Publishing Women's Articles in Torah Journals: The Case of 'Asif' (Column 56)

All I can add to the painful things Rabbi Michi wrote is that I heard these things from his own mouth, long before the article was published in Makor Rishon, and I didn’t believe it. I thought he was exaggerating, and that perhaps they had offended him and he was “just” slandering them, or that the reason for the refusal was something else, not the fact that the author was a woman.
I checked the matter personally with someone who served for decades as one of the editorial board members of Techumin, and he confirmed that it was true. More than that, that person said that to the best of his knowledge this is also the practice in all the other Torah journals.
Sad. In fact, there isn’t much distance from here to burning books that are “unfit,” or banning books that do not conform to my line of thought from inclusion in the yeshiva/pre-military academy library.

The main thing I forgot: if this is all a mere fantasy, perhaps Eyal (or one of the members of the Asif editorial board) would kindly present a few articles that were published under the names of women who wrote them.

All we’re telling you is something simple—you caused readers to think that we offered you something that we ourselves considered improper, which we did not offer and explicitly emphasized that we did not offer, and thereby you harmed us. You could have listened from the start and said: sorry, I was mistaken, I caused you damage, I apologize. I’ll write two lines of clarification in Shabbat—that short paragraph about the disgraceful proposal (whose plain meaning is a proposal to steal credit while knowing the article was co-authored) was said in error—and that would have been the end of it.
I transcribed in writing, in an internal email, an oral conversation in which the one making the suggestion explicitly stressed that only if she was not a full partner in the writing but merely helped with the research process. I phrased it in the words: “if it’s fair to her,” and I emphasized in another sentence, “on the assumption that it is not fair, we would not suggest it.” Instead, you wrote that we made a degrading proposal and caused all the readers to understand as though they wanted your article so badly that they suggested you steal credit.
No one said this was not an official proposal of the journal. They told you that you misunderstood it. A person wrote you one sentence three years ago summarizing an oral conversation. I know what I meant, and I’m telling you that you were mistaken. The word “fair” in this context is not connected to politeness, not when it is said twice. The simple meaning was: whether she is a partner or not. That is what I was asked to clarify by someone who had not seen the article (I also don’t remember opening it), and who had been told that someone had helped you write it.
I told that rabbi who made the suggestion that St. had helped you with the writing; I’m sorry he hadn’t seen the article and didn’t know the level of involvement.
If you had apologized (for leaking an internal email and interpreting it in a way that makes us out to be soliciting credit theft), I would have kept quiet. After all, you already once wrote in Shabbat, about a year earlier, criticizing us for boycotting women—so then you wrote it again.
We have already received several responses saying that we steal credit and are vile people, from several people, including being told that secular female academics reacted with shock that people were soliciting an author to steal credit in order to publish an article. But no—we never wanted to do such a thing. Explicitly, in that oral conversation that was conveyed to you in two sentences, we concluded that Heaven forbid we should steal credit.
In short, you misunderstood an internal email sent to you three years ago, leaked an internal email, defamed us before thousands upon thousands of people, explained it in a disgraceful way, and instead of apologizing you continue accusing me of distortions. And leave aside the fact that already two weeks later I wrote this official policy in several forums and did not hide it at all. I held a long discussion about it in a place where there are hundreds of women and wrote it explicitly several times. No one hid anything.
I don’t understand the threat to leak internal correspondence with people who spoke with you in trust because they thought you were an ally with whom internal information could be shared. Nor do I know what is in that correspondence—good grief, it’s just a journal of yeshiva men. We’re sorry we invited you to the first issues (the invitation for an article in Bava Kamma was actually for something else entirely, an anthology of lectures), and in truth since then we hardly invite authors who are not currently teaching in yeshivot, except in a few isolated cases. Sad, truly sad.
There are many more inaccuracies, exaggerations, and turning the situation into a legal case and a fact-finding investigation while taking things out of their plain context. I will not address every sentence.

Ariel, no one ever denied the official policy, and the whole issue is the new paragraph in which the author slandered us as though we had encouraged him to steal credit and omit a female author’s name, when I had conveyed to him an oral request in which it was emphasized that we do not want to do that if she was a partner in the writing. This policy was not denied and was stated publicly at that time when we were discussing it among ourselves before thousands of people several times, and it came up for public discussion there.

http://www.srugim.co.il/138806-%d7%99%d7%a9%d7%99%d7%91%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%94%d7%94%d7%a1%d7%93%d7%a8-%d7%9e%d7%aa%d7%a0%d7%aa%d7%a7%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%9e%d7%a1%d7%a4%d7%a8%d7%99-%d7%94%d7%a2%d7%99%d7%95%d7%9f-%d7%94%d7%97%d7%a8%d7%93
As an addition, I’ll ask in good faith. The link above that I attached personally kept me from sending an article to a journal which, according to what is stated in the article, operates with the aim of creating “our Torah” in contrast to Lithuanian Torah. The Torah of Religious Zionism (???). For heaven’s sake. Was Moses our teacher a Religious Zionist??!! Yes, wore a hat, didn’t wear a hat, Rabbenu or Rabinovitch—dammit, what difference does it make? Why not publish a high-level journal of Torah insights no matter who writes, male or female, so long as it accords with the spirit of faith and tradition. Can a graduate of Hebron Yeshiva or Volozhin (Rav Kook, as it were…) not publish in Asif just because he doesn’t belong to “our Torah… the Torah of Religious Zionism”?! Outrageous, divisive, hurtful, and beside the point. Everything I say relates to the words of the author Stav, one of the founders of the journal, and does not concern the current correspondence between Michi and Eyal. Still, it seems the criticism is related. Exclusion of Haredim, exclusion of women.

And I wrote about this specifically on Facebook only on Saturday night and Sunday, and I’m truly sorry that I was forced to clarify after you slandered us in a newspaper, really, sorry.

Now, after Eyal’s declaration, I am even sadder. They really do filter out women. It is already 2017, and nevertheless it is dark. That’s it! We’re going to sleep. More than once I wondered how sorrow and sighing entered the requests in the Hashkivenu prayer. Now everything is clear to me. “Pestilence and sword . . . and sorrow!” I am sad!

Eyal,
Repeating distortions again and again does not make them true. Adding a lie to a distortion is also not especially fitting, though I agree it may be useful.
1. You just wrote:
“No one said this was not an official proposal of the journal.”

And yet this was your wording in an email to me two days ago (note the parentheses in your words):
“Wonderful, marvelous—let’s not call it taking out of context causing all the authors to understand that we knowingly asked to omit a female author’s name from the byline when we asked to clarify the partnership (it wasn’t even us; all I did was convey to you in an internal conversation things said by the head of the yeshiva on behalf of the association that is responsible for us, not of the journal itself and Asif).”

2. To Ariel you wrote here:
“Ariel, no one ever denied the official policy.”

But what can one do when in emails to me you repeatedly ask that this policy not be made public. Indeed, after the matter had already been exposed, you managed not to deny it with a lie. Truly worthy of appreciation.

