Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah: Open Orthodoxy is not Orthodox Judaism

The New RCA Resolution About Women Rabbis – What It is, and What It Is Not

Cross-Currents   by Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer

JOFA (Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance) continues to be disappointed by the RCA’s insistence that only men may assume positions of “rabbinic status,” which as far as we can tell, amounts to nothing more than an obsession with titles… We are disappointed that America’s largest association of Orthodox rabbis spends its time developing redundant statements (see 2010 Statement, 2013 Statement) absent of halakhic grounding…

The above JOFA advocacy statement and a petition in support of the ordination of women as rabbis, as pushback to the new Rabbinical Council of America resolution concerning women rabbis, have been posted on the Facebook pages of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah and numerous Open Orthodox constituents. Whereas I normally do not react to JOFA statements, in this case, JOFA’s statement evinces great misunderstanding and provides the opportunity to clarify and educate.

Although I am a member of the RCA’s Executive Committee and I voted in favor of the above resolution (which was voted upon by the entire RCA membership), I am not an RCA officer, nor an RCA representative, nor do I represent the drafters of the RCA resolution. I speak for myself only, yet as someone who has intimate familiarity with many of the issues and the background.

Contrary to the belief of JOFA and the Open Orthodox rabbinate, the RCA’s position that women may not be ordained as clergy is based on clear rulings and the direct counsel of Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, Rabbi Hershel Schachter, Rabbi Gedalia Dov Schwartz and Rabbi Mordechai Willig, all of whom presented their positions against the ordination of women to the RCA in 2010 and appealed to the RCA to vote in favor of a 2010 resolution to that effect. These preeminent halachic authorities presented a variety of reasons and analysis thereof for their decision, but the decision was uniform. (Please also see this incisive article.)

The RCA resolution of 2010 was, unfortunately, circumvented by some rabbis. Other rabbis, who are in the field and have been defending the position of the RCA poskim in the face of local Open Orthodox rabbinic and lay challenges, felt that something more specific was needed. Additionally, female clergy have been increasingly employed by Orthodox-identified congregations and schools over the past several years. It was against this backdrop and in response to these important developments that the 2015 RCA resolution on the matter was drafted, submitted for passage and adopted.

Some of us in the RCA were quite disappointed that mainstream institutional Orthodoxy had largely done nothing to address the growing trend of women rabbis, despite credible assertions on the part of leaders of mainstream institutional Orthodoxy that they are committed to the RCA’s halachic authorities and oppose the ordination of women for the rabbinate (and other Open Orthodox innovations). Open Orthodoxy has been on the march for over a decade, three classes of women have been ordained by Yeshivat Maharat, but all we heard from mainstream institutional Orthodoxy was silence. It was clear that something had to be done, and that it required a grassroots initiative.

The new RCA resolution not only affirms the position of the RCA’s poskim against the ordination of women, but it stipulates:

Therefore, the Rabbinical Council of America

• Resolves to educate and inform our community that RCA members with positions in Orthodox institutions may not

  1. Ordain women into the Orthodox rabbinate, regardless of the title used; or

  2. Hire or ratify the hiring of a woman into a rabbinic position at an Orthodox institution; or

  3. Allow a title implying rabbinic ordination to be used by a teacher of Limudei Kodesh in an Orthodox institution; and,

• Commits to an educational effort to publicize its policy by:

  1. Republishing its policies on this matter; and,

  2. Clearly communicating and disseminating these policies to its members and the community.

 The drafters of the resolution sought to restrict the focus to the ordination of women, and not to address the propriety of Yoatzot Halacha and other women’s positons and halachic training programs. Unfortunately, despite this intent, many have construed the wording of the resolution as actually endorsing the Yoatzot programs and so forth. Although this seems to be a legitimate reading of the resolution, this was not at all its intent. The drafters purposefully did not want to convey an opinion about the propriety of Yoatzot programs and the like, as the RCA has no position on the matter, and many RCA members, this writer included, are not in favor of such programs. This is a critical point of clarification that must be made and publicized.

Some Open Orthodox rabbis have alleged that the RCA is placing people outside of Orthodoxy, discriminating against those who do not agree with the RCA position, and changing the rules. Nothing could be further from the truth. The RCA resolution is based on the 2010 pronouncements of the RCA’s poskim, whose articulation of the issues merely continued the rabbinic tradition of millennia and did not change anything. On the contrary, this problem was not created by the RCA, and those who broke rank with traditional Orthodoxy and introduced the problem and precipitated the present schism should think hard about their actions and trajectory.

