The headline isn't clickbait; hear me out, please, on what may be entirely wrong... but I think it's not.
Going back to biblical times, the attitude of Judaism toward foreign ideologies was uniform and simple: Keep them out. It begins with Avraham and the idolatries of Aram and Canaan, it continues when Yaakov's family requests a residence away from that of the Egyptians, and it certainly carries through into the ideology of the Jews who emerge from the wilderness to enter Canaan. Ditto in the time of the prophets, for whom many examples can be brought; the traditional Jewish ideology (whether practiced by all Jews or not) was to exclude foreign ideologies.
The same phenomenon appears in post-biblical times. Consider the reactions to Greek thought in the times of the Chashmonaim, and then the Talmud. Again, some might note that not all Jews were hostile to Greek ideas, and that there is even some respect in certain Talmudic sources for the Greek language. Nonetheless, the victors of that era in Jewish history are the ones who deny Greek culture any place in the life of the Jew.
The theme persists through early Christianity, as well as the rabbinic response to the Sadducees. Where things get interesting is with Islam, as well as the acceptance of certain Greek ideas by Arab thinkers. For the first time, we find serious Jewish thinkers, respected links in our masorah (tradition), defining Judaism in ways that include, rather than reject, apparently foreign ideologies. Rav Saadia Gaon, then Rambam, demonstrate harmonies between Judaism and Arabic/Greek thought.
Neither Rav Saadia Gaon, nor Rambam, accept Arabic/Greek philosophy wholesale, and they are clear about their disagreements. Nonetheless, their approach differs starkly from Rabbi Yehudah haLevi's outright rejection of foreign material. [Note, added in response to Avi's comment: Rabbi Yehudah haLevi does not reject foreign culture - his poetry makes that clear. However, he rejects foreign ideology.]
Fast-forward to the Jewish reaction to the Enlightenment, from the 18th century forward. Some Jewish thinkers rejected Enlightenment ideas entirely, but others - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch most clearly - explained Judaism in a way that did not write out foreign ideas, which had the effect of leaving the door open for Jewish students of the Enlightenment to make their peace with Judaism. I am not suggesting that they were intellectually dishonest in the name of outreach; I believe that their vision of Judaism was really that broad.
And so we move into our own day, and the debate continues. Chassidim and some of the yeshivish continue the approach of Rabbi Yehudah haLevi, drawing a line between Us and Them. But Yeshiva University argues that Them can still join Us, without surrendering their Them-ish values. And in the world of kiruv, Chabad, Aish and NCSY all hold out that promise to newcomers: There is a place in Judaism for the ideas you bring to the table. Devorah is a feminist! Avraham challenges G-d! The Torah militates on behalf of the needy and downtrodden, and inveighs against unbridled capitalism! Torah can be harmonized not only with science, but with every altruistic ism you can name, from rationalism to egalitarianism to athleticism to universalism.
Which brings me back to the heading of this post. Reading the Times of Israel's piece on women's ordination, and the interviews with various proponents, it dawned on me that this truly is the logical result of choosing the approach of Rav Saadia Gaon and Rambam.
Jewish communities that have kept up the walls will never see this, for all of their problems and failings, because the values that set the table for it are verboten in their camp. But for the rest of us, well, we can't tell people that their egalitarian instincts have a place in Torah, and not expect them to take us at our word.
To be clear: Even though I believe that some of the move for women's ordination is terribly misguided, I am not promoting an exclusion of the modern isms which I mentioned above. I do believe that quite a bit that is modern can be compatible with Torah, and that one can even find their roots, to some extent, in Torah. Intellectual honest demands that acknowledgement.
My point is only to say that when those who are upset about women's ordination try to figure out where to point their disapproving finger, they might consider whether a community that embraced the approach of Rav Saadia Gaon and Rambam, over Rabbi Yehudah haLevi, and that told young men and women that the ideals of the greater world could be reconciled with Torah, didn't bring this upon itself.
Monday, June 15, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Pesach Seder is based on Roman dining habits.
ReplyDeleteYitro's advice on governing might be a counterexample.
ReplyDeleteKT
joel rich
Avi-
ReplyDeleteIs that an expression of ideology?
R' Joel-
As I asked Avi - is that an expression of ideology?
Certainly according to the theory that the Torah is not a history book and that everything recorded is also a lesson for future generations.
ReplyDeleteThe broader issue though IMHO is that acculturation takes place in any event (why in the Rambam's time did women not leave their husband's home more than once a month, why did we get the takkana of rabbeinu gershom), the question is, is it recognized as such.
KT
The money quote is the one where one of the "Rabbits" (you got a better name?) says that the Torah has to move forward with society. That's what makes this group, as pleasant and sincere as they are, Orthoprax and not Orthodox.
ReplyDeleteUltimately it won't matter. Those who care will simply not daven in the synagogues of those who support this, same as we won't daven in Reformative synagogue. They'll become a separate denomination, a generation later their daughters will tear the mechitzah done (and no doubt Rav Sperber will find them a heter for that too) and they'll merge into Conservativism, assuming that movement still exists.
