YUTOPIA

Introduction

The protracted divorce battle between Aharon Friedman and Tamar Epstein is the most publicized case of agunah in recent memory. An aggressive campaign led by the Organization for the Resolution of Agunot (ORA) capitalized on Mr. Friedman's relatively prominent status as a congressional aide for David Camp. The efforts of numerous online and personal protests eventually led to mainstream media coverage from outlets such as Fox News, The New York Times and Politico which called national attention to Mr. Friedman's refusal to grant his wife a halakhic divorce. As with virtually all cases of agunah, the recalcitrant party is vilified with public condemnations and communal pressure to acquiesce.¹ When the specific goal is obtaining the immediate divorce, it is a relatively simple matter to identify the party responsible for obstructing the process and to protest accordingly. Others, however, find fault with the halakhic system, and in a desire to change the status quo identify other sources of blame.

In a recent Forward blog post titled "On Agunah Issue, Pressure Rabbis, Not Rep" Dvora Myers argues that the plight of agunot is not only the fault of a recalcitrant husband, but of the Rabbis for creating the regulations in the first place.

However, if withholding a get constitutes abuse, if the husband is indeed brandishing a psychological weapon and threatening his wife with it, then the question that should be asked: How did the gun get into his hand?

The answer is clear: It was put there by Jewish law, the rabbis who formulated it, and the rabbis who refuse to amend it.

Myers' understanding of Jewish law is informed by Blu Greenberg's famous dictum, "where there's a rabbinic will, there's a halakhic way," thus placing the burden of agunot squarely with the Rabbis. Ultimately Myers concludes,

If maintaining a nearly thousand-year-old ruling is more important than offering women equality within the religion, I would at least like to see one of these rabbis condemning Friedman admit as much. It would be refreshingly honest to hear one of them say something like, "When faced with the choice of preserving tradition and promoting justice and equality that would give women the freedom to divorce, we choose the former."

Most Orthodox Jews would agree that adhering to a thousand year old ruling is in fact more important than fulfilling the prevailing ethic of the day. This is due to a fundamentally different approach to Jewish law, one which assumes that halakhah is ultimately a representation of Divine Will. In this case it would be strict adherence to the biblical laws of divorce in Deut. 24:1-1 and the capital offense for adultery in Lev. 20:10. It is important to consider that this approach to halakhah is shared by the agunot themselves, who while having the free will to ignore Jewish law and remarry as they wish, are committed first and foremost to keeping halakhah despite the immense challenges it presents.² Thus, when a Rabbi adheres to Jewish law, even if it is unpopular, inconvinient, or even difficult for him to do so, he is not being an obstinate misogynist, but rather fulfilling his duty as a Rabbi.

But while it is misguided to blame Rabbis for following halakhah, it is completely legitimate to hold Rabbis accountable to the very halakhah which they espouse. Unfortunately, the Orthodox Rabbinate has not always lived up to their own ideals even when the lives agunot were at stake.
continue reading...

The topic of "tzniut" or "modesty" has recently become a prominent point of discussion in the Jewish community, mostly in response recent incidents of religious violence in Israel (some of which we covered in the previous class on Religious Coercion). Recent essays by Rabbi Dov Linzer in the New York Times, Rabbi Aryeh Klapper for a Rabbinical Council of America blog, and an earlier one by Rabbi Marc Angel for The Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals have all attempted to present a more "moderate" view from what is often conveyed by Orthodox Jewish society.

But the common theme in these essays, and indeed what dominates the discussion of Jewish modesty, is almost exclusively framing the issue in the context of women. In particular, modesty is most frequently defined in terms of how women ought to dress, how a woman is supposed to behave, and in some general instances the appropriate role of women in Jewish if not secular society. With this focus on women, it is not surprising that tzniut/modesty is almost exclusively construed as a sexual ethic.