Postscript:
I present here a snippet from a previous article on the subject of the ordination of women rabbis:

Within the week, three Orthodox-identified rabbinical ordination programs for women granted semicha (ordination) to their graduating classes. (Please see here and here.) While the mainstream organs of Orthodoxy do not recognize or approve of the ordination of women (here are RCA statements about the matter), the reasons for not accepting the legitimacy of semicha for women remain a mystery to some.

Various articles have been published about the topic (please see here for R. Hershel Schachter’s article); I would like to take one approach and provide some elaboration.

Halachic analysis of contemporary rabbinical ordination of women was first put forth by R. Saul Lieberman (please see here for R. Gil Student’s important presentation thereof), who in 1979 expressed his opposition to such on the part of Jewish Theological Seminary.

Although R. Lieberman’s tenure at JTS was the subject of controversy and was certainly not viewed favorably by Orthodox leadership, R. Lieberman was Orthodox and was very well-versed in our topic; his ruling on it is thus quite pivotal and precedential. R. Lieberman’s position was discussed in my initial article on rabbinical ordination for women, but that article focused more on the definition of Mesorah (Torah tradition). Let us turn here to the actual issue of semicha for women.

Lieberman demonstrates that even though modern-day semicha is not the original semicha that was conferred by Moshe upon Yehoshua and that continued to be conferred upon subsequent scholars until one-and-a-half a millennia ago, modern-day semicha is most certainly a carryover and model of the original semicha. The original semicha empowered one to serve as dayan, rabbinic judge, and that is exactly what contemporary semicha represents, as evidenced in the earliest of rabbinic literature that discusses the purpose and function of contemporary semicha. Since women cannot serve as rabbinic judges (Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 7:4, with the exception of cases of binding arbitration, in which the status of dayan is forgone [Sanhedrin 24, Rambam Hil. Sanhederin 7:2] – and modern-day semicha is decidedly not modeled on this), the rabbinical ordination of women is not valid and is distortive of the very essence of semicha. To grant semicha to women makes no sense, and to do so would “make ourselves objects of derision and jest”, proclaimed R. Lieberman.

The end of the matter is that it is clear from the sources that being called by the title “rav” (“Rabbi he shall be called”) reflects on the fitness to issue legal decisions and to judge, and we should not empty the title “rav” of its meaning from the way it has been understood by the Jewish people throughout the generations. Since a woman is not fit to judge, and she cannot become qualified for this…

 Those who promote the ordination of women as rabbis either erroneously assert that modern-day semicha is a novel contrivance that has no controlling precedent, or they turn to the example of Devorah the Prophetess, who judged the Jewish People. (Shoftim 4:4)  However, Devorah did not have semicha and did not sit on the Sanhedrin. Rishonim (medieval halachic authorities) explain that she either was a leader and teacher, that she practiced binding arbitration, that she provided instruction for dayanim, or the like. To use Devorah – someone who did not have semicha and did not qualify for it – as the precedent for women rabbis is quite a stretch.

A Response to Ami Magazine’s Assertion that an Early Amorah Was Mentally Ill

update: The understanding of Berachos (5b) is the crux of the matter. Here is the Soncino Translation:

R. Eleazar fell ill and R. Johanan went in to visit him. He noticed that he was lying in a dark room,13 and he bared his arm and light radiated from it.14 Thereupon he noticed that R. Eleazar was weeping, and he said to him: Why do you weep? Is it because you did not study enough Torah? Surely we learnt: The one who sacrifices much and the one who sacrifices little have the same merit, provided that the heart is directed to heaven.15 Is it perhaps lack of sustenance? Not everybody has the privilege to enjoy two tables.16 Is it perhaps because of [the lack of] children? This is the bone of my tenth son! — He replied to him: I am weeping on account of this beauty17 that is going to rot in the earth. He said to him: On that account you surely have a reason to weep; and they both wept. In the meanwhile he said to him: Are your sufferings welcome to you? — He replied: Neither they nor their reward. He said to him: Give me your hand, and he gave him his hand and he raised him.

I don't see anything there indicating mental illness. Commentaries indicate that he was depressed because of his suffering and his belief that he would soon die. Depression as a realistic reaction to diffcult events is not mental illness. Read this Huffington Post  for examples of clinical depression

However Yungerman below claims that Rav Nachman understands it to be mental illness.

http://www.orhaganuz.co.il/for...

