IJII

I hear the issue very clearly. On the other hand, to simply alter parts of Judaism on the basis that it does not comfortably fit the times to me too closely resembles what the Reform and Conservative movements have done. While I fully feel how this and other issues seem anachronistic, I also believe that once the Sanhedrin had set something into place it's invested with the spiritual power of Halacha - which in many cases (I hope I'm not offending anyone here) might transcend the cultural framework that brought it into being.

The only way out of this quandry (and so many similar ones) that I can think of which maintains the integrity of the Halachic process, is to begin working on a Sanhedrin. I've seen some publicity about five to six years ago that Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz (Even Yisrael) is working on one. However, every time I checked the internet since, I only see old articles. What happened to it? Is it still functioning? Does it need additional support?

Even if the Sanhedrin, for lack of true S'micha, does not feel worthy of altering the Laws of the past Sanhedrins of ancient times, still they might be able to use the power of "hora'as sha'ah" to temporarily suspend for a period of time, subject to regular renewal, certain practices as they see fit.

However, I caution that we have to be very careful with this kind of thinking because it can easily infringe on the Biblical as well. For example, if the Temple mount suddenly became available to us and bringing public offering (including the Korban Pesach) became Halachically mandatory, how many of us would be thrilled by the idea of bringing animal sacrifices? Whose to say there won't be nay sayers in our ranks claiming that sacrifices are a barbaric practice belonging to the ancient world? It's a slippery slope. Where's the right place to draw the line? Whose "right place" becomes the "defining right place"? This is why I think we desperately need a real Sanhedrin - a body representing all of Orthodoxy with a real clear sense of both the issues and the Halachic parameters.

I think that a Sanhedrin is a reasonable and attainable goal in our times. It may take a while before it gains widespread approval, but, the process can already begin and slowly more and more people will pay attention to the Sanhedrin until there's a snowball effect and most of Orthodoxy is paying attention.

Comments by Rabbi Haskel Lookstein

 Thank you for making this thoughtful essay available.  It raises very serious points about being sensitive to women - and to men as well.  Not wishing to get into the process of changing matbe'a shetav'u chachamim, we tried in our congregation to have the shaliach tzibbur recite that blessing silently.  This didn't work out because, in effect, the silent pause was so short that it appeared the b'racha was simply being skipped.  On the advice of Rabbi Shlomo Riskin we have now adopted the policy of starting public worship as they do in most of Israel, with Rabbi Yishmael omer.  This solves the problem: men recite the blessing ordained for them; women recite the blessing she'asani kirtzono; and it is all done silently.  There is no public declamation of shelo asani isha, which is the main offense to the increasing number of women who are present in shul at the beginning of the service - weekdays and holy days.  I think this is a good way of handling the issue.

 Over the years, I have grown to understand better the Rav's strong opposition to changing matbe'a shetav'u chachamim.  We simply have to interpret the matbe'a. The interpretaion changes from day to day depending on our mood and our situation.  But the matbe'a remains sacred.  An example of this process is found in my reaction to the "nachem" prayer on Tisha b"Av.  It seems to ignore the present day realities in Jerusalem.  For a while I substituted the Kibbutz Hadati version which was endorsed by Rav Goren.  Then someone remarked to me that the Rav was very opposed to this change and that all we had to do was realize that the prayer describes THE Jerusalem - not the new city and not even the old city - The Har Habayit which IS desolate, which IS forlorn, and which IS bereft of its inhabitants.  The issue is not the matbe'a, which is sacred, but our interpretation of it in the wake of changing times, circumstances, and sensitivities.

I suggest that this is the way to handle the very jarring sound of the shaliach tzibbur exclaiming how happy we men are for not having been made a woman.  The b'racha remains a silent one which we can interpret in terms of our own understanding.  The problem for women - and for men- is when it is exclaimed aloud!

I hope I have not been guilty of name-calling or inappropriate tone in my blogposts.

I think you make some valid points here, particularly with regard to the views of women prevalent in antiquity. This was a difference of opinion between Aristotle and Plato, as I am sure you already know, with the "empiricist" Aristotle subscribing to a belief in women's inferiority and the "idealist" Plato insisting on their equality to men.

As John Stuart Mill wisely observed, using empirical data to shed light on this question ends up being a flawed approach, since the empirical reality observed is, itself, conditioned by the cultural assumptions that have shaped the education (or non-education) of women. We wind up measuring what we ourselves have, to a great extent, produced, rather than the objective potential of men/women as it might exist from birth.

I do not disagree that the blessing implies that men are in a superior position. You are correct in noting that it would be absurd to conclude otherwise. But "superior position" does not mean "innate superiority".