I have written here what I had to write, and the readers will judge. With this I conclude the discussion, unless you intend to reply to the email you received from me dated 9.2.2014, whose pearl-like wording was as follows:

Hello Eyal.
I request a response regarding the article I sent. This is an elementary request.
Michi

And to that, a few hours later, you wrote in your golden language:

“Quite all right, with God’s help I will send it soon. Have a good week, Eyal.”

That response, too, presumably got lost in the framework of non-denial, full disclosure, publication of policy, and the official responses sent by the editorial board to every author.

With God’s help, 3 Adar 5777

Through volume 21 (5761 / 2001), inclusive, articles by women were published in Techumin without the need for a partner. I assume that the change in policy stemmed from the problematic nature of the growing number of women who want to make a Torah statement but are not proficient in the rules of halakhic discourse, or do not accept its rules. What is simple and obvious to someone who has filled his belly with Talmud and decisors is far from simple for a woman who may be at home in academic discourse but is entirely “out of the loop” regarding the style of analysis and halakhic writing accepted in the world of talmudists and halakhic decisors.

An editor of a Torah journal is not supposed to start from scratch and explain from A to Z the rules of halakhic thought and writing to someone lacking sufficient Torah background. Therefore there is no choice but to adopt one of two paths: either to require that the article be written in partnership with a Torah scholar who has suitable Torah background and can guide his female writing partner in the rules; or to refer the female writer to a journal of a women’s beit midrash or college, where the editors are skilled in guiding women in Torah writing.

With blessings, S. Z. Levinger

Does this seem appropriate and respectful to you—the tedious and personal discussion here???

Come on. If the article does not meet the criteria of scholarly writing, what difference does it make whether the author is a man or a woman? The article is not at a sufficient level, period. But the policy is to disqualify מראש any article written by a woman, and that is conservative discrimination with no excuse whatsoever.

The discussion is indeed not respectful, as the author remarked, but you continue to accuse me of deliberate distortions, as you did at the beginning of the post (in things that will be read by many who will not read everything), and in your last response you added several more. I also intend to conclude the discussion on this small and marginal issue of the degrading proposal—a discussion that could have ended in an instant.
1. You wrote that I distorted matters in what I said to Ariel—that I told him no one was trying to disown the proposal by claiming it was not a proposal of the journal. You proved to me from an internal email (again, a public exposure of an internal email) that I do indeed claim this, and behold, another distortion. But what is the simple resolution? The discussion here became a legalistic one, etc., and my intention was that this is not our “line of defense,” that we are not trying to disown it and say: we agree with your claim about the content of the proposal and are only saying—it wasn’t us. To you I argued in a private email that your lack of precision runs throughout all parts of the paragraph. And I also meant that this is relevant—if someone conveys to you in writing an oral proposal made by someone else, then besides the fact that I testify to you that both of us agreed in that conversation that we did not want to steal credit, and that this was my intention in the sentence, and apparently for some reason I am held by you to be an unreliable Jew who knowingly lies—well, what can one do—but surely the rabbi is trustworthy in your eyes and you could have asked him instantly. Yet you continue saying this is a creative interpretation and cause readers to think this is not the correct interpretation of the word “fair” and of our intention. The point that I conveyed someone else’s proposal is relevant to other things you wrote. I never claimed this proposal was perfect; it’s not mine and I would not have suggested it myself. If you had criticized it differently, fine, we’d live with that, truly. All I said is that you caused your readers to think we proposed soliciting an author to steal credit in that paragraph—and that is simply true—and that is simply not what we did nor what we intended. Had you apologized for the problematic wording, everything would have been fine. Therefore your further criticism is simply irrelevant to the content of our simple claim.
2. This policy was never denied. As stated, in those very days of discussion I wrote it openly before thousands of people, and indeed there was a painful and lengthy discussion that threw me into an emotional whirlwind (I’m not such a tough Jew, what can I do). So how can one accuse us of denial? And if one is worried that someone might write articles for Shabbat and stir up a public ambush—and after all I was thirty years old then, with no public experience, etc.—does that mean one is denying a policy?
Indeed, I too have no wish to respond further to this strange matter, and as far as I am concerned the discussion is over, except that in your last response you added more claims of distortions, and to those I responded. I do not see even a single distortion anywhere along the way, and the readers will judge who is right. All the best, Eyal

“I wonder why it is always the modernists who care about unity and partnership with the conservatives, but not vice versa?”

On this point Nassim Taleb stood in his article “The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority.”

https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15#.fuesc9lz5

Your response is written with confidence that will surely allow you to point—easily—to many (!) articles that were published in the volumes up to 21 (twenty-one years of female contributors!!). I would be happy to receive a list of five articles, with the volume indicated.

But!!! If the matter is indeed proven, the wonder is doubled, for then it is evident that this series of books enjoyed favor and flourishing, and everyone sought to be counted among the publishers and writers in Techumin.
And not only that. We find among the writers up to that point many who were not “Mizrachniks.” What business do priests have in a cemetery?!

And even stranger is the decision that fell (or arose fluttering) at the end of volume 21: what rumor did they hear that made them come? What led the editorial board [all of them Mizrachniks and Kookists] to bury Eve’s daughters outside the fence?

Moreover! It is plainly evident that those who fear and tremble at the word of God do not keep their feet away, and are open participants in that halakhic collection called Techumin (and not hidden and disguised as a footnote with a big asterisk). True, volume 22 (which follows the series of books in which the editorial board sinned by allowing women to be counted among the contributors) sits heavily on the shoulders of few writers (only 8), but volume 23 has many participants, and not a few of them are defined as leading Haredi decisors. Did each of them receive a handshake guaranteeing that once again female halakhic authorities and female teachers in general would not be given a foothold between the pages of Techumin?
And how did those decisors and rabbinical judges believe them and trust the promise-makers? הרי they are proven offenders, and it would not have been proper to benefit from the feast of such wicked people. And why at all do they need the branches of that castor-oil plant called Techumin? Let them (!) seek shade beneath the wings of that publishing house?? Strange in my eyes. I am astonished.

Either way, the situation is grim. Instead of those walking in the tunnel seeing light and knowing that they are advancing toward it in confidence and hope, to their horror it turns out that they are mistaken! It is not the hidden light; it is the locomotive’s headlamp, charging forward and trampling whoever is in the tunnel.

I am very glad this subject was raised.