Yungerman

ברכות דף ה: רבי אליעזר חלש, עאל לגביה רבי יוחנן חזי דהוה קא גני בבית אפל, גליה לדרעיה ונפל נהורא. רצה לומר שראה שהתגבר אליו הקטנות והעצבות ומרה שחורה

Was Rabbi Nachman too a reformist? What stupidity and rechilus this article by Hoffman is!

I could not find the source for Yungerman's quote using DBS and Bar Ilan. This citation  apparently is not from Rav Nachman but is claimed to be based on his writings. In fact there is nothing there about mental illness but rather reaction to sin and the proper attitutde to avoid depression from being sinful - that is not mental illness!

It is possible that Rav Nachman is saying that it is mental illness but it could also be understood like the other commentaries that it was a realistic reaction to suffering and impending death. If his understanding of Rav Nachman is correct - then it apparently is the only such comment and it clearly differs from everyone else. Depression as mental illness is independent of events.

The Alshech for example says that Rabbi Eleazar was suffering from yesurim shel ahava which were overwhelming. He didn't want to request that they be removed until Rav Yochanon asked him. The gemora ends with the suffering being removed by Rav Yochanon. Nothing at all to do with mental illness.

Until someone can show an unequivocal commentary that his living in a "dark room" meant that he was depressed independent of what was happening to him (i.e., mentally ill) - then Rabbi Hoffman's criticism stands.

 It is simply accepted universally practice not to give a derogatory interpretation to the actions of a talmid chachom as long as the facts don't strongly indicate such. It is simply not acceptable  that the gemora is simply reporting the actions of a mentally ill person who happens to be an Amora - and thus not relevant for anyone else.
===================================
The problem is not in claiming that a great man was susceptible to mental illness - the gemora acknowledges the possiblity. [As noted before Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky had no problem with saying that he thought the Maharasham was senile. His problem was that he realized the fact that he justified this belief was wrong.] The problem is Ami Magazine's claiming that the gemora states that the Amora was in fact mentally ill - when there is absolutely no support from the text or from any commentaries. In fact the only other source for this understanding of the gemora is a Reform rabbi.

 ==============================================

Five Towns Jewish Times     By Rabbi Yair Hoffman

Generally speaking, we should be open and tolerant of views and interpretations of others that may differ from ours.

BREACH IN THE MESORAH

Sometimes, however, when we perceive a breach in the Mesorah of the interpretation of a passage in the Talmud and it is presented as fact, it is incumbent upon others to vocalize their dissent. This is particularly true when the misinterpretation has no substantive linguistic indication to that effect within the text.

The essay stated that Rabbi Elazar, of the first generation of Amoraim, was suffering from mental illness. The essay was penned by Rabbi Yitzchok Frankfurter, the editor of Ami Magazine, whom I generally consider a Talmid Chochom. Nonetheless, the particular essay (issue 237 entitled “A Look Inside Psych Wards”) struck this author as troubling.

THE GEMORAH IN BRACHOS

Rabbi Frankfurter based this assertion on a passage in Brachos 5b which states as follows:

Rabbi Elazar once became sick. Rabbi Yochanan came to visit him and saw that he was sleeping in a dark room. Whereupon Rabbi Yochanan uncovered his own arm and immediately the room grew light. Rabbi Yochanan then noticed that Rabbi Elazar was weeping. Rabbi Yochanan asked, “Why are you weeping? Is it because you have not learned Torah sufficiently? Behold we are taught, ‘No matter whether one offers much or little – only the intentions of one’s heart counts for the sake of Heaven.’ Is it because you are in need and poor? Not everyone receives a table in the world to come and a table here. Is it because of trouble from your children? Here is a bone from my tenth son. “I weep,” responded Rabbi Elazar for that beauty which will ultimately decay in the earth.” Rabbi Yochanan responded, “For that you really ought to weep.” Both wept together. Rabbi Yochanan then asked of him, “Do you love afflictions?” Rabbi Elazar answered, “Neither them nor their rewards.” “Then give me your hand.” Rabbi Elazar did so and was made well.

RABBI FRANKFURTER’S TWO ASSERTIONS

Rabbi Frankfurter writes, “It is clear that Rabbi Elazar was suffering on a psychological level from a pall of darkness enveloping his mind, rather than from physical disease.” He bases his interpretation on the fact that Rabbi Yochanan did not ask Rabbi Elazar if the reason he was crying was on account of poor health or physical pain. Rabbi Frankfurter then suggests that Rabbi Yochanan is engaging in “existential psychotherapy” in his discussion with Rabbi Elazar.