Few people would disagree that, whether it be in secular or in religious society, men have a distinct advantage over women on numerous levels. Women receive lower salaries than men for the same work. They have to deal with the travails of childbearing and motherhood and to balance that with the demands of a career if they wish to enter the workforce. They endure enormous social pressures with regard to their appearance and weight. They are physically weaker and therefore more vulnerable. These are all facts on the ground that point to the "advantages" of being a man.

No woman should really be offended by these facts, because no one is suggesting that women are less equipped intellectually or morally than men. No one is suggesting they have less value, G-d forbid. But it is true that the biological, social and cultural differences between men and women confer some advantage to men.

Ignoring them, much like ignoring the implications of the blessing, would be disengenuous.

In regards to this posting I feel that there is missing one piece of critical importance regarding the formation of this beracha & it is that the blessing is in the negative form.

I do believe that we are exercising in apologetics when we say that being a man we are now obligated in more mitzvoth with the opportunity for greater reward. However that could have been said in the positive - she assani ish. The prior  two blessing are clear in their negative formulation that we are thanking god for not making us them. 

I for one can not recite this blessing married to a well accomplished woman who I have entrusted to partner with me in bringing up my children &  now has dedicated her life to educating children and become the co-principal of a yeshivah high school with over 600 children. 

I personally do not have a problem omitting this beracha in my daily prayers as I believe we always need to be honest in our approach to all matters. I can not just say it because it's printed.

Our great rabbis were from a time when woman were not afforded the luxury of higher education & were relegated to household & farm chores. This along with quite a number of other issues in Halacha show the great disparity between the equality of men & women.

Yours truly,
abie maleh

Reconstructodoxy

Rabbi Yosef Kanevsky is a sinner man.!!!??? This Yeshiva University ordained, Rabbi Avi Weiss trained, self –proclaimed modern Orthodox rabbi does not want to say the blessing “who has not made me a woman” because he finds the blessing to be sexist.  He is challenged by Agudath Israel’s Rabbi Avi Shafran as placing himself beyond the pale of Orthodoxy by questioning the Sages.  Furthermore, the Rabbinical Council of America is also challenged to define itself by defining heresy, i.e., R. Kanevsky, as “outside”    of Orthodoxy’s parameters. What at first appears as a conversation about Torah law and principle now emerges as an unsavory joust to claim Jewish Orthodoxy’s religious identity.  Jewish law forbids demeaning—not disagreeing with—sages. Shafran’s Agudath Israel officially berated Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveithik in a Jewish Observer May 1991 “eulogy,” which ironically means “good words.”  This nasty column seemed to suggest that Judaism is defined not by canonical books, or Israel’s sacred library, but by sacred people, who oracularly tell Israel what those books “really” mean. Since Modern Orthodoxy, for Shafran and Agudath Israel, does not by definition have “real” great sages that are recognized by Agudath Israel, it cannot be authentically Orthodox at all because to fails to defer to really real self-appointed spokespeople of God.  Now, by not protesting the R. Soloveitchik “euology,” Agudath Israel’s Great Sages would be guilty, according to Modern Orthodoxy, of not being great sages because they meanly demean an undeniably great sage. The fact that Modern Orthodoxy turned a blind eye to this assault upon their “Rav” indicates that some leaders within Modern Orthodox institutional life happen to crave ultra-Orthodox approval more than they maintain self-respect.  At its origin,  the “who has not made me a woman”  blessing was said by the man upon rising. When men forgot to say the blessings, the  morning  blessings were collected and placed at the beginning of the morning prayer rubric. Therefore, saying the blessing in women’s presence was never mandated by Jewish law. If Abraham was not a sinner for asking God “will  the judge of the world not act justly,” Rabbi Kanevsky’s moral scruple deserves similar slack.

Unaddressed by the self-styled “traditionalists” is the pseudo-blessing that women are curiously instructed to recite, “who had made me according to His [not Her!] will” in place of the “who has not made me a woman” blessing. This formula first appears in the work of the 14^th century Abudarham, long after the authority to formulate blessings, a prerogative of the Sanhedrin, had lapsed. Therefore, this utterance is a beracha le-vatala, a religiously unlawful taking of God’s name in vain, a deviation from Torah principle far more severe than  R. Kanevsky’s omission of a blessing.  The oriental Jewish rites do not treat this formula as a bona fide  blessing.  Three Orthodox rabbis told me privately that they actually accepted this formula because (1) we need more and not less spiritual avenues, (2) the blessing has been “accepted” by Orthodoxy, and (3) great rabbis did not protest this innovation.