I cannot understand why an open, observant society—religious or Haredi—is unwilling to let a woman write an article. Where does this paranoia come from? What exactly is supposed to happen, what will people say or think? Why should we adopt an “official policy” that is so very official…

I cannot understand why there needs to be such fear if some little girl writes a Torah thought. She still hasn’t gone to put on tefillin or perform the priestly blessing at the Western Wall… Is there some paranoia about women here—are they afraid that tomorrow she’ll say: why not put on tefillin like Michal daughter of Saul?? Come on…

But since I live within Haredi society, I want to delve a bit deeper into this paranoia…

A small anecdote:

Yesterday I gave a ride to a neighborhood rabbi, whose greatness in Torah I value more than his modesty (and the discerning will understand)… In the atmosphere of the ride a few screens came down; he softened somewhat from his usual official and dignified (and rather condescending) demeanor, and began chatting with me about this and that. Here my turn came… my chance to “impress” him and speak lofty, impressive words: I began telling stories about the lineage I come from… and while doing so my stomach hurt, and I got sick of the need to impress… I really felt like telling him straight to his face that maybe enough already with this ridiculous saga—maybe we could talk like normal human beings?!… Would that detract one bit from his Torah greatness if he spoke at eye level?
Really? You’d be surprised. I received rabbinic ordination from a very nice rabbi who told me that no one respected him at all until he began wearing the rabbinic cloak (“frock”), and it turns out that making an impression is no small part of the job… I asked him: why are Ashkenazi synagogues ugly and Sephardi ones beautiful? He said: among Sephardim there is honor for “the rabbi’s honor,” and honor for “the honor of Torah,” and honor for “the honor of the synagogue.” Therefore the synagogue is impressive, the rabbi drives a Volvo, and lives in a pretty decent apartment. Among Ashkenazim they honor Torah—therefore the rabbi must show how much he values Torah—and lives in the manner of “Eat bread with salt, sleep on the ground, and toil in Torah…”

If you ever got an invitation to a Haredi wedding, the wording is something like this: “With good signs and good fortune… we shall exalt Jerusalem… we hereby have the honor to invite you, with heavenly assistance, to the wedding of our dear son Moshe with his peer, the celebrated virgin bride Tzipporah, and in your joy we too shall rejoice, the groom’s parents Yosef Cohen and his wife, the bride’s parents David Levi and his wife…” Today there are already “new Haredim” who write Moshe and Dina Cohen, but heaven forbid they would write Dina and Moshe Cohen… In the local press they publish an ad like this: “Pregnancy test sticks for sale, BH, call…” (for those who didn’t understand: pregnancy test sticks…) or a picture of a potted plant shaped like a wig hairstyle, and it says “M. Cohen’s Wig Salon” (without the full name, heaven forbid)… Is there any halakhic source for this paranoia? Of course not. So where does it come from?

Everyone knows there is a gray area in halakhah. Many things—for example in the realm of modesty—it may be hard to determine whether halakhah is measured by fixed rules or according to the period, custom, and norms. For a conservative society, the norm is more critical than black-and-white areas, because major changes always begin דווקא from the gray area, and fundamentalism insists on preserving the status quo as much as possible. The point is that this is not only in areas that have halakhic problematicity, but mainly in areas that are unacceptable because they do not preserve the existing order. Out of fear of change in tradition, the Hatam Sofer said, “The new is forbidden by the Torah” (…)

Conservatism has an entire system of unwritten, apocalyptic, paranoid rules that have no connection to halakhah, and yet are considered by them as a “gray area.” Anyone who knows the Haredi world knows that anything that is “not accepted” to say or do is treated with less tolerance than corruption and severe Torah prohibitions. And why? Because it is one of the foundations of the orderly and fixed social ladder; woe if someone should challenge it and shake the thresholds with claims like “where is this written” or “why not otherwise”… I don’t know whether this is paranoia, hypocrisy, pretense, or closed-mindedness. But one thing is clear to me: it begins with a certain conservative education in which the most important thing of all is to preserve the status quo exactly as it is.
In a conservative society, to behave or dress differently is truly “tactless,” because one must make a very “appropriate” impression, otherwise it is “not respectable.” Where is that written in the Torah? Don’t worry, they’ll find something.

A good example is the patriarchal attitude. Sometimes I try to understand people born into such a very conservative and extreme world; it is entirely possible that they develop a kind of anxiety regarding women, and that very anxiety serves patriarchy and preserves it for future generations… The attitude toward women begins with a healthy relationship between the sexes, and at both ends of the spectrum—children exposed to pornographic films, and children kept away from any contact / looking / speaking about the other sex—may develop a very unhealthy attitude in their future marital relationship and in their general attitude toward the other sex. This certainly expresses itself in marriage. Low divorce rates do not testify to the level of happiness, empathy, and reciprocity in the lives of those who are afraid to divorce (because it is “not accepted”…).

If you ask Haredim why not publish an article by a woman, they will probably respond in Yiddish: “Nisht fun isser, dos iz mamash a pas nisht…” (= It’s not a prohibition, but it’s simply not fitting). The term “it’s not fitting” is supposed to block access to many questions that are swept under the rug… I imagine that someone born into this was educated not to ask questions because “it’s not accepted” or “not appropriate at all.” When you ask them why, they’ll tell you: that’s just how it is. In every social ladder there is fear of being unacceptable, the most terrible fear of all: what will people say about me?…
I don’t want to get into various questions of feminism right now, but still, one question for thought: if a certain lady drops a handkerchief from her bag on the bus, and I hurry to pick it up for her, is that because of gentlemanliness or because of other reasons?…

P.S. It is important for me to note, lest there be any doubt: the writer is a man and not, heaven forbid, a woman……

Rabbi Michael, the silent majority is behind you. People don’t have the energy to fight this battle, but the truth is obvious. The punctilious attempt (on both sides) to discuss with scholarly precision whether a given word was said or not said is uninteresting. But the call for justice, equality, and truth over all foreign considerations is important, and needs to be stated clearly.
It is not clear to me what the problem is with publishing the correspondence, and if additional shameful rules or foolish reasons appear there, it is fitting to publish them in the first place.
And to you, Eyal—you have a genuine opportunity to bring about change. Declare with honor and pride that you do not exclude. If this causes a loss of funding channels, relax—with two hours you’ll raise the sum through crowdfunding from people seeking justice.

And as stated, we have left the polemic over the degrading proposal behind us, and as for the principled question, just a little bit: you wrote, “Torah journals fall in line with the conservative and bizarre approach, most or all of them not identifying with it themselves. None of them is bothered by the moral, halakhic, and Torah wrong, not to mention violation of the law.” I understand that according to your words, even a journal like Moriah, for example, when all the great rabbis of the generation wrote in it, if I am not mistaken in the 1970s and 1980s, would have been obligated—had learned women sent it articles—to publish the articles despite this seriously harming its circle of writers (losing at least half of them, including the leading figures) and its readers, and making it impossible for it to realize its purpose then, because otherwise this would be a violation of the law? Or were they allowed to violate the law? And if someone had petitioned over non-enforcement of the law and they had shut it down, would you have supported that? That follows from your position that exclusion is contrary to law and morality. I assume most of the silent public would be beside itself protesting such judicial activism and such heavy-handedness. Perhaps I did not understand the words “not to mention violation of the law.”