INJECTING SECULAR THINKING INTO TORAH TEXTS

There is an unfortunate tendency for people to, at times, get caught up in their mada studies, in their Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Rank philosophies, and then retro-inject them into various Gemorahs and Midrashim that they come across with forced readings. Existentialist psychotherapy is strictly an early 20th century phenomenon. Injecting this type of therapy into the interpretation of a Gemorah with no Meforshim backing it up is anachronistic.

The results are not just incorrect readings of Torah texts, but there are two other repercussions as well: There are grave methodological missteps where, for example, an early Amorah is labelled as someone who is mentally ill; and the traditions of the classical commentators on our texts are entirely ignored. [...]

Chareidim are using WhatsApp to defy their rabbis’ internet ban

the verge     Like most people, Moshe spends a lot of his time messaging friends on his smartphone. Unlike most people, he can’t openly talk about it.

As a Hasidic Jew living in Brooklyn, Moshe’s online activities are extremely limited. His ultra-orthodox sect has long banned internet use, on the grounds that exposure to the secular world would lead to moral corruption, sexual promiscuity, and infidelity. The insular community has allowed for some exceptions, acknowledging that smartphones and computers are now essential for business, though its leadership still requires members to install web filters on their devices, blocking all social media services and all but a few whitelisted websites. Internet use among children remains strictly forbidden.

Moshe, like many other Hasidim, regularly skirts these rules with WhatsApp — the popular messaging application that Facebook acquired for $19 billion in 2014. On his second, unfiltered smartphone, he uses the app to share news articles and local gossip across several group chats, some of which include up to 100 members.

WhatsApp has become popular among the Haredi community — an umbrella term for ultra-Orthodox Jewish sects that include the Hasidim. For Moshe and other Hasidim, the app provides a window into the outside world, and a forum for candid debate and discussion. In their view, it’s a closed network that’s not explicitly connected to the open web. For Hasidic leaders, it’s the latest threat to centuries of tradition and insularity.[...]

AP: Hundreds of officers lose licenses over sex misconduct

AP    In a yearlong investigation of sexual misconduct by U.S. law enforcement, The Associated Press uncovered about 1,000 officers who lost their badges in a six-year period for rape, sodomy and other sexual assault; sex crimes that included possession of child pornography; or sexual misconduct such as propositioning citizens or having consensual but prohibited on-duty intercourse.

The number is unquestionably an undercount because it represents only those officers whose licenses to work in law enforcement were revoked, and not all states take such action. California and New York — with several of the nation's largest law enforcement agencies — offered no records because they have no statewide system to decertify officers for misconduct. And even among states that provided records, some reported no officers removed for sexual misdeeds even though cases were identified via news stories or court records.

 "It's happening probably in every law enforcement agency across the country," said Chief Bernadette DiPino of the Sarasota Police Department in Florida, who helped study the problem for the International Association of Chiefs of Police. "It's so underreported and people are scared that if they call and complain about a police officer, they think every other police officer is going to be then out to get them."

Even as cases around the country have sparked a national conversation about excessive force by police, sexual misconduct by officers has largely escaped widespread notice due to a patchwork of laws, piecemeal reporting and victims frequently reluctant to come forward because of their vulnerabilities — they often are young, poor, struggling with addiction or plagued by their own checkered pasts.

In interviews, lawyers and even police chiefs told the AP that some departments also stay quiet about improprieties to limit liability, allowing bad officers to quietly resign, keep their certification and sometimes jump to other jobs.

The officers involved in such wrongdoing represent a tiny fraction of the hundreds of thousands whose jobs are to serve and protect. But their actions have an outsized impact — miring departments in litigation that leads to costly settlements, crippling relationships with an already wary public and scarring victims with a special brand of fear. [...]

Victims included unsuspecting motorists, schoolchildren ordered to raise their shirts in a supposed search for drugs, police interns taken advantage of, women with legal troubles who succumbed to performing sex acts for promised help, and prison inmates forced to have sex with guards.

