me a degrading offer: to remove the author’s name (a student of mine) and thank her for her help in a footnote. I naturally gave up the honor and withdrew another article of mine.” Almost all readers understand from these words that the journal Asif knew the article had been written in partnership and suggested that the author harm his partner and erase the credit that rightfully belonged to her, and that the author, who refused to be honored through our disgrace, naturally rejected the offer. I was astonished to read this and asked him to remind us (the correspondence had been three years earlier) where we had made such a degrading offer. In response, the author recalled that at the beginning of the correspondence we had passed on to him remarks from a rabbi who is not part of the system, at an early stage of the initial inquiry, and there the rabbi explicitly conditioned his suggestion on it reflecting her involvement in the writing of the article (which was not known to us, nor precisely to that rabbi, and that rabbi did not even know how Rabbi Abraham intended to sign the article. We emphasized that the suggestion applied only if it was fair to her, certainly in terms of the extent of her involvement; such was the intent of that rabbi and my own intent as the secretary who conveyed the remarks). We were astonished to read this distorting interpretation of internal remarks from three years ago, and we do not know what led Rabbi Michael to slander us and to cause readers to think that we knowingly proposed harming the author’s credit. The fair credit due authors is sacred to us, and we would never think to suggest that an author harm a partner in writing (and later that very article was published under his name and hers in a no less respected journal, as was proper; and thank God there are additional platforms beyond the journal of the hesder yeshivot and the advanced yeshivot). Are the things he wrote about the degrading offer identical or even similar, in the understanding of the straightforward and ordinary reader, to internal remarks conveyed to him three years ago? We will leave the matter to the readers’ judgment, and regret it. Eyal Reznikovitz Eyal Reznikovitz is one of the editors of the journal Asif; Yeshivat Yeruham —————– The Primary Criterion Is Scholarship / Rabbi Michael Abraham Responds: First, I am glad at the response my words generated, and I hope it will contribute to improving the situation. Some of the writers are my students, and I am very happy and proud of their words and their independence of mind, and even more so that they do not hesitate to express it. The main response concerned a few sentences of mine about women’s scholarship, and I will therefore focus on that. My words were written because of a feeling of concealment and denial, even if unintentional, regarding the present state of women’s scholarship. Much has been achieved to date in the revolution of women’s Torah study, but as a matter of fact the scholarship there is still faltering. There are many objective reasons for this situation, and only a small part of it depends on the women themselves. It is also clear that we are only at the beginning of the process, and I hope and believe that this situation will change. I am full of appreciation for women who devote themselves self-sacrificially to study, and still, despite the vigorous protests I received, I have not seen material that would convince me I was wrong in my description of reality. One may perhaps belittle the importance of scholarship, and of course every kind of study has value, and all the more so self-sacrifice for study, but one cannot deny the fact that, at least as a matter of reality, it is considered among those rooted in the Torah world to be a primary measure of greatness (in my opinion, justly). And from here it follows that even one who does not agree with my principled conception of scholarship must agree that practically speaking it will be difficult for women to break the social glass ceiling without it. An important step on the way to improving the situation is to place the problems courageously on the table in order to think about how to move forward and remove barriers. That is what I tried to do, and if some were hurt by my words and by my style, at times barbed, I apologize. This certainly applies to my wonderful female students, both at the study hall at Bar-Ilan and at Matan, for whom my appreciation and my trust in them and in their abilities are great. I expect them to break that glass ceiling, and I wrote these things in order to help them do so. Unfortunately, I am unable here to respond in detail to the reactions, and I will do so on my website. My remarks on the methodology of halakhic ruling (first order and second order), which came up in the words of Shifra and Eyal, have already been explained, and I will elaborate further in a book that is currently being written. I do not know from where Miri learned that I have grave doubts regarding women’s abilities. My article was written on the opposite assumption, though indeed the burden of proof still rests upon them. That is why I also repeated above the opposite. I completely agree that there is added value in a woman serving in the role of rabba/Maharat. After all, that is what the article was about. My claim is that although in most cases scholarship is not practically required of the rabbi, it is not right to suffice with social skills. Those exist no less in a psychologist or even a priest. The added value of a rabbi over those two is Torah competence (of course it is important that he also have social and human skills, or that alongside him there be someone with such skills), and among these is scholarship, which contrary to the prevalent assumption is, in my view, very important to his functioning and standing in the community. In this I disagree with Shlomi’s words. Even if the community is not looking for a learned rabbi, it is still very important, both for them and for him, that he be one. I did not argue that all women need to focus on scholarship, just as not all men do. Each person studies where his or her heart desires. My claim is that as long as there is no learned female avant-garde, we will probably continue to make do with Maharats and will not find Torah figures like those Yael is seeking. The building of additional directions and levels, feminine or otherwise, must also be done on top of what already exists and not in its place. To Tamar’s words I of course join wholeheartedly. As for Eyal’s remarks regarding the journal Asif, regrettably they contain distortion and tendentious presentation of the facts, and it is very puzzling to me that he continues in this even after I clarified it to him in our correspondence. As stated, I will elaborate on this on my website. Published in the Shabbat supplement of Makor Rishon, 5 Adar 5777, 3.3.2017