From this anecdotal survey, we observe that

• Rabbis may be  defined by the issues that they are prepared to protest.
• Pious spiritual feelings are  sufficient to suspend Jewish law if the community consensus does not object.
• Leviticus 4, Tractate Horayot chapter 1, and Maimonides Shegagot notwithstanding, what street culture Orthodoxy does must be the unquestionable will of God, as opposed the words of the Written and Torah canon that we believe were said, in the casse of the former, and inspired, in the case of the latter, by God.
• When we protest dissent  but fail to protest real principle, we have an integrity problem.

Failure to recite  the “who has not made me a woman” blessing is at worse a failure to observe a rabbinic obligation.  The failure of some to avoid the tallit [prayer shawl]  until marriage or to recite daily the priestly blessing are failures to observe Biblical commands. [see Mishneh Berura to the end of OH  17]  If passive non-observance of Biblical commands  may be justified by those professing Orthodox beliefs, then R. Kanevsky suggestion ought not to be questioned, either.  [ See Joel Wolowelsky, “A quiet Berakha,” TRADITION 29:4 / 1995,   51-67] And if we invent excuses not to observe Biblical law, i.e., that we need joy, which we do not possess in exile, or that a contrived midrashic exegesis of  Biblical verses, without Sanhedrin approval, to undermine  Biblical mandates, the meaning of Orthodoxy has been reconstructed beyond recognition.

When in order to solve the Agunah problem, i.e., the forcing of women to remain chained in dead marriages because of the husband’s willful recalcitrance to authorize a Jewish divorce, the late Rabbi Emmanuel Rackman proposed the nullification of the marriage, an idea supported by some modern Orthodox scholars, like Rabbis M. S. Feldblum, M. Elon, and S. Riskin.  Others in the Modern Orthodox community fear schism and prefer a consensus amongst all Orthodox rabbis in order to support such an innovation, which necessarily gives the extremists a veto.  Now, when R. Isaac Schmelkes proclaimed that we may/must nullify conversions if the convert stops being as observant as the great rabbis require,  there was no call for consenus, there was no discussion regarding the basis of the ruling, and most seriously, his innovation enjoys  no precedent in Jewish law. In point of fact, the hard fact is that there is greater precedent for nullifying weddings than there is for nullifying conversions.  The non-Modernists are speaking as God’s mouthpeace in order to function as God’s gatekeepers and do not seem concerned with consensus.   Just as modern Orthodoxy was silent regarding the Rabbi Soloveitchik slight in Jewish Observer, its failure to regard Rabbi Schmelkes as a renegade reveals a religious community whose social need for approval exceeds its actual theological resolve.

Sometimes the Orthodox street does indeed conflict with the  Orthodox sacred library. A prospective Israeli convert was rejected because she wanted to serve in the Israeli military.  Rabbi Abraham Karelitz ruled that such service  is forbidden according to [uncited] Jewish law and disagreeing with this ruling renders the offender an invalid witness, the culture code equivalent of an evil Jew.  On the other hand, the Talmud [bSuta 44b] actually requires the conscription of both men and women during wars of Jewish self-defense.  While one could plausibly but not necessarily argue against the conscription of women in a sexually loose environment, the disallowing of conscription for yeshiva men, whose commitments and convictions should  be more secure, and the  Orthodox chaperoned women’s Sherut Leumi/National  Service, seem to defy the  unambiguous Oral Torah mandate.  Perhaps the concern is that Orthodox members of Orthodox society may not be placed outside of the rule and control of the great rabbis; even so, if it is the will of the divine Torah that must be done, then social policy must defer to the Torah canon.  And if what is taken to be social cohesion is sufficient to override a divine law recorded in the Oral Torah, we reconstruct  Orthodoxy from  a Torah of law into anti-modern counter culture of righteous alienation.  Ironically, it is the social definition and not the sacred word that determines this  Orthodoxy’s parameters of propriety.  When raising the issue to other Orthodox rabbis,  the response was similar to that of the “who has not made me a woman” blessing, that we accept Orthodox street culture as canonical, because we need to be accepted for our compliance and we must avoid being marginalized by asking inconvenient questions that allow others to regard questioners as outsiders to Orthodoxy.  In contextual perspective, Rabbi Kanevsky’s “deviation” pales  before the street Orthodoxy’ deflection  from what official religion Orthodox Judaism would appear to mandate.  As a non-great rabbi, it is absolutely sinful for Rabbi Kanevsky to speak as a moral agent; the street culture Orthodoxy demands unquestioning compliance and not moral activism on the part of Orthodox Jews.  The Torah may be recorded on a literary library but it is incarnate in the persons of great rabbis.  And the great rabbis have ruled that their deviations are “innovations” and valid while other deviations are reforms and therefore invalid.  And because folk religion Orthodoxy privileges social acceptance over theological consistency, Rabbi Kanevsky will be condemned,  Rabbi Karelitz remains unquestioned, and the very raising of the consistenciy question is itself both subversive and sinful.