The AP's findings, coupled with other research and interviews with experts, suggest that sexual misconduct is among the most prevalent type of complaint against law officers. Phil Stinson, a researcher at Bowling Green State University, analyzed news articles between 2005 and 2011 and found 6,724 arrests involving more than 5,500 officers. Sex-related cases were the third-most common, behind violence and profit-motivated crimes. Cato Institute reports released in 2009 and 2010 found sex misconduct the No. 2 complaint against officers, behind excessive force. [...]

Victims of sexual violence at the hands of officers know the power their attackers have, and so the trauma can carry an especially crippling fear.[....]

Experts said it isn't just threats of retaliation that deter victims from reporting the crimes, but also skepticism about the ability of officers and prosecutors to investigate their colleagues.

Milwaukee Police Officer Ladmarald Cates was sentenced to 24 years in prison in 2012 for raping a woman he was dispatched to help. Despite screaming "He raped me!" repeatedly to other officers present, she was accused of assaulting an officer and jailed for four days, her lawyer said. The district attorney, citing a lack of evidence, declined to prosecute Cates. Only after a federal investigation was he tried and convicted. [...]

Chaim Walder is outraged that a potential murderer has become a hero

kikar haShabbat

ריקודי השמחה בחסידות סקווירא על שחרור שאול שפיצר שהצית בית של "מורד", עוררו זעזוע אצל המחנך והסופר הרב חיים ולדר • "אם אנחנו לא נגנה - זה עלול להגיע לכולנו", הוא מזהיר (חרדים)

 

חלטתו של שופט בית המשפט המחוזי ברוקלנד שבניו יורק לשחרר את הבחור שאול שפיצר, בן לחסידות סקווירא, ממאסרו לאחר שריצה עונש מאסר של 4 שנים בגין עבירת תקיפה מדרגה ראשונה זאת באשמה שהצית ופצע קשה את החסיד אהרון רוטנברג תושב העיירה מאחר ונחשב היה ל"מורד" באדמור גרמה לצהלות שמחה ולריקודים סוערים במרכז החסידות בארה"ב.

האברכים והבחורים, חבריו של שפיצר, רקדו במשך שעות ארוכות במעגלים שירים כגון דידן נצח, וחסדי ה' כי לא תמנו ואף שתו "לחיים" לרגל השמחה.

האווירה השמחה בעקבות השחרור גרמה לתגובות מעט זועמות ברשתות החברתיות. "כיצד ניתן לחגוג ולרקוד בעקבות שחרורו של אסיר שביקש לפצוע אדם יהודי ואולי חלילה אף יותר מכך", תהו רבים. היו שהסבירו זאת בדאגה ואכפתיות לשלומו של הבחור בן החסידות מה שמלמד דווקא על הלכידות הפנימית ועל האחדות. אחרים הבהירו כי הבחור הגן על כבודו של הרבי ועל כבודה של החסידות ולכן מגיע לו הכבוד הראוי.

את הסופר והמחנך הרב חיים ולדר הדבר הרתיח והרגיז במיוחד. בשיחה עם "כיכר השבת" הוא נשמע זועם במיוחד וקובל על הדוגמא האנטי חינוכית שבכל ההילולא סביב שפיצר.

Rav Nochum Eisenstein on the Tamar Epstein "Heter Nisuin"

Guest Post by MiMedinat HaYam

Wednesday nite on a local NY / NJ radio program by R Dovid Lichtenstein (a Lakewood real estate gvir, who wrote a book and gives a Lakewood shiur on current topics in halacha) R Nochum Eisenstein was interviewed regarding the Memphis "hafkaat kiddushin" case. (the program will probably be rebroadcast in NY metro area at 11PM motzei Shabbat on 570AM radio, and online at Nachum Segal. check their for schedules, other stations, and podcasts.)

The format of this program, as one can see at http://podcast.headlinesbook.com, is leading poskim and rabbonim on issues of the day.

Rav Eisenstein was "mesharet baKodesh" to Rav Yosef Shlomo Elyashiv for thirty years, specializing in kiddushin and giyur matters, and is currently the av bet din for Rav Elyashiv's bet din on this matter.

Rav Lichtenstein's office sent me a link to the program's recording at dropbox . 

Rav Eisenstein begins at approximately 38:30.

Some highlights:

Rav Elyashiv was very insistent that there is no hakfkaat kiddushin today. perhaps by a godol like Rav Moshe Feinstein, but that’s it.

Everything must be done "befanav" (in front of him) husband and wife, before a "proper bet din"

Rav Lichtenstein said he spoke with Rav Greenblatt, who told him he did this twice in sixty years, this is the second time (meaning Rav Greenblatt did the "hafakaah" and the subsequent kiddushin.)

