Texas Jewish Post (Fort Worth, Tex.), Vol. 39, No. 7, Ed. 1 Thursday, February 14, 1985 Page: 2 of 20
twenty pages : ill. ; page 16 x 12 in. Scanned from physical pages.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
TEXAS JEWISH POST THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1985 PAGE 2
Religious Arguments Over Feminism
BY IRVING
GREENBERG
In a recent speech, a Cana-
dian rabbi, Immanuel Scho-
chet, denounced feminists
who seek full participation in
Jewish ritual and tradition
or who support the ordina-
tion of women as “Jezebels.”
(TJPost Jan. 3, 1985)
Religion is valid only if it
is based on — and limited by
— Divine revelation , said
Schochet. “God can impose
his will upon man, but not
vice versa.” Therefore, any-
thing not sanctioned by
Torah or halacha is alien to
the religious reality of the
Jew. “To follow personal
inclinations or decisions,
regardless of how sincere
and well-intentioned, if
those do not conform to
halacha, they do not consti-
tute worship of God but
self-worship.” Schochet ar-
gues that the term “Jeze-
bel” is an appropriate
symbol of idolatrous people,
i.e., those who put their own
ambitions above everything
else.
Tacitly, Schochet and the
majority of opponents have
concluded the validity of
feminist claims. They argue
only that nothing can be
done about it because it is
the will of God that the
present inequality contin-
ue. Instinctively, a pro-
test rises to one’s lips —
even on the part of tradi-
tionalists. To which the
answer is given: one must
surrender one’s judgment; it
is a divine decree that
women are excluded from
being rabbis, from being
called to the Torah, from
studying Talmud, and even
into being victimized by
unfair husbands. For a
woman to insist on following
her own heart and to become
a rabbi — or to say kaddish
for a beloved parent — is to
worship self; it is idolatrous.
Says Schochet:“If women do
not like this, they should
take up their case with God
directly and demand and
await a new revelation
which will sanction any
changes.”
access io learning, more op-
portunities to participate.
Rabbi Schochet’s speech il-
luminates where the reli-
gious argument over femin-
ism now stands. The Rabbi
does not challenge the
validity of the feminist argu-
ment intrinsically. He does
not claim — as his predeces-
sors eighty years ago did
claim when they opposed
Torah study for women —
that women are “light
headed,” intellectually in-
capable of learning Torah.
Nor does he seek to mor-
ally justify women’s exclu-
sion from full religious
participation any more than
he tries to rationalize wom-
en’s suffering when males
take advantage of the
halachic requirement that
they authorize a get (Jewish
divorce) and blackmail their
wives for money or con-
cessions.
The opponents of religious
feminism have been unable,
thus far, to come to grips
with the post-modern char-
acter of this movement.
Rabbi Schochet calls it
“Feminist Reformation.” In
fact, the most striking thing
about this movement is that
it is asking not that exist-
ing laws be dropped or
modified but that women be
allowed in to participate. As
long as Jews were dominat-
ed by the desire to become
modern, the direction was
toward reducing obser-
vance, reducing levels of
learning needed to function
as Jewish authority or
Jewish lay person, reducing
differences between Jews
and non-Jews. Now that
Jews have broken the
tyranny of modernization,
the direction is inward —
demands for more areas of
life to be sanctified, more
In this sense, the terms
Orthodox, Conservative, and
Reform are less helpful as a
guide to what is going on.
Each of the movements is
split between people who
seek to incorporate new ex-
periences (celebrating Is-
rael’s Independence Day is
as good an example as wom-
en’s prayer) and those who
seek to maintain the status
quo — wherever it is in their
circles.) There are Ortho-
dox Jews who support the
feminist goals even as there
are Reform Jews who are
opposed.
One substantive issue is
whether authentic Judaism
(or Torah or halacha) is
tradition — that which is
inherited, familiar, and the
object of veneration. If tradi-
tion alone is decisive — and
this is the view of many
non-observant Jews as well
— then the fight against
feminism is a fight to save
Judaism. An alternative
view is that Judaism is a
religious way (Halacha liter-
ally means walking (the
way) which sanctifies and
transforms every society
condition until the world will
be perfected. In this view,
new phenomena — including
women’s own religious ex-
periences — are being
brought within the tradi-
tion in our very lifetime.