The "ideals of the greater world" are not what they used to be, and are diverging more and more from Jewish ideals. The more radical forces in that "greater world," often backed by government agencies, are becoming more eager to inflict their values on us. Framing this discussion in terms of the approaches our medieval Torah authorities took under markedly different conditions misses this aspect.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 8:29 AM-
ReplyDeleteI think acculturation takes place, but adoption of ideologies, and adaptation of the religion to incorporate them, I'm not sure of.
RAM-
I would be wary of mindreading Rambam... I'm not sure we can responsibly say how he would have responded today.
Haven't you done that in effect?
DeleteRAM-
DeleteHow so?
Why did you invoke the "approach of Rambam," if that didn't relate in some major way to this discussion?
DeleteBecause people/organizations are opting for the approach that Rambam used. This does not speak to what Rambam personally would advocate today, but what he did 850 years ago.
DeleteWhile the differences in mitzvah obligation and suitability for eidut between men and women are clearly part and parcel of the Torah, I am not sure the explanation of these in terms of family structure is. I can't think of any place in Tanach or gemara where it is explicit. And arguing that it isn't is the fact that the Gemara is abundantly clear that all the mitzvot of reproduction and child rearing are incumbent specifically on males. It seems to me that it is the view of family structure, rather than specific halachot, that drives the opposition to women in some sort of leadership role. And I don't know how one can be sure that that idea of family structure wasn't itself a foreign import.
ReplyDeleteMike-
DeleteThanks for commenting, but I'm not clear; to what are you responding?
Well, I guess I am wondering whether the opposition to women's ordination might also be a result of being open to the wider culture of a much earlier era whose ideals are now quite properly superseded.
DeleteAfter all, as far as I know no segment of Jewry objects to women as elementary school teachers despite a clear, explicit, and unambiguous talmudic prohibition. Nor does one hear much, if any, opposition to ordaining converts although the prohibition of converts in communal appointments is explicit in the Talmud unlike the parallel for women which is first explicit in the Rambam (see Igros Moshe YD 2:42 where Rav Moshe says Rambam has no source for it--he points out that the Sifrei that Kesef Mishna and Radba"z cite as Rambam's source is limited to monarchy)
So it seems clear to me that the opposition to women's ordination stems more from a sense of what gender roles in the Jewish family and community ought to be than anything specific either in the Tanach or in the teaching of Chaza"l. And I am just wondering whether those roles are really from Sinai, or whether they were absorbed from the cultures among whom we lived over the millennia.
Hi Mike,
DeleteThanks for clarifying.
To address your point:
Even if one were to accept that opposition to ordination came from foreign influence, that wouldn't change the fact that communities which reject feminism as a foreign ideology will not need to justify their opposition to ordination, while communities which acknowledge a root for feminism in Torah will need to face the question of why women should not be able to create such roles for themselves.
To address your content:
1) I think you would be hard-pressed to anchor women's spiritual leadership in biblical text, given the different roles of the Avot/Imahot, the different roles of Moshe/Aharon/Miriam, and so on. Or take a look at Devorah's scorn for Barak, for relying on her.
2) I think the question of evolving roles for women as teachers, and the rules for converts, are interesting, but I don't see that they demonstrate anything regarding women's roles as spiritual leaders.
To address your content:
ReplyDelete1) I think you would be hard-pressed to anchor women's spiritual leadership in biblical text, given the different roles of the Avot/Imahot, the different roles of Moshe/Aharon/Miriam, and so on. Or take a look at Devorah's scorn for Barak, for relying on her. I agree completely. You can find perhaps a dozen women exercising any form of leadership in Biblical and rabbinic literature over 2500 years from Abraham to the sealing of the Talmud. (although of the two disagreements between Abraham and Sarah in the Chumash, God tells him to listen to her in one of them.) However, the fact that there are rare exceptions also makes it impossible to assert an absolute prohibition.
(continued) 2) I think the question of evolving roles for women as teachers, and the rules for converts, are interesting, but I don't see that they demonstrate anything regarding women's roles as spiritual leaders.
DeleteI was not using those examples to say anything about women's leadership. Rather, I was using them to demonstrate that the opposition is more sociological than rooted in halacha or mesorah by showing that comparable cases (the closest ones I can think of) of changes in tradition and halachic practice do not arouse nearly the same level of opposition. For that matter (and going in the other direction) despite the fact that our practice of not allowing women to do schitta is in opposition to explicit mishnayot, I don't hear of women clamoring for that role.
A serious question is whether the paucity of women leaders in our classic periods reflects Torah values, or only the economical and sociological reality of life in those times and places. The surrounding cultures also don't offer many examples of women leaders.
I would add that I think there would be less of an issue here if rabbinic leaders would take women's concerns on communal matters more seriously and treat them as full members of the community. When rabbis will not listen to women's concerns like how they are treated by the mikveh attendant, or the children's school curriculum or the rabbi's use of "veibish torah" as an insult (all those real examples from my own life) it increases the pressure for women leaders.
