Upon consultation with its rabbinic leadership, Agudath Israel of America issued the following statement today:
The leadership of the Rabbinical Council of America and Rabbi Avi Weiss have apparently reached agreement that Rabbi Weiss would no longer confer the title of “Rabba” upon graduates of his women’s seminary, but rather the title “Maharat.”
This superficial move does not in any way change the position of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah that placing women in traditional rabbinic positions departs from the Jewish mesorah, and that any congregation with a woman in such a position cannot call itself Orthodox.
That the leadership of a respected rabbinical organization seems to have capitulated to Rabbi Weiss’ enterprise is deeply dismaying. We trust that this capitulation does not represent the perspective of the principled majority of the organization’s member rabbis.
(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
18 Responses
Wow! Are they saying that it would be assur to daven in a shul that has a Maharat, just like it would be assur to daven in a Reform temple, because both are not orthodox?
Please advise.
The Toeva Club scandals at YU were the first public indication that YU was deteriorating. Now we have this highly-political, politically-correct, Reform “Rabbi,” Avi Weiss, masquerading as Orthodox.
Thank G-D for the courageous members of Moetzes Gedoei Hatorah and Agudas Yisroel.
EDITED
What did the students at Chovivei Torah say when they heard Avi Weiss declare the new Woman’s Rabbi title?
Amen Yhay shmay RABBA mevorach lolam uliulmay ulamayo.
You shouldn’t be so surprised that, “the leadership of a respected rabbinical organization seems to have capitulated to Rabbi Weiss’ enterprise.” An article in another supposedly orthodox publication quoted (by name) another well-known rabbinic “leader” who openly defended Rabbi Avi Weiss. I suppose in some quarters “the Jewish mesorah” is subject to political correctness, whim and style of the moment.
Dear Deep Thinker:
How did you mix YU into this? The RCA is its own organization. There are elements in YU that agree to these absurdities but it is not the opinion of the Rabbeim or the majority of the talmidim. Please do not throw out the baby with the bath water/
To quote Rashi in Chumash by the Mabul: Hayme Chutu BRABBOH Ruas Hoodom, Vloku Bithom RABBOH!
deepthinker do you think that there are no former talmidei chachamim of the chareidi orientation have gone off the derech done terrible things and been complete apikorsim.
Also, you can call it the gay club and not the toeivah club. Additionally, YU couldn’t stop it because they take Federal Tax dollars and if your school takes tax dollars and some of your chareidi students want a gay club they can have one and you can’t not let them unless you stop taking tax dollars.
While I believe that we need to find more ways to achieve achdus among those who believe they are shomrei Torah, I applaud the recognition (which I believe is accurate) that the majority of rabbonim of the RCA, many of whom are first rate talmidei chachamim and marbitzei torah, are not in agreement with this. When you have a varied membership, sometimes you have to be willing to give a little in order to avoid an even greater rift that would possibly lead to a significant break within the RCA and a large number of Torah Jews who attend shuls led by those rabbis. I only wish that in the context of the “machaah,” the Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah would invite Rabbi Weiss and perhaps some of the members/leadership of the RCA to meet with them and discuss the issues and collaborate more, rather than simply pushing them away. There is a tremendous opportunity here to show love for Jews (which happens to be a big value of Rabbi Weiss’) even in the context of machaah against what they believe is a breach of our mesorah.
“This superficial move does not in any way change the position of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah that placing women in traditional rabbinic positions departs from the Jewish mesorah, and that any congregation with a woman in such a position cannot call itself Orthodox.”
I cannot figure out the meaning of this sentence (and before anyone questions my emunas chachomim or faith in daas torah, part of my problem is that its not clear what parts of this sentence represent a statement of the Moetzes and what parts are a statement of the Agudah. Or are they one and the same in this instance?)
1. I’m fairly sure that among the vast majority of the members RCA it is not even slightly controversial that a woman cannot have “a traditional rabbinic” position and if I’m parsing the sentence correctly, I am 100% certain that no one thinks the Moetzes would change their mind about the issue simply because you gave the woman’s position a different name. So what does that sentence mean?
2. The RCA did have a problem with calling her a Rabbi, as R’ Weiss did in the anouncement of a title change. R’ Weiss will not be doing that anymore. Is the Agudah suggesting that agreeing not to refer to a woman as “a rabbi” is only superficial? I can’t speak for the Agudah here, but I certainly would not be comfortable davening in a shul which had on its staff female Rabbis even if they did not serve in traditional Rabbinic positions.