With God’s help, 3 Adar 5777

To the honored wondrous rabbi, full and overflowing, who descends to the depths of reasoning, with bright and illuminating countenance, the rav, Rabbi Eyal, may his light shine, and may his crown flourish upon him—
Greetings and abundant salvation,

Regarding the substance of the principled discussion of women’s Torah writing, I wrote above my view: that there is a significant problem with many female learners who are not proficient in the accepted modes of Torah and halakhic discourse in the yeshiva world, and who need guidance almost from A to Z. Therefore, in my humble opinion, the best course is to refer most female writers to journals of colleges or women’s batei midrash, where the editors have skill in the specific task of training learners without adequate Torah background for proper Torah writing.

And from here to a dash of criticism.
Just as Torah writing is itself a discipline that requires study, so too the work of an “editorial secretary” is a complete discipline requiring study, and I would note here one point that in my humble opinion is very important:

The editorial board is a “personality” that should speak outwardly in “one voice.” Discussions and arguments among the editorial staff should be discussed in editorial meetings, but outwardly there should be a clear and agreed statement presenting the editorial position “openly before all peoples.”

The “editorial secretary,” as his name implies, is the representative and spokesperson of “the editorial board.” Since any statement of his or private email may be regarded by the hearer as a statement on behalf of the editorial board, great caution is required.

In my humble opinion, the best thing is to conduct all negotiations with article submitters in writing. To require written inquiry and reply in writing, preferably after consultation and receiving specific agreement from the other members of the board, and in any case to send a copy of your letter to all members of the board. Thus misunderstandings are avoided—both between the editorial secretary and the writers, and among the members of the board.

With blessings, S. Z. Levinger

To Rabbi Levinger, more power to you. I do not agree with everything in all its details, but I accept it and the lesson will be internalized. The prolonged conversation came מתוך great trust arising from thoughts of acquaintance and from the fact that in my youth I greatly loved the books of the article’s author and he was a figure of great stature and importance (and this week we received an email with a sensitive question on another matter from a writer I do not know, and he wrote that in light of the events of recent days he undertakes not to publicize the answer; and I withdraw and weep, etc.). With blessings and thanks, Eyal

An explicit source for the need for gender partnership in writing we found in the Book of Esther.

For at first Mordechai wrote alone, as it is written: “And Mordechai wrote these things and sent letters to all the Jews… to establish for them” (Esther 9:20–22). And although the Jews upheld and accepted upon themselves and upon their descendants to do what Mordechai had commanded, there was a need for Esther as well to join, as it is written: “Then Esther the queen, the daughter of Avihail, and Mordechai the Jew wrote with all authority to confirm this second letter of Purim… and Esther’s decree confirmed these matters of Purim, and it was written in the book” (Esther 9:29–32).

It follows that in order for matters to be written in the book, there must be the joining of a man and his wife, as Malachi says: “Then those who feared the Lord spoke one man to another, and the Lord listened and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who feared the Lord and thought upon His name” (Malachi 3:16).

May it be God’s will that the coming Purim days come upon us for joy and gladness, love and brotherhood and peace and friendship. Let us drink of the perfumer’s wine, to be saved from the tyrant and the inspector, and increase good teaching!

With blessings, S. Z. Levinger, Midreshet “Shemen HaMor,” Givat HaHumor

Eyal,
I’ll tell you honestly that I do not understand what you’re going on about in this whole matter.
This is a disgraceful proposal, even if it was only half a proposal, because in your life you would never have sent him such a suggestion regarding two men signed on an article.
Your assumption that if Moriah had published a high-level article written by a woman then half the writers would have left is an assumption with nothing to support it. And that itself is the problem. The fear of what might happen, when it’s not even clear what exactly the problem is and who it bothers at all.
And it’s not clear what changed this year that you decided to allow publication of an article bearing a man’s and a woman’s names. Why is that different from the article Rabbi Michi is talking about? Did you get ricochets from the decision to publish an article by couples this year?
If you feel that you have two choices: to close Asif or to allow women to publish, then say that you choose the lesser evil and are willing to commit a certain wrong in order to sustain the journal. That is a statement one can accept (and also argue about). But don’t start saying that any reasonable person would make the same decision. That is far from inevitable.
And one last point: you are not doing women a favor if you allow them to publish articles in the journal. You are doing yourself and your readers a favor by making sure you have published the best articles you were able to obtain.

Eyal,
I think you are getting hung up on a minor point, and it comes across as an attempt to evade the original discussion.
According to you, there was a misunderstanding on the rabbi’s part as to what you proposed to him. I believe you. It’s not clear to me why he is unable to conduct a conversation with you based on trust when you know each other personally. Since I know both of you personally, I don’t think either of you is trying to distort things intentionally. There is simply a misunderstanding here, but it is in the marginal part of the discussion. I don’t think it’s worthwhile for you to wage a war over this. Especially since it looks as though you are trying to divert the discussion. One can understand why you wouldn’t want to open this discussion, but it has already been opened.
The principled question is whether women really need to be sacrificed so that certain yeshivot will agree to bring Asif in. And note well: we are not speaking of their contribution to Asif, because there is no capacity for creative writing there and the contribution from there to the journal is negligible (oh yes, if someone important writes a bad article, you’ll publish it out of respect; that’s not exactly a contribution…).

Hello Yishai (I assume Glazner),
Indeed, a small misunderstanding, explained at length above several times, and I will not return to it again, since the discussion is concluded.
In light of all this, you think I should conduct this discussion here, on the blog of the article’s author? This is the last place where I would think to conduct a principled discussion (well, perhaps the Hamas blog would be the very last place—the kind of analogy beloved by the sharp-tongued owner of this blog). I am here only to defend our good name and to state clearly—we did not do what the author caused readers to understand that we did. I have explained this far too many times and resolved most of his difficulties, and he can verify it in reality easily. So this is not an attempt to evade at all, and if I need to persuade you, it can be done privately, and I trust you won’t expose emails 🙂 Indeed, I am obsessive about preserving my good name in public.
Benny, it is your full right to criticize the proposal. I have no problem with that, and everything is open. Our only small and tiny claim is this: the text by the author in Shabbat misled the readers and took things out of context—conscious solicitation to steal credit (the readers’ and the author’s understanding) versus the simple truth (a proposal conditioned twice on her not being a full partner but only having assisted, and which was conveyed from someone who had been told she helped with the writing). Does that seem marginal to you in comparison with the magnitude of the sin of the boycott? Fine, that’s your right; I did not create this discussion. You can criticize the policy and the proposal even in light of the reality. That is your right. As I said, I will not discuss any principled issue here in this place. What you wrote about our view is apparently what you understood from what the author wrote in light of internal emails spoken in trust several years ago, in other days that are no more. Today my own personal principled position is also different. I am glad it matters so much to you that there be yeshiva Torah journals replacing Meisharim, Ma’alot, and Gulot; fortunate are we.