When the Beth Jacob
Torah schools for women
were started eighty years
ago, they were opposed as
innovations. Now, their
standard of Torah learning
is upheld as sacred in
traditionalist circles who
fight against those who add
Talmud to women’s study
curricula.
A similar confusion besets
the comments of those who
argue that only God can
change the situation of
women. This claim denies
the entire tradition of the
oral law, the rabbinic role in
Judaism. Despite its reveal-
ed character, what is writ-
ten in the Torah is not God’s
final word — according to
Jewish tradition. To reach
the end goal of perfection,
authority is vested in the
Rabbis and authorities of
each age. The first century
Sadducees and the medieval
Karaites denied the author-
ity of the Rabbis but they
have fallen by the wayside of
Jewish history.
Abraham, challenged God
directly:“Shall the Judge of
all the Earth not do justice?”
(Genesis 18, 25) Implied in
the covenant relationship
which is the heart of
Judaism is the right — and
obligation — to argue with
God. Humans must carry the
divine mandate to its goals.
The process of equalizing
women starts in the Torah
(Exodus 21, 7ff.) with limi-
tations on the hitherto
unqualified man’s right to
sell his own daughter. The
Rabbis of succeeding gener-
ations did not say it is God’s
decree that women be sold
— any more than they
sought to re-establish slav-
ery with grounds that the
Torah (temporarily) recog-
nized it.
What is new — a
lamentable result of moder-
nity’s impact on traditional
Jews — is the abdication of
this responsibility. In the
Talmud, Rabbi Eliezer ben
Hyrkanos disagreed with
the majority of his col-
leagues in a case. He even
obtained the support of a
divine Voice which upheld
his ruling. His colleagues
dismissed him and the voice
with the cutting truth that
“the Torah is not in the
heavens (anymore).” (Deu-
teronomy 30, 12).
When the Rabbis set up a
ketubah (marriage contract)
guaranteeing women a prop-
erty settlement in case of
divorce, they did not argue
that God in the Torah had
decreed that women be
divorced without financial
protection and Rabbis can do
nothing about it. When
Rabbeynu Gershon and his
court prohibited polygamy
in the eleventh century,
they did not consider it
idolatrous to go beyond the
Torah which permits poly-
gamy. The authorities fol-
lowed the (correct) judg-
ment of their heart and of
the social state of women in
that time.
In fact, taking up injustice
in the divine decrees — or
even economic hardship —
directly with God is an
ancient and authentic Jew-
ish practice. The first Jew,
Dr. Irving
Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveit-
chik has written in his
Halachic Man (p. 81) of the
uniqueness of the Jewish
view that halachic man
“received the Torah from
Sinai not as a simple
recipient but as a creator of
worlds, as a partner with the
Almighty in the act of
creation.” As in perfect-
ing the world so in the
ethical perfecting of the
halacha, the human becomes
co-creator with God. One
does not wait for Divine
Revelation. Humans reveal
the divine will now. This is
why Rabbinic command-
ments — like Hanuka cand-
les — are preceded by the
blessing, “Blessed are You,
Loving God, Lord of the
Universe who sanctified us
with God’s commandements
and commanded us to light
the Hanuka candles.” (em-
phasis added)
Jreenberg
on Passover. When the
halachic leadership conclud-
ed that literal enforce-
ment of these provisions
would be a counter-produc-
tive hardship, they worked
out a legal alternative —
selling the chometz to a
Gentile. When they were
troubled by the illegitimate
status of an innocent child
born out of adulterous or
incestuous union, the Rabbis
said so. Halachically, they
worked out a procedure to
enable an illegitimate child
to somehow marry into the
Jewish people — and to
cover up for any mamzerim
who successfully evaded the
ban on marriage.
The Torah instructs that
leavened products be elim-
inated so they are neither
seen nor found in the home
In defending the tradition-
al Catholic doctrine which
permits only males to be
priests, Pope John Paul II
argued that God had incar
nated in male from (i.e.,
Jes us). Therefore, God had
decreed that only males
could stand in for God for
Sacramental purpose. In
Jewish tradition, there are
images of God — all humans
are images of God. To take
one image of God and to give
it special status/sanctity (as
pagans do with statues) is
the process of becoming
idolatrous. One cannot
‘freeze’ God’s presence — or
instruction — in a certain
See Argument, page 19
l
K
I
■
E
Expert Fears NYC Suburban Supplementary Schools Imperiled
BY BEN GALLOB
[Copyright 1985, Jewish
Telegraphic Agency, Inc.]