In this shiur I challenge this assumption by approaching the topic of modesty not from the socially defined understanding of tzniut, but rather how and when the root "צנע" is used in the Talmud. While the term is certainly used in the context of female sexuality or displays of femininity (B. Ketuvot 3b, B. Berachot 8b, B. Shabbat 113b, B. Sotah 49b), the Rabbinic tradition also applies tzniut to men as it pertains to his relationship with his wife (B. Shabbat 53b) and his mode of dress (B. Menachot 43a). Furthermore, the ethic of tzniut is asserted in the contexts of going to the bathroom (B. Berachot 8b, 62a), eating (B. Berachot 8b), not displaying one's wealth (B. Pesachim 113a), and even religious observance (M. Ma'aser Sheni 5:1, B. Sukkah 49b/B. Makkot 24a). (These and additional sources are in the attached source sheet with a modified Soncino translation.)

Given the contextual range of the root צנע, I suggest that tzniut in the Rabbinic tradition may best be described not as a sexual ethic at all (let alone a female one), but a general attitude of behavior of which sexual behavior is only one component. In other words, the true Jewish ethos of modesty does not exclusively pertain to sexuality, but rather reflects a universal ethic, one which is equally applicable to men and women in all facets of life.

Current Jewish Questions 2 - Tzniut / Modesty Sources (PDF)

Current Jewish Questions 2 - Tzniut-Modesty

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

With the topic of tznius/modesty buzzing around the Orthodox Jewish world I wanted to share a brief but personally significant story from my rabbinical school days. In 2001-2002 I was in my third year of semikhah and fortunate enough to study in Yeshiva University's Gruss Kollel in Bayit Vegan. It is perhaps one of the most unappreciated perk of YU's rabbinical school in that accepted students pay they way to Israel but get free room and board, allowing for greater focus for one's studies.¹ The dorms are not what you'd consider "new" with relatively thin walls, thinner doors and apartments stacked on top of each other,[2.Yes, I know that's how apartments work, just using an expression.] My year of the 30 or so students only 9 were single, while the rest were married rabbinical students, some with children.

One day after our regular Yoreh Deah class, the Rosh Yeshiva called us in to give us some mussar. There was a concern that husbands and wives from other couples were socializing excessively with each other. After all, the Torah teaches "Be Holy" (Lev. 19:2 which Ramban interprets as "הוו פרושים מן העריות ומן העבירה" - separate yourself from illicit behavior and sin, and so forth.

I will stress here that I am/was unaware of any incident which could be classified in any way as inappropriate. Most of the kollel couples knew each other before coming and the relatively cloistered environment would understandably lead to inter-socialization. And even the Rosh Yeshiva had mentioned that he wasn't responding to anything in particular, but was just making a general observation and expressing a concern.

Strictly speaking, this concern is not entirely unjustified. M. Avot 1:5 states explicitly, "Do not talk excessively with women. This was said about one's own wife; how much more so about the wife of one's neighbor" and B. Nedarim 20a explains that it is because this speech will lead to adultery.

Something else occurred to me at that time. The audience here consisted of rabbinical students who would at some point venture into communities as actual rabbis, which at some point would entail talking to women. One would hope that rabbis ought to be able to converse with female constituents without viewing them as sex objects, and if there were any doubt on this point then perhaps they ought not remain rabbinical students. If there was any concern of the moral integrity of the future rabbis of America, then perhaps we had bigger problems on our hands.

But it also occurred to me that it is precisely because of the nature of our profession that this mussar was appropriate. Most professional rabbis have countless interactions with congregants or students. If a rabbi is particularly outgoing or friendly, it is not inconceivable for a conversation to be interpreted in a way other than what was intended.² In short, if interpersonal boundaries are important for Jews, they are much more so for professional rabbis.

I do not know if this was the message the Rosh Yeshiva actually intended, but it was an important lesson nonetheless.

I just received the following email from the Rabbinical Council of America, copied and pasted below.
continue reading...