Note well that classical Judaism speaks of error more than of heresy. The  Hebrew word for sin, het, actually means “to miss the target.”  By stressing the heretical disposition of raising moral questions and  challenges, the Orthodox street employs political intimidation in order to enforce social conformity.  The Torah text is for this Judaism normatively indeterminate; the great rabbis are empowered to determine propriety from intuition and it is the height of hubris for non-great rabbis to express, much less defend, alternative normative prescriptions.

The test topic that corroborates our thesis is the matter of double ring marriage ceremonies.  On one hand, this innovation is condemned as a feminist reform and is therefore rejected with the halakhic diction that “the giving of a ring by the bride to the groom looks like and might be mistaken for the the woman returning and rejecting the ring and the marriage.”

There are several problems with this rhetorical gambit:

• It assumes the way we were is the way we now ought to be; it is behavioral inertia and not the sacred canon that embodies Heaven’s mandate.
• It presents social policy—which is a legitimate concern—as if it is covenantal law, which is a theological misrepresentation.
• Those who are familiar with the Jewish laws of marriage know very well that if the bride walks willingly to the huppa after preparatory conversations called shidduchin, the instant that the bride takes the ring into her hand or on her finger, the marriage is effective, irrevocable,  and irreversible.

If the officiating rabbi announces that the wife  now, after irrevocably accepting the groom’s ring, gives a ring to her husband, themarriage, now effective and irreversible, the professed grounds for objection are addressed and obviated.  But because Orthodox street religion is uncomfortable with what is really at stake in this conversation, the egalitarian as opposed to hierarchical culture and power relations, and its great rabbis are keenly aware of the moral valence and social statement of this innovative rite, the innovation is not only disallowed but must be condemned. Recall Queen Vashti’s refusal to appear before the inebriated emperor in her crown and bodily beauty was seen as a seditious precedent for underling ladies to overthrow the chain of being that makes the man the king of the castle.  In this street Orthodoxy, the word of God is intuited by charismatics who claim monopoly control over the collective culture conscience; in Rabbi Kanevsky’s Orthodoxy, the words of Torah do not change with the times but the application of Torah indeed ought to respond to changing realities.     Which Orthodoxy is the word of the living God and which Orthodoxy is parochial Reconstructionism?

One treads on dangerous ground when he considers himself superior to Chazal with regards to cavod habriyus, love of one’s fellow Jew, and appreciation for the good in people (ayin tov). Why do I say this? Because our whole religion was transmitted through Chazal and shaped by Chazal. If they were more blinded by prejudice than we, if they were swayed by the foolishness of their era to such an extent as to effect brachos they formulated – then we are in big trouble in matters far more important than the one discussed here because their rulings shape our entire lives.

Rather, I would suggest the approach of trying to understand the meaning in the bracha rather than judging it or trying to eradicate it.

Would you also say that Chazal erred (Heaven forbid) when they said that a Cohen has more keddushah than a Levi? Is this not politically sensitive? Should we no longer order the aliyos with the Cohen going first because an Israel could feel insulted?

Hashem made different kinds of people and put them in different roles. If he didn’t equip me with the abilities of a gadol hador, that is not my fault, not my doing. My job is to serve Hashem with the abilities He gave me. My self-esteem is based on my being a bzelem Elokim and doing the most with what I have. It should not be based on what others have. Hashem loves us all, that is our worth. One doesn’t compare children in the absolute sense. What if we were to find that women in general didn’t have the same degree of spiritual potential as men? This could be. In fact many commentators talk like this. (Maharal, Magen Avraham, Vilna Gaon, Rav Kook) Rav Kook points out that the flip side to this is that men can go lower. Are you to say that they are all wrong? Is what they are saying the end of the world? If Hashem us that way, then it’s good. Just go with what He made.

Hashem gave us different mitzvos. Many commentators say that the “three brachos” reflect the possession of mitvos, that men have the most and that is why they say shelo asani, just as women say it on the goy and the eved.

The Taz points out that saying shelo asani goy is a complement to the goy. There’s no point in comparing oneself to something of no worth. I don’t say, thank you for not making me a rock.

My suggestion is to read the commentators and try to grow from their message. The last thing I would ever want to do with the Torah or with life is to take the sensibilities from this insane era and judge all of history through it.