Rav Eisenstein said that Rav Greenblatt is from the "gedolei america", but he added that "transparency will be the answer for everything" "there is no 'makor' (source) (in this case) for 'mekach taut' since they were living together and had a child together."

The discussion then turned to the issue of prenuptuals. "Rav Elyashiv was against any type of prenup" because of "asmachta" (though Rav Lichtenstein said there are solutions, but to Rav Elyashiv, they were "no good.") that was a halachic opposition. he Rav Elyashiv also had a hashkafic opposition that they were " not the derech of yisrael sabbah . . . not the way kiddushin is done."

Rav Eisenstein had an extensive discussion with Rav Dovid Feinstein this past summer on various issues, and he is authorized to quote Rav Dovid that "Rav Moshe was against all prenuptuals" halachically and hashkafically. 

He also quoted Rav Dovid that the "agunah problem is entirely out of proportion". and Rav Eisenstein goes on to say that he has handled numerous gitten, and they can always be solved, but once the parties get bad advice from bad sources, they are much more difficult to solve, and only then does one have problem solving them.

An Agunah's Story: Adina Porat

As there are always 2 sides to a dispute, I welcome any comments by Eli Shur - including a guest post - that explain why he hasn't given his wife a Get after 8 years.

In Dayton, Ohio’s Jewish community of approximately 4,000, few beyond the dozen or so Orthodox families here are familiar with the word agunot, let alone its ramifications.

But the issue of agunot — the plight of women in the Orthodox world whose husbands refuse to provide them with a get, a religious bill of divorce — is now squarely focused on this Midwest community. The New York-based Organization for the Resolution of Agunot (ORA) will hold a rally on Sunday, November 8 near the home of Dovid Porat, known locally by the name Eli Shur.

Shur and his wife, Adina Porat, were married in Israel in 1990. According to ORA, in 2007, Shur left his wife and their five children; he moved to the United States a year later. Since then, he has refused to provide his wife with a get. According to halacha (Jewish law), a divorce isn’t final until a husband provides his wife with a get. Without one, an agunah is unable to remarry.

Despite ORA’s private attempts over several years to obtain a get from Shur, he has refused. On October 21, ORA opened the website freeadina.com to announce the rally, along with a video interview of Adina Porat that has gone viral.

ORA anticipates supporters from Orthodox communities in Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus will converge on Kettering, a city just south of Dayton, at 11:30 a.m. on November 8 to publicly ostracize Shur, raise awareness about the case, and to pressure him to sign a get.

“In my life, I’m stuck in a prison,” Adina Porat says in ORA’s video. “I can’t move on, I can’t continue. The kids never had a chance to have a stepfather, a new family, and to continue on with their lives.” [...]

In 2010, Shur arrived in Dayton to serve as ritual director of Beth Jacob Congregation. He had presented himself as a single man with no children. Nearly six months later, volunteers with ORA showed up at one of Shur’s evening classes at the synagogue and urged him to sign a get for his wife. He refused. The congregation fired him when it learned he had falsified his identity.

Despite repeated attempts, Shur declined to be interviewed for this article.

In agunot cases, it’s not unusual for husbands to attempt to extort wives and their families for money or property in exchange for a get. In Adina’s video, she says Shur hasn’t asked for anything.

According to ORA, in 2009, the Israeli Rabbinate ruled that Shur must give his wife a get. [...]

“I also made attempts to reach out to him,” Klayman says. “He did return one of my emails. He had no real context. He said they ruined his life, but he won’t tell you what they did, why they did it, or what he wanted to do to try and resolve it. Just a lot of ranting and cursing me. I made other attempts to reach out to him. He never responded again.”

Intermarriage: Just Say “No”, and Mean It! by Rabbi Gordimer

Cross Currents

Intermarriage is probably the reddest line that exists for Orthodox Jews. There are Jews who identify as Orthodox yet are not fully careful about kashrus, about certain aspects of Shabbos observance, and so forth – but to marry out is a non-starter. It is not on the radar, it is not done, and it is unthinkable.

The few Orthodox-affiliated Jews who do marry out are assured to be a few and not more, due to the utter ban and uncompromising rejection of intermarriage by the totality of the Orthodox community. This stance, which has become part of Jewish tradition and is not a new, reactionary position (not that new, reactionary positions are always bad – they are sometimes needed), has worked, except in times of mass public sh’mad (assimilation), when even the highest of barbed wire fences will not help. But under normal circumstances, the system is accepted without question and seems to be doing the job fairly well.