Actually, what I wrote about your position is what I understood from the things you yourself wrote on Facebook.
Even after this response of yours, I still cannot say that I understand your way of thinking on this matter.
If you do not like this venue, you are welcome to direct me to an address where you will write what Asif’s current policy is, who determined that policy, and whether the policy has changed in the last three years.

To Benny, which things on Facebook are you referring to? I’d be happy to talk there if you want. If you mean, for example, the synagogue and the Maharat and the Torah talk between Kabbalat Shabbat and Ma’ariv—to establish or to split, the wise man builds versus the wise man destroys—it need not be interpreted in terms of threat and compromise. The world is not a battlefield between factions but a place of building and life. I take into account the identity, positions, and preferences of another person with whom I am building a structure (and the world of national-religious yeshivot is a defined body entitled to establish a common structure), not because he threatens me and I need him. That is not the discourse. I simply take his choices into account because we are establishing a common structure. Which positions will I take into account and which not? Who is the partner with whom I am building, and why? What is the value of this specific common structure anyway, and why is it important to me? I will not discuss that in this place, and I assume you can understand (up above I am being called a distorter under every green tree, and I am not exactly used to the situation; pardon the emotion).

With God’s help, 4 Adar 5777

To Ariel—greetings,

As per your suggestion (below), I checked volume after volume to see what the situation was in Techumin, and the picture emerging from volume 9 through volume 35 (which came out last year!) is one and the same:

The rumor is not correct: women write in Techumin, without the need for a partner!

Here is the list:

*Atara Gur, “The Temple of Ezekiel,” vol. 9, pp. 486–511

*Rivkah Brand, “Grafting Palm Trees,” vol. 13, pp. 106–115.

*Rabbi Yoel and Dr. Hannah Katan, “Cervical Wounds—a Medical and Halakhic Perspective,” vol. 15, pp. 316–331.

*Rivkah Lubitch, “On Women’s Prayer (Response),” vol. 16, pp. 165–167.

*Tova Ganzel and Dr. Dina Rachel Zimmerman, “The Body’s Cycle—a Halakhic and Medical Perspective,” vol. 20, pp. 363–375.

*Dr. Yael Levin Katz, “The Text of the ‘Nahem’ Prayer,” vol. 21, pp. 71–92.

Rabbi Yoel and Dr. Hannah Katan, “A Defective Fetus—Early Diagnosis and Birth Prevention,” vol. 21, pp. 132–140.

*The above, “Heavy Uterine Bleeding—Medical Treatment and Its Halakhic Implications,” vol. 23, pp. 256–261.

*The above, “Concealing Information in Matchmaking,” vol. 25, pp. 47–58.

*The above, “Wedding Canopy in a State of Niddah—Halakhic and Medical Aspects,” vol. 26, pp. 427–440.

*Noa Lau, “The First-Day Examination of the Seven Clean Days,” vol. 30, pp. 233–240.

*Yitzhak Avi and Michal Rones, “Parameters of Placing a Moch Dachuk,” vol. 31, pp.261–268.

*Dr. Miriam Weitman, “Use of a Non-Jew’s Identity Card During the Holocaust,” vol. 31, pp. 261–268.

*Prof. Mordechai Kislev and Dr. Orit Simhoni, “What Is a Kosher Willow, What Is a Disqualified Willow, and What Is a Poplar?” thus vol. 33, pp. 266–277.

*Rabbi Meir Nehorai and Dr. Hannah Adler-Lazarovitz, vol. 34, pp. 407–418.

*Tova Ganzel, “Interposition in Long, Painted, and Artificial Fingernails,” vol. 35, pp. 300–311.

***

In short: there is absolutely no prohibition in Techumin against a woman writing without a partner!

With blessings, S. Z. Levinger

,

Deleted. I wrote without having seen the earlier stages of the discussion. There is indeed a policy change in Techumin, but it is not connected in any way to the quality of the writing. On the contrary, if the problem were the quality of the article, the situation would be simple. Reject it because it is not suitable. What could be simpler? But they reject it because of the author’s gender. See Maimonides and Rabbenu Yonah on the mishnah: “Judge every person favorably.”

To Rabbi Michael Abraham—

Atara Gur (vol. 9), Rivkah Brand (vol. 13), Rivkah Lubitch (vol. 16), Tova Ganzel and Dr. Dina Rachel Zimmerman (vol. 20), Dr. Yael Levin Katz (vol. 21), Noa Lau (vol. 30), Dr. Miriam Weitman (vol. 31), Tova Ganzel (vol. 35)—all wrote without a partner.

Where do you see a “policy change”?

With blessings, S. Z. Levinger

I too believed the stories about a “policy change,” but “what is manifest cannot be denied”…

Shatzal, it’s a shame to argue about facts. The matter has been published and is known. This is not speculation or a hypothesis standing empirical test. Tova Ganzel’s article was rejected on condition that she add her husband as a fictitious partner. There are distinctions among types of articles, and I did not enter into the details (nor does it really interest me). The fact is that there are restrictions there on women’s writing. If you wish, you can argue as much as you like and bring what seem to you conclusive proofs. I see no point in dealing with known facts that they themselves admitted.

With God’s help, 4 Adar 5777

From the words of Rabbi Yisrael Rosen (quoted in Hanan Greenwood’s article, “Want to Publish a Halakhic Article? Get Your Husband to Sign Too,” on the Kipa website, 21 Sivan 5775), it appears that there is no sweeping “prohibition,” but rather a recommendation—and that too only with regard to articles containing practical halakhic rulings for our day:

“On the other hand, Rabbi Rosen says, there has been no exclusion of women in the Techumin annual. ‘In the Techumin collections, quite a few articles were published that were written by women, both on their own—for example Dr. Yael Levin, Rivkah Lubitch, Dr. Miriam Weitman, Noa Lau, and others—and in collaboration with a spouse, for example Rabbi Yoel and Dr. Hannah Katan, and even a non-family “pair,” for example: Rabbi Meir Nehorai and Dr. Hannah Adler-Lazarovitz. The editorial board does not disqualify women’s articles.’”

“Nevertheless,” says Rabbi Rosen, “‘in halakhic matters involving practical rulings for our time, the editorial board proposes “joint writing” for two reasons: we do not want to enter the current polemic over “women as halakhic decisors,” and prefer to bypass it. In addition, the Techumin editorial board is interested in receiving articles also from rabbis from the Haredi sector, who would not publish articles on a platform where women write halakhah on their own. This image is important to us, and we are willing to pay the price of adding the husband, who studied the article in havruta with his wife, rather than being “excluded” by rabbis such as Rabbi Zalman Nehemia Goldberg, Rabbi Bakshi-Doron, and their many likes. Weigh one “exclusion” against another.’”

“Incidentally,” adds Rabbi Rosen, “‘Mrs. Tova Ganzel’s halakhic article, joined by Dr. Hazi her husband, is innovative and lenient regarding women immersing with artificial nails. A principled discussion was held in the editorial board whether to publish it without an article expressing another opinion, since its content is not agreed upon by all. We often act this way regarding disputed halakhic issues, for example the issue of “prenuptial agreements” in the last volume. It was precisely the female aspect of the author that tipped the scales in favor of publication without a dissenting article, since she is immersed in these matters practically in women’s batei midrash.’”