At times it seems that the Orthodox rabbinate has little more to contribute to the world of Jewish ideas than proclamations declaring who is, or more precisely who is not, "Orthodox." Consider a few recent examples. This past summer Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky wrote a blog post (since removed) discussing his aversion to reciting the daily blessing shelo asani isha, thanking God for not having made him a woman. In response, Rabbi Dov Fischer castigated R. Kanefsky and the community he represents as, "propagating their views without being subjected to scrutiny and critique by those committed to a Mesorah-driven frumkeit" [emphasis added]. In other words, R. Kanefsky's halakhic opinion is not part of the genuine "mesorah/tradition," which R. Fischer apparently does possess. Another writer echoes R. Fischer sentiment more explicitly, "In my view this not only takes Rabbi Kanefsky out of the realm of Orthodoxy, it firmly puts him into the realm of Conservative Judaism."
continue reading...

Rabbi Josh Yuter concludes the Politics of Exclusion shiur series with a general discussion incorporating and previous classes. Many thanks for following!

Politics of Exclusion - Conclusion and Summary

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

I first heard the term "gadolatry" attributed to the late professor Arthur Hertzberg. A portmanteau of "gadol" and "idolatry," the word "gadolatry" refers to a perceived phenomenon in Orthodox Judaism where select rabbinic leaders are treated with a degree of deference or reverence, bordering on worshipping the person of the rabbi himself. That Dr. Hertzberg would coin such an inflammatory term is not surprising given his personality, such that reactions offense or outrage are as intentional as they are predictable. However, it has been my experience that those strong passions on either side have turned the reasonable question of the role of the gadol in Judaism into the single greatest impediment to intelligent religious discourse in the Orthodox Jewish community.

While I have no expectations of resolving this divisive issue, I do hope to explicate the rationales implied when one invokes a gadol, and why others may find such an argument unconvincing.
continue reading...

There are few topics in Jewish society which can simultaneously evoke rage, empathy, and unsolicited opinions and advice as Jewish dating. To take just one example, my statistical analysis of dating prospects drew approval from other frustrated singles, criticism for contradicting the positive experiences of others, and suggestions as to other sites to try and even a few specific set-up offers. Aside from the blog posts here and elsewhere, there are numerous books on the world of Jewish dating including "Shidduch Crisis: Causes and Cures," which ironically can be added to your wedding registry.

To be sure, I've done my share of personal reflections as a single - after all it's great blog fodder. Longtime loyal readers may recall such classics as The Harm in Being Nice, Waiting on a Friend, The Mind of a Matchmaker , and Top 10 Dating Questions - all of which for the most part still holds up today. And I've been guilty of offering my own Guide to Jewish Dating and another one specifically for online dating sites. But fast forward several years, countless women, forgettable dates, even more encouragement, criticism, and unsolicited advice, I am still single. However in the past few years serving as a Rabbi I've also gained a much better perspective. While my community attracts young Jews, it is by no means a "scene" which means there is significantly less communal pressure for single's to get married. Furthermore, I have personally adopted a "no dating congregants" policy, meaning my religious communal experience of synagogue attendance is uncharacteristically devoid of any pretense of trying to impress women.

Thus I write from the relatively unique perspective of being a single rabbi - aware of the struggles of others while experiencing the same challenges first hand. Consider it unintentional participant observation if you will. And with this dual perspective I have come to the following conclusion: the so-called "shidduch crisis" is a collection of myths which only exacerbate the social pressures and anxieties at the core of the Jewish single's community, specifically the denial of individuation.
continue reading...

Synagogue politics are rarely pleasant but they're often necessary to ensure a functioning congregation and to provide protections from hostile takeovers. Personally I've always been content to just show up to shul, daven, and go home, but just because you're oblivious to the legalese of official documents in no way mitigates their importance. Having a constitution and explicit rules is crucial for defining expectations but also for conflict resolution should disputes arise.

For better or worse, few people have ever read their shul's constitution - assuming the synagogue even has one. To understand the political issues a synagogue faces, consider the following proposed draft constitution from the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale (PDF).

I'm not going to go through the entire document, though if you've never read a constitution it's probably worthwhile to note the issues the constitution seeks to address. I have no idea what the current constitution states and which passages are new or emendations to a previous document. Still, two passages are notable for their current implications.

Here's one example:

FORMS, INTERPRETATION AND AFFILIATION: The Congregation shall follow the forms, practices, and usages of an orthodox interpretation of Judaism committed to Halacha and may affiliate itself with the Union of Orthodox Congregations of America.