It is therefore with shock that I read Orthodox Rabbis Confront Intermarriage, by Rabbi Kerry M. Olitzky of Big Tent Judaism and Rabbi Asher Lopatin of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah.

For those who don’t know about Big Tent Judaism, one look at its website says it all. Featuring celebratory photos of intermarried families, we read things such as:

The Jewish people have been a global people, a “mixed multitude,” for thousands of years. Today we’re more diverse than ever, and that’s something to celebrate. Our families are all colors and include members from all other religious and cultural backgrounds. Together we strive to add meaning to our lives and to better the world, informed by our rich heritage.

We also read:

The Torah and the rest of the Jewish sacred literature contain both admonitions against intermarriage and positive examples of intermarriage. In Deuteronomy7: 1-3, the Torah says, “You shall not intermarry with them: do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. For you will turn you children away from Me to worship other gods….” This reference against intermarriage is based on the notion that intermarriage will lead the individual to another religion.
Despite this, the Torah also portrays positive examples of intermarriage. Moses married Tziporra, who was the daughter of a Midianite priest. Ruth, the great-grandmother of King David, was a convert. Queen Esther, who saved the Jews from Haman in the Purim story, was married to the Persian, non-Jewish King Ahashverus.
The prohibition against intermarriage sought to preserve Judaism by maintaining exclusivity. The laws of kashrut (keeping kosher) try to accomplish this indirectly. If you have a special diet, you are less likely to eat with non-kosher, non-Jews, and therefore, you have less opportunity to socialize, and consequently, marry them.
That being said, it is evident that intermarriage is not only a modern phenomenon; it occurred in the Bible as well. Intermarriage is inevitable, especially in a society where Jews and non-Jews work together and socialize with one another with few barriers. Prohibiting it has not stopped the trend. Realizing the realities of Jewish society, the Jewish Outreach Institute works with the intermarried, promoting an inclusive Jewish community.

Big Tent Judaism refers people contemplating intermarriage to rabbis who will officiate at their intermarriages, and its message is one of total inclusion.

Of course, Big Tent Judaism is not purposefully promoting intermarriage, and its goal is, rather, the perpetuation of Judaism:

The Jewish Outreach Institute seeks to insure Jewish continuity. By providing an inclusive Jewish community, JOI believes that children of interfaith families will develop a Jewish identity. Instead of excluding interfaith families from the Jewish community, JOI believes that it is necessary to welcome them and educate them about Judaism.

Nonetheless, when the message sent is one of acceptance of intermarriage, it is clear that danger is lurking.

It was thus quite disturbing to read Rabbi Olitzky and Rabbi Lopatin jointly write:

Some people might think that facing the challenging reality of intermarriage and being fully committed to Orthodox Judaism is an oxymoron. Yet, two weeks ago, 20 Orthodox rabbis accepted an invitation by Big Tent Judaism and the Lindenbaum Center for Halachic Studies at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah to join together for a behind-closed-doors, daylong symposium focused on the nexus of the two issues.
We promised no media coverage out of respect for the rabbis’ willingness to participate. Sponsored by the Marion and Norman Tanzman Charitable Foundation, this was a historic meeting for Orthodox rabbis — the first of its kind — since the focus was not on so-called prevention. Rather, it was about understanding intermarried couples and their families. The conversation was frank. There were no pulled punches. Yet the pervasive question taken up by these rabbis was: How do I connect with people whose life choice I disagree with — and keep them engaged in the Jewish community?
…The rabbis also struggled with issues of patrilineal descent and the idea that the children of intermarriage (when the father is Jewish and the other partner is not) could be considered Jewish, even if not Jewish according to halacha. This topic also emerged while debating the validity of conversions by non-Orthodox rabbis.
….This symposium showed that Orthodoxy could maintain its fidelity to halacha and tradition while being sensitive to the complexities and realities of the diverse Jewish community. In fact, the Orthodox community might be critical in enabling intermarriage to not be “the end of the line,” but, rather, a challenge leading to a deeper relationship to Judaism and the Jewish community.