It should be remembered that Rabbi Rosen was among the very first to encourage and open the gates to women’s Torah and halakhic writing, and this was in 5749 / 1989, when the whole matter of women’s batei midrash was still in its infancy. His openness, accompanied by great caution, greatly helped women enter the world of halakhah. Rabbi Rosen is the last person one can complain against on this topic.

With blessings, S. Z. Levinger

Regarding Dr. Tova Ganzel’s article, which contains a precedent-setting innovation, it seems that instead of adding her physician husband “as an extra flourish,” it would have been preferable to attach a letter of endorsement from one of the great halakhic decisors of our generation, such as Rabbi Yaakov Ariel or Rabbi Dov Lior, whose endorsement would have strengthened the author’s ruling.

From Rabbi Rosen’s words, from which it appears that the problematic area is specifically practical ruling involving innovation “in practice,” it seems that in a journal such as Asif, which is aimed more in the directions of scholarship, thought, and research, there should have been no need to be strict about this.

In any case, in retrospect the matter turned out for the good, in that Drisha arose from the women’s beit midrash next to Bar-Ilan University, devoted entirely to cultivating women’s Torah writing. Let the sons engage in Asif and the daughters in Drisha, and from both together knowledge will increase.

With blessings, S. Z. Levinger

Hello Rabbi Michael,

Without entering the argument between you and Rabbi Eyal, I want to address your claim, “Why do they yield to the conservatives?”—and to do so without bringing in my personal opinion on the whole matter [whether it is just or not to exclude women’s articles simply because they are women], but more to describe the situation in the most practical way possible.

Like it or not, most of the leading rabbis and Torah scholars belong either to the Haredi public or to the more conservative wing of the religious-Zionist public, and they have their standards, and you will not succeed in changing them.

And it is understandable that any high-quality Torah journal would want to be honored by their writing in it, and as you yourself wrote in your article in Makor Rishon, there are hardly any learned women capable of writing a serious Torah article. So can you not understand editors of a Torah journal who prefer the continued writing of the leading authors in the field rather than losing them over an argument that is more principled than practical?

The editors are making a simple calculation that may seem painful to you: most of the religious public, certainly the part that comes from the yeshivot, is not especially interested in the issue of advancing women within the Torah world, etc., and some even view it suspiciously. So if they refrain from publishing articles by women, it may bother certain circles whose esteem these journals are not in any case trying to win—but it will indeed bother them and their readers if renowned Torah scholars stop publishing there.

What would you do if you were editor of a journal and knew you would take a step that might please perhaps half a percent of the public—of which even within that half-percent it is doubtful how many readers you actually have—whereas among the overwhelming majority of your readership there would be dissatisfaction with the move, and the authors they want to read would stop writing there because of the step you took?

I know this sounds like business calculations of profit and loss, but I can say from not very long yet meaningful experience I have gained as a synagogue sexton that in public service one cannot go against that public, because it will simply vote with its feet.
And to avoid that, there are always compromises and balances between ideology and practicality.

Your good friend Nadav Shnerb once wrote, and rightly, to Yoav Sorek in response on the Shabbat supplement website of Makor Rishon, that he had no business complaining about rabbis and readers disappointed by the style he brought as editor, but only about himself, for bringing in a group of writers belonging to a tiny, narrow camp as though they represented the religious-Zionist public, whereas most readers simply belong to a more mainstream current and want to receive other things.

Yoav Sorek replied and said that accordingly they on the editorial staff did indeed include other materials as well and balanced what they wanted because of the dissatisfaction of the many readers.

There’s nothing to be done—apparently that’s how it is…..

Hello Amir. Indeed those are precisely the claims, and I disagree. First, I do not agree that most Torah scholars are conservative and Haredi. That is true of most people with lots of knowledge, but not of most interesting and original writers. I can imagine that if only the conservatives who refuse to write alongside women were writing there, the journal would be rather dull. Just another standard Haredi journal.
Beyond that, there are supposed to be moral red lines. If they demanded omitting Mizrahim or Hungarians, would you accept such a practical argument? In the Frankel Rambam edition they omitted Rav Kook from the book Zera’im (they removed him after he had already been included). Does that sound reasonable to you?

With God’s help, 5 Adar 5777

It is worth noting that Rabbi Rosen, in his delicacy and sensitivity, did not mention the main problem that causes Torah scholars and editors of Torah journals to recoil from engaging in “women’s Torah writing”:

Unfortunately, a significant portion of those wishing to make their “Torah voice” heard come from backgrounds of worldviews that, sadly, are common in academia and do not always accord with the foundations of faith and Torah thought based on the words of the Sages and our early and later rabbis.

Even those who are sound from the standpoint of faith often suffer from a serious lack of knowledge of the halakhic method, which obligates the editor to explain to them from the alphabet onward things that are simple to any young Torah scholar who has studied a few years in yeshiva.

It seems, therefore, that most female writers need serious training before they can enter into proper Torah writing. Hence the importance of the journals of colleges and women’s batei midrash, where there are editors skilled in guiding female learners who lack Torah background and in training them for worthy Torah writing.

To the extent that more female learners study with faithfulness to Torah and commitment to the ways of analysis and clarification of the Sages and our early rabbis, so too will the trust of the Torah-learning public in those learners increase, and the fruit of their labor will be received with appreciation in the tents of Torah.

With blessings, S. Z. Levinger

Shatzal, I certainly appreciate your desire to judge favorably, but I already referred you to the commentators on the mishnah in Avot. There is no connection between your words and reality.
If the article is unworthy, it is very easy to reject it because it is unworthy. That’s all. That is not what we are talking about. After all, if they ask the husband to sign fictitiously, that does not make the article more worthy or more yeshiva-like. I am talking about rejecting an article because the author is a woman, and not because of anything else connected to the article. How long can one keep plugging one’s ears and shutting one’s eyes?
But it seems to me we have really exhausted this. This discussion is entirely pointless.

I’ll start from the end—it indeed does not sound reasonable to me. It is outrageous, and unfortunately this policy exists very much in books that come out in the Haredi public, and unfortunately even Mossad Harav Kook itself has yielded to this policy, and on the books of the Rishonim they publish they write on the cover at the side “Institute for Publishing Early and Later Authorities,” while their real logo, “Mossad Harav Kook,” they imprint inconspicuously on the cover.

And you found a painful point with me—that I, apparently like the majority, use the Frankel edition because in other respects it is simply an excellent edition for studying Rambam, and although I think this omission is outrageous, I probably surrender to reality.

Regarding the majority of Torah scholars—it seems to me that most readers [I have not done a survey; this is my impression] would be interested in reading the articles of the interesting and original writers in your sense + the writers considered senior rabbis, but not the interesting and original writers without them.