3. Attempting to read between the lines here, it would seem this statement is condemning the RCA for failing to define what exactly a woman can do in a shul, regardless of her title, but if that’s the point, shouldn’t the Agudah be offering more guidance about what it considers to be over the line in that regard? Say the Agudah and RCA both agree that woman rabbis are bad (which is clearly true at this point) can anyone point to where the Agudah and RCA disagree? If so it’s certainly not coming from anything in the statement presented here.
#9,
I agree with you. The article is quite confusing. Sounds like Agudah is in agreement with R’ Wiess.
PS Let it be known the rabbit is still running around using the title “rabbah”
unfortunately among us frum yidden there is no ahavas Yisroel. You don’t have to agree with them but have derech eretz. No wonder nobody likes us, we can’t evn respect one another. What a shame.
Let me throw a cruve here. Let us assume- for the sake of this exercise- that a synagogue who accepts a woman as “Rabbi” is out of the mainstream and let us assume you cannot call them orthodox.
all this may make no difference to the RCA or to any cooperaiton with that synagogue. The Wurzburger Rov zz’l, Rav Bamberger, sat togehter with REFORM synagogues of the worst kind in the nineteenth century. Not everyone agreed with R’ SRH Hirsch about “austrittgemeinden”.
R’Avi Weiss and his synagogue are eons away from the reform of then and people should choose whether to associate with it without being branded ‘apikursim”.
elkay38, this is about kovod shomayim and fidelity to halacha and mesorah something with you are totally ignorant of.
BS”D
l’Chavod deepthinker, N”Y,
To claim that the chashuv roshei yeshiva shlit”a at yeshivas rabbeinu yitzchak elchanan “have been rotting away for years” is an issur lav of being mevazeh talmidei chachamim and shows a complete lack of kavod hatorah. They are gedolei torah who are undeserving of your disgusting comments. Please make sure to ask mechila from each one of them before yom kippur, or better yet, right now. You can find most of their numbers in the local phone books, and if they are not busy learning or helping klal yisrael in other ways, perhaps they will have time for you to beg their mechila.
The “Toeva Club”, as you call it, was against the direction of many of the Roshei Yeshiva, as was publicized prior to the event. If you are at all aware of what you are talking about, there were two sichas delivered in the beis medrash as to why this was the INCORRECT forum. So in fact, they were against this.
And yes, we must give hakaras hatov for all the gedolei torah that we are zoche to have, to be our “einei ha’eida” in the turbulent spiritual storms of america.
I wish you much Hatzlacha in reaching the fullest in your Avodas Hashem. Kol Tuv.
As predicted, the thread started a few hours ago to discuss the Avi Weiss affair on the politically correct CR, was just closed.
#14, “deepthinker” obviously referred to YU as an organization, not the Roshei Yeshiva of RIETS as people.
The facts, as widely reported, are that a number of high-ranking Roman Catholic cardinals were invited to take a tour of the Beis Midrash, only a few short years ago. Supposedly, Rav Herschel Schachter felt this should not have occurred. But it still did.
Surely this incident qualifies as a “deterioration” from any prior standard at YU, even though neither Rav Schachter nor his colleagues are to be, CH”V, denigrated in any way, regardless of right or wrong.
And of the recent symposium held by Wurzweiler, which YU’s own Rabbi Twersky spoke out against, and during afternoon seder, no less: would a “normal” issue warrant such drastic action, or would only something that is a serious “deterioration” warrant such action as being mivatel talmud torah of the YU talmidim for this shmooz?
Please be honest, and don’t try to hide YU’s policies and actions behind the greatness of its Roshei Yeshiva and its many wonderful talmidim and hanhallah.
BS”D
HaKatan, my comments were based on deepthinker’s unedited comments which referred to the Rebbeim directly, which have B”H been edited now for the sake of kavod hatorah. I am shocked that a member of Klal Yisrael would say such things which are downright assur.
The schmooze was given at a time when most of the tzibbur was able to be there. If there was another issue that was of similar gravity, d’haynu impacting kavod shamayim in such a significant way or the like, it would seem likely to fill that slot as well.
Kol Tuv.
How do you say thank you to a female orthodox Rabbi?
Todah Rabba, Rabba