I agree with much of what you write here, but I don't understand your opening point - why does change without opposition in one area demonstrate that opposition in another area is a function of society's influence?
DeleteMy point was that if the opposition is primarily based on fealty to halacha and tradition it would treat similar changes to halacha and tradition similarly. It doesn't; I infer from that that it is more about defending a notion of proper gender roles than halacha and tradition, per se. And, as I have discussed, it is not so clear to me whether the source of these notions of gender roles is really Torah or whether it comes from outside.
DeleteMike S-
DeleteBut couldn't it also be because these are not comparable issues, with comparable bases in halachah?
The convert is from the same Pasuk and the same idea, so I can't imagine how something could be more comparable. And, unlike the parallel ruling for women it ist explicit in gemara, so if anything it should occasion more opposition. The women teachers was a close as I could find for gender role changes, but the gemara's rule based on a different principle, so that may indeed not be completely comparable.
DeleteLet's step back a minute. What is "ideology" and what is "culture," and can you have one without the other?
ReplyDeleteI agree that they are interdependent, and that the lines are blurry - I do think that members of a society see them as different, and to the extent that they do, a society which rejects the absorption of another's ideology will decide which is which and omit that which they choose to keep out.
DeleteIf that is the case, I am not sure I agree with the claim about ideology, since I am not sure how much ideology existed among the kena'anim. Occasionally, we have condemnations of certain pagan influences (e.g. the idea that korbanot can act as a bribe/substitute for actual mitzva observance, or that the sticks and stones that acted as idols actually have power), but my impression is that most of Tanakh is condemning actual actions (idol worship, immoral sexual encounters, child sacrifice...i.e. cultural practices). Do w know if Canaanite religions had a well-defined "ideology" like the Greeks did, or were some of the ideas that were rejected by the nevi'im simply outgrowths of cultural norms and practices without anything to tie them together?
DeleteJoseph-
DeleteHave you read Kramer's Sumerian Mythology? I refer you to his comments on pg. 73 of the Revised Edition: "It cannot be sufficiently stressed that the Sumerian cosmogonic concepts, early as they are, are by no means primitive [emphasis in the original-MT]. They reflect the mature thought and reasoning of the thinking Sumerian as he contemplated the forces of nature and the character of his own existence..." I believe the same is true of the Canaanites in their later era.
I have not (it is not my area) but thank you for the reference. Even assuming that Canaanites did have a overarching ideology(I am not saying they were primitive, only that they may have been non-ideological about their actions), how would you deal with the apparent synthesis going on in Tanakh itself? For instance, comparing the account of Noah to Gilgamesh shows how the Torah did not reject all ideological understandings of how things came about but, like Rambam, re-worked such accounts by accepting some of the implicit messages while rejecting others. If not, how do you understand it? Also, as I wrote before, were not most of the nevi'im's condemnation later on focused on Canaanite action rather than ideology?
ReplyDeleteWithout weighing in on any particular example you bring, and even accepting that there was absorption, the point remains that those who make a statement of rejecting outside ideology do not need to justify their policies/actions that defy it, but those who claim to find basis for outside ideology in Torah are going to need to explain where they draw the line. It's not a matter of reality, but of policy.
DeleteI agree with your second point, that those who claim to find a basis for outside ideology need to prove their claim and explain where they draw the line. But I disagree with your first point. Those who make a statement of rejecting outside ideology must absolutely justify their claims and actions, since such an assertion is far from obvious; in fact, there is evidence against it. Aside from the Tanakh examples above (one can also note Tanakh's use of current science and encouragement of independent analysis of natural and historical phenomena), one can see examples even in the Gemara - from its use of contemporary science (and scientists such as Todos / Theodorus harofe) within halakha - keep in mind that all science and systems of thought have ideological bases - to its adoption of certain Roman legal terminology, to its use of folk cures and amulets that certainly would be extremely problematic given the Torah's own explicitly negative views of certain types of magical/pagan activities. I don't know that the pre-Rambam/Sa'adia Gaon tradition is as uniformally against all forms of ideological influence as you are describing here.
ReplyDeleteI think I didn't word my first point clearly enough; the word "it" was open to multiple interpretations. To re-state: Those who make a statement of rejecting outside ideology do not need to justify their policies/actions that defy outside ideology.
DeleteIn other words - Someone who shouts from the rooftops that he rejects a particular set of ideas need not justify his rejection of a particular member of that set; he is consistent. But someone who declares a willingness to accept that set of ideas is obligated to explain his rejection of a particular application of a particular member of that set.
So someone who says "You cannot ground post-Enlightenment thought in Torah" is consistent in rejecting egalitarianism. Wrong, perhaps, but consistent. But someone who says "You can ground post-Enlightement thought in Torah" will need to explain any rejection of egalitarianism.
Thank you for the clarification. But I really do think that if you want to show how the rabbinate, beginning with Saadia Gaon, created a revolutionary policy (and there are many who would agree), you still need a more in-depth post or article showing how that was the case. I know this was not the main topic of your post, but you it is still relevant in the sense that it creates a certain subtext for the discussion.
ReplyDelete