As for the question of a demand to omit Mizrahim etc.—of course there are red lines, but notice yourself that in the yeshiva institutions, both in the Haredi public and in our public, the gates of the study hall are open only to male students, and no one says a word, whereas if in a certain yeshiva [among us; the situation in the Haredi public is known] they would not accept a student because of his ethnic background, there would be a huge outcry over it, and rightly so.

It may be that in Torah journals, and especially a journal like Asif, which is very clearly identified with the yeshivot [after all it is the journal of the hesder yeshivot], they view writing in them as writing of the study hall, and as such for men only.

I personally do not think it must be so in principle, but I can understand the analogy, and that there are those for whom the whole issue of learned women is still not ripe, and they make an analogy: study hall = journals of the study hall.

I do not necessarily agree, but I can understand where it comes from and why there would not be a situation where a journal says it does not accept writers based on ethnic background, but when it comes to a female writer the editors are more hesitant.

P.S.

Since we are already speaking about the gap between ideology and reality [the editorial considerations of the difference between the desirable and the feasible], I am interested in what you think about the following position:

In a filmed panel that I happened to watch on the subject of egalitarian prayer groups and the like, a community rabbi spoke there [I will not write his name so that the discussion be about the issue and not the person], and he said that he supports this whole trend of such prayer groups and maximal inclusion of women within halakhah in all areas of religious life, and sees in it a great development. But on the other hand, in the synagogue where he serves as rabbi he is very careful not to make changes from the accepted norm despite his desire, because among his congregants there are quite a few conservative worshippers who oppose this and would leave the synagogue if he instituted all that he wants in this matter.

He emphasized, incidentally, that we are not speaking of halakhic conservatism but rather “baalebatish” conservatism—people who oppose the matter because they “want to pray the way Grandpa and Grandma prayed,” without any change.

Do you think that rabbi is not acting properly, that he is yielding to the conservatives in his community at the expense of women [and men] who do want this, and that he should go with his truth and sense of justice rather than practical considerations like communal peace and preventing quarrels over the matter?

I’m interested in your opinion ……….

Rabbi Michi, in your article in Makor Rishon you distinguish between the Talmud (= a Sanhedrin-based authority) and the Rishonim regarding the possibility of instituting decrees.
Could you explain and provide sources for your words?
Is this distinction itself agreed upon, or are there those who dispute it?
[To the best of my limited memory and knowledge there are Rishonim who instituted decrees.
Did they disagree with the above assumption?]
In short, I would be glad for references on the matter (I assume you wrote about this before; if so, could you refer me?)
Thanks

Rabbi Michi—it seems to me that the discussion about the moral level of the so-called “exclusion” is irrelevant to our present topic. Exclusion and discrimination mean rejection on irrelevant grounds: a situation where according to objective criteria a person ought to belong to a certain category, but is rejected for external reasons. In this sense, Techumin indeed expresses exclusion, since its purpose is to be a journal on certain halakhic topics, and therefore by rights every article constituting a worthy halakhic contribution in those areas ought to be accepted. The rejection of women (which, according to what I know, exists to one degree or another) is done for cynical reasons, prestige considerations (R. Asher versus Tova Ganzel), and in that sense this is discrimination. But the categorical space of Asif is not some halakhic topic or another, but rather the sociological phenomenon called “hesder yeshivot,” or more precisely “religious-Zionist yeshivot,” which as I know this reality indeed has unique characteristics and enough common denominator to justify relating to this group as a distinct category. To the best of my knowledge, no women’s beit midrash is included in this category, not by pure definition, and yes, the reality of women’s Torah study is also not such as to justify including it within the group called hesder yeshivot at any cost. Whereas in Techumin, if R. Asher does not publish and Tova Ganzel does, the only harm will be to the journal’s prestige and so on. But if students from the conservative yeshivot do not publish in Asif, then its very existence is meaningless (or alternatively, it has another meaning—not the one that interests the founders of the journal). Therefore the rejection of women from the journal is not a moral wrong, nor should it be hurtful—just as I would not be offended if my brilliant analytical articles were not published by Ponevezh Yeshiva, for the esoteric reason that I am not a student of Ponevezh.
Is there value in this goal, to unite the hesder yeshivot? I am willing to guess that in your eyes there is not much such value, and that R. Eyal would disagree. But this level of value is not an objective quality; it is emotion, a matter of feeling alone. It seems to me that even in your world there is legitimacy for emotional pluralism.
I would add one more point—I believe in the need for Torah study for women. Likewise, I see the existing Torah world, and I aspire for women’s Torah learning to develop out of and upon the basis of the existing Torah learning, not at its expense. Therefore the “yielding” to conservatism is sometimes essential. This yielding is not the moral wrong of a private individual, as it is presented by you and others—it is simply the state of reality (even if somewhat grim), and an unwillingness to destroy this reality in the name of one ideal or another.

Clearly this depends on the community in question. But I would note that he has to take into account not only the baalebatish conservatism, but also the desires and distress of the women and the effect of the decision on them. It often happens that consideration is given to the former and not the latter. If, in the overall weighing, this seems to him to be the correct decision—he is the community rabbi, and he must make the decisions.

See Rosh on Sanhedrin ch. 4, no. 6 at length. Also Kesef Mishneh at the beginning of ch. 2 of Hilkhot Mamrim.
If you have an example of Rishonim who instituted a general decree, I’d be happy to see it. At the moment I do not recall such a thing.
In my book (the trilogy) I will elaborate more, God willing.

I have no problem with that. Let them unite whomever they want with whomever they want. But the rejection here was not because she had not studied in a hesder yeshiva (there are articles in Asif written by others who neither studied nor taught in a hesder yeshiva), but because she is a woman.

But since she did not study in a hesder yeshiva, they have no moral obligation toward her—which allows them utilitarian considerations such as preferring Har HaMor over a woman.

I did not understand this strange argument. I did not say they were obligated to publish her article. What I said is that a discriminatory policy toward women is not moral. And if they cling to the fact that she is not a hesder student, the same applies to other authors whose work they did publish there. That is discrimination. That’s all.