———-

It Will Lead to Fragmentation and Separatism

Rabbi Abraham opened with a halakhic innovation according to which the restrictions on converts and women regarding various roles are connected to their social status, in accordance with the relevant period. But precisely according to his own approach, one must recognize that social changes are slow and gradual. Therefore, it is preferable not to attack “the exclusion of women” head-on, but to encourage a discourse that will allow society gradually to accept women into Torah roles and to be present in Torah discourse, מתוך recognition of their value and the building of mutual trust.

Claims of discrimination and exclusion would have been even more valid against the Sages. Claims of this kind will not lead us to broad advancement of women, but only to fragmentation and separatism; their result will be a small group that integrates women in every respect, while most of the public takes several steps backward and recoils from any action in this direction—to my regret. Although Rabbi Abraham declared that he is not among the enthusiasts for unity, he must recognize that social prohibitions are connected to the state of society, and social changes are slow and gradual. Even if it is clear to us that women can serve in important roles in the secular world, there is great and understandable caution regarding matters of holiness, and the changes in this sphere are slow and measured; even the final goal may not be knowable at all.

I would also like to comment on his words regarding the journal Asif. After presenting the policy in the previous paragraph—a policy he has every right to criticize, and to which we would not have responded—Rabbi Abraham added another paragraph in which he wrote: “In that journal they made me a degrading offer: to remove the author’s name (a student of mine) and thank her for her help in a footnote. I naturally gave up the honor and withdrew another article of mine.” Almost all readers understand from these words that the journal Asif knew the article had been written in partnership and suggested that the author harm his partner and erase the credit that rightfully belonged to her, and that the author, who refused to be honored through our disgrace, naturally rejected the offer.

I was astonished to read this and asked him to remind us (the correspondence had been three years earlier) where we had made such a degrading offer. In response, the author recalled that at the beginning of the correspondence we had passed on to him remarks from a rabbi who is not part of the system, at an early stage of the initial inquiry, and there the rabbi explicitly conditioned his suggestion on it reflecting her involvement in the writing of the article (which was not known to us, nor precisely to that rabbi, and that rabbi did not even know how Rabbi Abraham intended to sign the article. We emphasized that the suggestion applied only if it was fair to her, certainly in terms of the extent of her involvement; such was the intent of that rabbi and my own intent as the secretary who conveyed the remarks).

We were astonished to read this distorting interpretation of internal remarks from three years ago, and we do not know what led Rabbi Michael to slander us and to cause readers to think that we knowingly proposed harming the author’s credit. The fair credit due authors is sacred to us, and we would never think to suggest that an author harm a partner in writing (and later that very article was published under his name and hers in a no less respected journal, as was proper; and thank God there are additional platforms beyond the journal of the hesder yeshivot and the advanced yeshivot).