Given the HIR's reputation for envelope pushing the constitution allows for a seemingly wide berth. That the HIR is expected to follow "an orthodox interpretation" implies that there is there is no uniform "Orthodox" institution let alone a singular orthodox interpretation (note the use of lowercase for "orthodox."). Furthermore, the HIR's affiliation with the Orthodox Union is optional - it is one possible sign of orthodox affiliation. In theory, HIR could leave the OU or simply adopt contradictory policies without violating its constitution. As long as the HIR can show that it is "committed to Halacha" - however they define it - they will still be within their constitutional mission.

The next passage reflects the social progressiveness of the HIR, and I would not be surprised if The Organization for the Resolution of Agunot campaigns synagogues to adopt similar policies:

SUSPENSION OF BENEFITS FOR RECALCITRANT SPOUSES:
Notwithstanding any other provision of these By-Laws, one who withholds issuance or receipt of a Get shall (a) be ineligible for membership in the Congregation, if not yet a member; (b) have his or her membership immediately suspended if such withholding occurs while a member of the Congregation; (c) not be permitted to occupy, or if elected, to retain any appointed or elective position in the Congregation; (d) not be permitted to serve as an employee of the Congregation; and (e) not be given any honor or recognition, or be granted any right or privilege or participation within liturgical services on any occasion whatsoever.

This Section shall apply only to the following situation:
1. Where a married couple has either separated in contemplation of a divorce and been living apart for a year or been granted a civil divorce,
2. One of the parties has filed for issuance of a civil divorce,
3. One of the parties has made a verifiable, formal written request for the unconditional termination of the marriage by execution and receipt of a Get, and
4. The other party has refused to comply with the request of a Get and has not appeared before a beth din recommended by the Senior Rabbi or the beth din’s designee to explain this non-compliance within three (3) months following the fulfillment of the prior three conditions.

If after the allegedly recalcitrant party appears before a beth din, the beth din rules that sanctions should not be adopted, or should be adopted in a modified fashion, then the ruling of the beth din shall be determinative in this matter. The actual or potential application of this Section to a member shall not prevent the member from being suspended or expelled by the Board of
Trustees pursuant to Section 4 of Article II.

Note that this passage refers to withholding either the issuance or receipt of a get such that it does not automatically assume the husband is automatically in the wrong by default.

If you find any particularly interesting passages for discussion, please comment below!

On May 23 2011 several prominent Orthodox Jewish organizations issued a joint statement declaring their opposition to legalizing same sex-marriage. The brief statement is as follows:

On the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage, the Orthodox Jewish world speaks with one voice, loud and clear:

We oppose the redefinition of the bedrock relationship of the human family.

The Torah, which forbids homosexual activity, sanctions only the union of a man and a woman in matrimony. While we do not seek to impose our religious principles on others, we believe the institution of marriage is central to the formation of a healthy society and the raising of children. It is our sincere conviction that discarding the historical definition of marriage would be detrimental to society.

Moreover, we are deeply concerned that, should any such redefinition occur, members of traditional communities like ours will incur moral opprobrium and may risk legal sanction if they refuse to transgress their beliefs. That prospect is chilling, and should be unacceptable to all people of good will on both sides of this debate.

The integrity of marriage in its traditional form must be preserved.

This statement was issued not only by Orthodox institutions considered "right-of center" such as Agudath Israel of America or National Council of Young Israel, but also by more moderate Orthodox organizations such as the Orthodox Union (OU) and the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA).¹ Unlike most religious proclamations which are directed towards specific religious communities, this joint statement advocates a political position - though based on religious principles - to the secular world beyond the normal scope of religious influence. To be sure, this joint statement is hardly the first time rabbinic organizations have issued political statements. Across all major denominations, the Orthodox RCA, Conservative Rabbinical Assembly, and Reform Central Conference of American Rabbis have all passed resolutions advocating public polices exemplifying their respective religious beliefs, with few (if any) complaining about the separation of church and state.

But due to the inherent subjective moral arguments against same-sex marriage, I argue that Jews - especially the Orthodox - would be better served in not opposing its legalization.
continue reading...