There are a lot of things I want to do with my life, but becoming a rabbi is not one of them.
In a recent resolution entitled “Policy Concerning Women Rabbis,” the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) repeated its determination (first released in 2010) that it “cannot accept either the ordination of women or the recognition of women as members of the Orthodox rabbinate, regardless of the title.” While this certainly comes to include those women ordained by Yeshivat Maharat under the title of “Maharat” or “Rabba”, the resolution noted that Yoatzot Halachot and GPATS (YU’s Graduate Program in Advanced Talmudic Studies) graduates do not fall into the category of “ordained clergy.” According to the RCA, “Maharat” or “Rabba” “contradict the norms of our community” and “violate the mesorah.”
Even while the RCA’s announcement does not appear to immediately affect my career aspirations (as I said, I’m not aiming for ordination), it represents a certain negative attitude toward female leadership in our community. It also illustrates the sometimes unsystemic and confusing nature of rabbinical decisions as of late, and only narrows the potential channel for conversation between the rabbinate and its constituents. Those are things that affect me, and they are problematic.
Much of the confusion in this case stems from the phrase “the mesorah.” I consider myself to be a fairly educated Jew, and yet I cannot begin to understand what “the mesorah” means in this context. The resolution seems to conflate this term with “norms of our community,” and yet as far as I know, that is not exactly what “the mesorah” means.
In several conversations I have had with friends and rabbinic authorities about this term and its use here, none can pinpoint what exactly it intends to communicate. We speculate together: Does it refer to contemporary societal norms? Does it refer to conversations in the Gemara? Sometimes what has been termed “the mesorah” in the Gemara is no longer the “active” mesorah today (take women’s learning in general, for example). How does the evolution of “the mesorah” factor into the RCA’s resolution?
Perhaps more importantly, the use of this vague term has the apparent power to exclude any halachik evidence from a conversation that so desperately requires it. There is not one halachik source cited in the RCA’s resolution, and that is a glaring omission that we cannot ignore. If this is a statement published by halachik authorities regarding the role of female halachik leaders, why is it devoid of halacha?
The lack of evidence in the RCA’s conclusion contributes to a sense of arbitrariness about the line between Maharat/Rabba and a Yoetzet Halacha and GPATS. Without any halachik basis for its unwillingness to acknowledge ordained women rabbis, I’m left to wonder what makes Yoatzot Halachot and GPATS graduates so easily acceptable to the RCA.
The guidance and leadership that yoatzot provide to female congregants is a hefty leadership position and one that comes with a sense of authority. Women look to their yoetzet as an expert in marital laws and also turn to her for emotional guidance. In these ways, a yoetzet and a rabbi have similar roles: they are charged with the responsibility of guiding their congregants through halachik doubts and to also provide personal support. Perhaps the only difference is that a yoetzet’s leadership is often behind-the-scenes while a rabbi may stand at the pulpit and give a derasha. In short, the latter is much more frontal.
If this comes down to an issue of frontality, the matter becomes superficial. Without an evidence-based way to decipher the RCA’s message, I am left with only this conclusion. Albeit unintentionally, the RCA has created a feminist issue for itself by drawing a gender-based line across Jewish leadership, when in fact the matter should just be about education and the desire to serve a community.
I do not want to see rabbinic authority in the RCA as superficial, and yet I do not think that my requirement for a halachik argument from the rabbinate is unwarranted or unreasonable. Accepting far-reaching statements such as the one in this resolution merely on the basis of organizational authority is a dangerous habit to fall into. On the contrary, any thinking Jew deserves for religious claims to be grounded in objective halacha; anything less undermines the claim completely.
In a recent Commentator article titled “Repairing the Rabbinic Relationship,” David Rubinstein calls for an open dialogue between the laity and the rabbinate. I agree, there must be greater partnership and communication between us and our leaders, but I wonder: In light of vague statements like this that draw arbitrary lines, what am I supposed to say? How am I supposed to feel that I can approach a religious authority and say, “Help me understand”?
After reading this resolution I felt a sense of fear that opportunities for advanced learning were suddenly going to be taken away from me because the RCA seemed to be devaluing a certain level of women’s Torah learning. Through conversations with friends and rabbis, I realized that statements such as these only carry as much weight as we want them to.
I hope that those of you striving for ordination or any position of leadership in the Jewish world do not forget that the path to achieving these goals is still very much in your hands.
Most of all, I hope that Modern Orthodoxy will one day express its commitment to education and high quality leadership by advocating for the strongest, newly emerging leaders of its time–especially those who wish to work within halacha–exclusions aside.