Are the things he wrote about the degrading offer identical or even similar, in the understanding of the straightforward and ordinary reader, to internal remarks conveyed to him three years ago? We will leave the matter to the readers’ judgment, and regret it.

Eyal Reznikovitz

Eyal Reznikovitz is one of the editors of the journal Asif; Yeshivat Yeruham

————–

The Primary Criterion Is Scholarship / Rabbi Michael Abraham Responds:

First, I am glad at the response my words generated, and I hope it will contribute to improving the situation. Some of the writers are my students, and I am very happy and proud of their words and their independence of mind, and even more so that they do not hesitate to express it. The main response concerned a few sentences of mine about women’s scholarship, and I will therefore focus on that.

My words were written because of a feeling of concealment and denial, even if unintentional, regarding the present state of women’s scholarship. Much has been achieved to date in the revolution of women’s Torah study, but as a matter of fact the scholarship there is still faltering. There are many objective reasons for this situation, and only a small part of it depends on the women themselves. It is also clear that we are only at the beginning of the process, and I hope and believe that this situation will change. I am full of appreciation for women who devote themselves self-sacrificially to study, and still, despite the vigorous protests I received, I have not seen material that would convince me I was wrong in my description of reality.

One may perhaps belittle the importance of scholarship, and of course every kind of study has value, and all the more so self-sacrifice for study, but one cannot deny the fact that, at least as a matter of reality, it is considered among those rooted in the Torah world to be a primary measure of greatness (in my opinion, justly). And from here it follows that even one who does not agree with my principled conception of scholarship must agree that practically speaking it will be difficult for women to break the social glass ceiling without it.

An important step on the way to improving the situation is to place the problems courageously on the table in order to think about how to move forward and remove barriers. That is what I tried to do, and if some were hurt by my words and by my style, at times barbed, I apologize. This certainly applies to my wonderful female students, both at the study hall at Bar-Ilan and at Matan, for whom my appreciation and my trust in them and in their abilities are great. I expect them to break that glass ceiling, and I wrote these things in order to help them do so.

Unfortunately, I am unable here to respond in detail to the reactions, and I will do so on my website. My remarks on the methodology of halakhic ruling (first order and second order), which came up in the words of Shifra and Eyal, have already been explained, and I will elaborate further in a book that is currently being written. I do not know from where Miri learned that I have grave doubts regarding women’s abilities. My article was written on the opposite assumption, though indeed the burden of proof still rests upon them. That is why I also repeated above the opposite. I completely agree that there is added value in a woman serving in the role of rabba/Maharat. After all, that is what the article was about. My claim is that although in most cases scholarship is not practically required of the rabbi, it is not right to suffice with social skills. Those exist no less in a psychologist or even a priest. The added value of a rabbi over those two is Torah competence (of course it is important that he also have social and human skills, or that alongside him there be someone with such skills), and among these is scholarship, which contrary to the prevalent assumption is, in my view, very important to his functioning and standing in the community. In this I disagree with Shlomi’s words. Even if the community is not looking for a learned rabbi, it is still very important, both for them and for him, that he be one.

I did not argue that all women need to focus on scholarship, just as not all men do. Each person studies where his or her heart desires. My claim is that as long as there is no learned female avant-garde, we will probably continue to make do with Maharats and will not find Torah figures like those Yael is seeking. The building of additional directions and levels, feminine or otherwise, must also be done on top of what already exists and not in its place. To Tamar’s words I of course join wholeheartedly. As for Eyal’s remarks regarding the journal Asif, regrettably they contain distortion and tendentious presentation of the facts, and it is very puzzling to me that he continues in this even after I clarified it to him in our correspondence. As stated, I will elaborate on this on my website.

Published in the Shabbat supplement of Makor Rishon, 5 Adar 5777, 3.3.2017

Source: https://musaf-shabbat.com/2017/03/03/%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%92%D7%95%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%A8%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA/

Article Contents

שתף

Leave a ReplyCancel reply