A New York education ex-
pert has expressed the fear
that, without prompt action,
“greater New York suburb-
an communities may find
themselves virtually with-
out a pupil population in the
coming decades.”
Alvin Schiff, executive
vice president of the Board
of Jewish Education BJE),
made that comment in
discussing an enrollment
study which showed that
while enrollment in day
schools in the Greater New
York area — which includ-
ed Nassau, Suffolk and
Westchester counties — has
been steadily increasing,
enrollment in the supple-
mentary Jewish schools had
declined for the tenth con-
secutive year.
In commenting on the
BJE 1983-84 enrollment sur-
vey, Schiff also said the
Jewish community cannot
afford “to become a com-
placent” about the growth of
day schools, “while ignor-
ing the plight of supple-
mentary education.”
A spokesman for the BJE
told the Jewish Telegraphic
Agency that a key factor in
the problem is that day
schools are most present in
heavily urban areas while in
smaller Jewish concentra-
tions, supplementary Jewish
schools are generally the
norm for Jewish child educa-
tion.
The BJE survey showed a
two percent increase in day
school enrollment for 1983-
84, and a .2 percent decline
in supplementary school en-
rollment. Estimated total
1983-84 enrollment figures
for all Jewish schools in the
‘ area is 120,000 students,
with 65,000 attending all-
day schools, 51,500 at
supplementary schools and
3,500 Jewish children in
Jewish nursery and early
children programs.
Schiff added that the dif-
ference between day school
and supplementary school
enrollments was “underscor-
ed by the vastly dif-
ferent geographic distribu-
tion of the students.” He
said that while 76.6 percent
of day school students
attend schools in the five
boroughs, more than 80
percent of supplemtary
school enrollment is subur-
ban-based.
He said that while the
decline in supplementary
school enrollment was small
the past year, the contin-
uation of a consistent trend
has serious implications for
suburban communities. He
said “with virtually all of
suburban Jewish education
based in the supplemtary
school, a constant erosion of
the pupil population points
to a potentially bleak future
for suburban Jewish edu-
cation.”
Schiff attributed the trend
in part toward higher
enrollment in day schools to
“the higher birthrate among
Orthodox and Hasidic Jews,
who traditionally send their
children to day schools.” He
said another reason relates
to the growing number of
Jewish single parents who
utilize both early childhood
programs and extended yes-
hiva-day school programs as
a form of day care.
“Clearly, day schools are
meeting both religious and
social needs for an increas-
ingly larger proportion of
the Jewish community,”
Schiff declared. “At the
same time, supplementary
schools do not seem to be
responding to the differing
needs of their prime consti-
tuents.”
He said the single-parent
trend, which contributes to
the day school, detracts
from the supplementary
school. He said “car pooling,
for example, which is the
mainstay of transportation
to the suburban supplemen-
tary school, has become till
but impossible for the single
working parent, and even
for parents of intact families
where both work. In many
cases, children are denied
Jewish education merely for
want of a ride to school.”
Schiff said that was just
one example of a case in
which structure, rather than
educational content, can
dictate a parent’s decision
about enrolling a child in a
supplementary school. He
said “our supplementary
schools have been designed ,■1
to meet the needs of a i
Jewish population which no gf
longer exists. Today’s young | '
Jewish suburban family has j
to cope with a complex set of i
economic and social pres-
sures which the supplemen-,
tary school is not addressing
adequately.
He warned that if the I
continuous drop in supple- ■
mentary school enrollment
is to be halted, “suburban
communities must begin to
mount serious, well-organiz-
ed outreach efforts in an
attempt to attract unaf- J!
filiated families to supple- 3 .
mentary Jewish education." g j
Schiff said the BJE and its
Board planned to address
the issue throughout the
coming academic year, as
special lay and profession- j
al forces on supplementary ■ i
Jewish education explore ■ J
methods of attacking the ■
problems of such school..., i
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Wisch, J. A. & Wisch, Rene. Texas Jewish Post (Fort Worth, Tex.), Vol. 39, No. 7, Ed. 1 Thursday, February 14, 1985, newspaper, February 14, 1985; Fort Worth, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth753087/m1/2/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; .