If the idea of the Big Tent Judaism-YCT symposium was to prevent intermarriage, or to try to work toward Orthodox conversion of intermarried families (something that is not practical), that is one thing. But by teaming up with Big Tent Judaism and entertaining engagement and acceptance of intermarried families, the central authority of Open Orthodoxy has crossed yet another bright red line.

A few weeks ago, YCT graduate Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz posted in favor of embracing intermarrieds. I just hope that this changed stance toward that which tradition has heretofore unequivocally shunned and excluded without exception will not be yet another major trend and fault line that divides Open Orthodoxy from the rest of the community.

Imagine sending a message that Orthodox Judaism does not allow intermarriage, yet if one intermarries, he is still welcome and can still even be “frum”. Imagine setting precedent for people to be intermarried yet “Orthodox”. Open Orthodoxy must urgently consider the very real dangers at hand.

Agudah Convention: Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky will explain leadership

Vayera 74 -The Art of Hospitality is in the ' Escorting'

Guest post by Allan Katz

 

Parashat Va'yeira opens up with Abraham being confined to his home after undergoing surgery – brit milah = circumcision. He still wants to have guests in his home, so he sits at the entrance of his tent despite the intense heat in the hope of inviting travelers passing by into his home. Abraham served God by being kind to people, inviting them into his home and drawing them into his orbit so he could inspire them with his example to learn about and serve God. Further on in the Parasha – chapter 21:33, the verse says that Abraham planted an 'Eshel' in Be'eir Sheva and proclaimed the name of God. The Sages talk about Abraham building an inn or planting an orchard for the benefit of his guests.

The word ' eshel ' is made up of the 3 Hebrew letters - Alef, shin and lamed. This is an acrostic for the 3 basic services a host should provide for his guests. The Alef stands for a'chilah = eating , shin = shti'yah = drinking and lamed = li'viyah = escorting.

A man once came to the Vilna Ga'on and said that his home had been destroyed by fire. He wanted to know on what he should repent and do Te'shuvah. The Vilna Ga'on said that the man was not particular about ' escorting his guests ', the 3rd element of hospitality. He gave his guests food and drink, so there was the eating and drinking - the first 2 letters of 'eshel'. The first 2 letters – alef and shin produce the word ' esh' which means fire. So eshel without the lamed is esh= fire. This is the reason why the home was destroyed by fire.

So if you entertain guests, give them food and drink but you don't escort them, you are playing with fire. The obvious conclusion is that it is better and safer not to have guests in your home than to have guests whom you provide food and drink but don't escort.

Rabbi David Lapin offers the following explanation. If we want to have a party we need food, drink and most important guests. So the guests actually serve the host. Without guests there is no party. The same goes for the food and the drink – their presence serves the host. When the guests leave the home, they no longer serve any function in the party for the hosts. When the host honors and 'escorts' the guests - who now no longer serve a purpose- , the true intentions of the host are revealed. This tells us that the food and drink were not for the host and his party but there to provide and serve the guests.

I am sure that most of us have experienced what it feels like to escort oneself out of the host's home or function. I can understand the host who is occupied with attending to other guests apologizing for not be able to escort me a ' couple of meters'. But when that does not happen one feels used, like a tradesman being invited to serve the host and then let himself out. One feels that the only reason you were invited was to fill the hall and make sure that there are guests for the party- without guests there is no party.

The quality of the hospitality therefore is dependent and hinges on the 3rd element – 'escorting the guests.' 

The Rambam in the laws Of Avel chapter 14 gives a lists of mitzvoth – good deeds that a person does to others as an expression of loving one's neighbor as oneself. He talks about visiting the sick, comforting the mourners, burying the dead, making weddings and ' escorting guests'.

We usually talk about the mitzvah of hospitality = hach'na'sat or'chim, why does the Rambam call the mitvah as escorting guests, and not use the language that we use. ? People talk about the importance of inviting guests and not ' escorting guests'.

From the story about the Vilna Ga'on we learn that inviting guests without escorting them is destructive and not a mitzvah. It is playing with fire- eshel without the lamed is esh=fire. The mitzvah of inviting guests – hachna'sat orchim is dependent and hinges on the quality of the escorting of the guests. This explains why the Rambam defines the mitzvah as escorting guests and not inviting guests.

As parents we should not only model hospitality , but allow kids to participate in the decison making, generating choices and solutions. Responsibility is learned by making decisions not by following instructions. We should reflect with our kids on the importance making guests feel comfortable , showing an interest in them , putting food and drink on the table and also reflect how a guest would feel if he has to show himself out of the home.