Ploni, much thanks to you for finally saying here things that are somewhat close to our position over the past year, which have been said several times in several contexts (even if in an internal email written three years ago, which for some reason the blog owner finds it sensible to threaten to expose on his blog above, a more practical side was emphasized—and after all there are many aspects mixed together that serve practical policy)—we never meant a legal argument that by itself is sufficient when we said that the journal belongs to the yeshiva community and comes to serve it (even if in practice 98 percent of the writers are studying and teaching in yeshivot or are graduates of the yeshivot, and almost all of it—and can an institution not produce a journal also for its graduates? and have yeshiva journals not always published articles by their graduates? and was it not only I, the little one, who published in a yeshiva journal I edited for the institution’s twentieth anniversary an article by the owner of this blog after inviting him personally to do so because he had previously taught in the institution, as is customary?—and especially an institution that educates for continued Torah study in practical life?)—and within that almost-all-of-it, in principle also allows someone who was not in the yeshiva and did not teach there, something that may have happened once. That is, despite this legal argument, which suffices for many people whose desire is to increase good (including people from other women’s batei midrash who desire the good), this is not the main argument but background to the additional claim: if we are speaking of “public space,” then a choice by a journal of “conservatives” over “women” is indeed the journal’s choice and a preference for one factor, and perhaps agreement to discrimination, perhaps. But here we are dealing with a joint structure of all the yeshivot together, intended to serve them, and therefore it is naturally supposed to represent their Torah conceptions. Thus the journal does not choose (and in truth this is not its choice) one conception and prefer it; rather it builds a common structure with its partners out of love and trust and decides to manage this common structure through the shared conceptions that make it possible to build it.
And what is the connection to the question of discrimination against Mizrahim? I do not wish to resort here to a full explanation, but for the blog owner, if in another three years he interprets that women may be counted for a minyan, by the same method that allows him perhaps to validate them for testimony as well (I haven’t read it inside and I say only “perhaps,” despite my being a known distorter), or for other things, and then fifteen years later many follow such a ruling, yet there are still conservative communities that will not count women for a minyan—will that be discrimination similar to not counting Mizrahim for a minyan? And after all, this entire trend of seeing the women’s batei midrash as a parallel women’s Torah world whose scholarship ought to be discussed, in whose name people also want a yeshiva journal to publish articles because there is no difference between men and women in this field—many Torah scholars disagree with this and believe it contradicts the guidance of the Sages regarding Torah study for women (only practical halakhic and faith study, since the Hafetz Hayyim’s permission was out of practical need in our world of education, and not to build as policy a parallel Torah world, and the principled distinction of Beit HaLevi, including the prohibition codified in Shulchan Arukh, stands at the center). And this is only part of the explanation of the worldview of the Torah scholars with whom we are building in this domain—only part. Therefore it is legitimate that if we are building together with them a structure, we will not regard their view as an injustice like not counting a Mizrahi in our world.
How different in spirit these things are from what the blog owner wrote in the article in Shabbat when he sought to explain our position, in the sentence after that degrading proposal: “Usually the explanations I received were that the editorial boards want to allow authors from all shades of religious society to participate (and therefore they always go down to the most extreme and conservative common denominator. This is always one-way; the conservatives, of course, have no interest in the participation of the moderns). Women apparently are not regarded as authors whose participation has value. Fine, neither are cats.”
And why did we choose to build together with the other yeshivot and not with the women’s batei midrash? And not with Matan? A strange question that could be asked gently and respectfully, and the answer is clear from several directions and reasons, but the formulations are simply incorrect.
And at a deeper level, the following words of that same anonymous commenter—whose name I would be glad to know—formulated well what our goal is in that union and why responding to the author’s policy, something that if we do not do it he thinks it fitting to boycott us and he even calls to boycott us: “Whereas in Techumin, if R. Asher does not publish and Tova Ganzel does, the only harm will be to the journal’s prestige etc. But if students of the conservative yeshivot do not publish in Asif, then its entire existence is meaningless (or alternatively, has another meaning—not the one that interests the founders of the journal).” Its existence will be meaningless because a deep part of the goal is that the religious-Zionist yeshiva world should not experience itself in its self-consciousness as a fragmented world in which a person identifies first and foremost as conservative or liberal—secondary elements of identity rather than the core identity: a religious-Zionist yeshiva world, with the redeeming Torah and the lights of Torah and nation and land. And this has very great educational value, in that general identity, and that is one of the central elements of education—to impart to the student a broad and general identity to belong to. And of course the journal does not pretend to do this alone; it is only a small part of a larger trend within which many steps are being taken. And this is the purpose for which we established the journal, as emissaries of a certain idea about a danger to Religious Zionism—the emphasis on divisiveness and the dangers of resulting schism (which we see as a great danger from several standpoints), and instead emphasis on what unites. And if the journal were to split over this issue, then instead of achieving the purpose for which it was founded, we would simply be causing further significant harm to the vision we came to instill. So Ploni, not only would the journal fail to realize the purpose for which it was founded, it would actually damage that very purpose! And all this the blog owner demands of us forcefully and harshly, and calls for us to be boycotted if we do not do it. And instead of focusing on adding good and light on the platform given to him (and in my life as an editor I would never publicly write a sentence referring to the level of the articles sent to us), and instead of simply changing the platform so that it would act similarly to Asif—to call respectfully for partners, men and women, from Bruriah, Nishmat, and Migdal Oz to join the editorial board, something that indeed would make Drisha like Asif and produce a similar effect in women’s batei midrash so that they would feel a strong sense of belonging; and to let those partners think together about what level of selectivity is required in order to advance the world little by little, as we do in Asif all the time and are urged to do more—instead of all that he calls for a boycott, because it is perfectly clear to him beyond all doubt that we are entirely wrong and accursed villains worthy of boycott, in the manner of the great and upright liberals.
But one who sees no value in Religious Zionism, and no value in its unity, and no educational value in a broad identity, and does not try to understand why people disagree with him and what educational and Torah value they see in unity—everything is power struggles of conservatives, liberals, cats. Thank God most people do understand and see and are empathetic and sensitive and want chiefly to add good and build, as buildings are built in this world—with listening, with delicacy, with an entirely different language.

It really is outrageous that you don’t have Facebook ..

In Asif, volume 4, there are two articles written jointly by two couples:

*Rabbi Oded and Mana Alon, “Climbing with the Patient to Heaven—Following Rabbi Tzviki Hirsch’s Article”

*Dan and Odiya Keller, “And Elisha You Shall Anoint—The Meaning of Elijah’s Anointing of Elisha.”

With blessings, S. Z. Levinger

And regarding the article crowned with the bombastic title “A Critical Study of Rabbi Yosef Messas’s Responsum, and Something on Tendentiousness in Halakhic Ruling”—I am amazed what the editorial board’s salka da‘ata was in publishing it in such a form?

There are a number of difficulties there regarding the words of the responding rabbi. Difficulties are an excellent thing to stimulate discussion and study. A good question is an opening to understanding. Certainly students, male and female, of Torah should be encouraged to raise questions and offer comments. But to decide in advance that the “question” has no answer, and then to send, in the title, a subtle hint as thick as a beam about the decisor’s “tendentiousness”—that is not the way of Torah.

Rabbi Hayyim of Volozhin already taught us (in his commentary to Avot, Ruach Hayyim) that “sit in the dust of their feet” regarding sages is related to the language of struggle—to ask and to comment on what seems difficult—but this must be done “in the dust of their feet,” with recognition of their tremendous greatness and with striving to descend to the depth of their view.

It would be fitting for Torah journals intended for yeshiva students or for students of women’s batei midrash and colleges to set aside a section for short notes, where the students can raise comments, pose questions, and suggest answers, and in this way sharpen one another and even make their teachers wiser.

With blessings, S. Z. Levinger