Women in the Synagogue, Drisha, and Jewish Unity
In the days of repentance just before Rosh Hashanah, when Jewish unity is so important, it was distressing to read the Editor’s Viewpoint in your Fall 2001 issue to find you publicly critiquing a Jewish institution.

While the editor raises important points under the title “Zeide Didn’t Do It,” perhaps a quiet meeting could have been held to discuss the issues. Since your editor has aired many questions about women’s participation in Orthodox services at the Drisha Institute, a brief response from one who has no connection with Drisha is in order.

Zeide didn’t do many things. For one, he didn’t rely on organizational symbols to ascertain kashrus. But times have changed, and in the myriad of modern technology and an expanded marketplace, we do rely on such signs when we know the organization is trustworthy. Our criterion cannot be just that it never was done.

Times have also changed for society at large. If one steps four cubits beyond the frum community, one sees countless Jewish women raising families, pursuing careers, helping communities, being part of philanthropic organizations, participating in cultural and educational activities — in short, doing everything except participating in Jewish life. It is easy to say that lack of Jewish education is responsible, but on closer look one finds some women who have attended the finest yeshivos as part of this group. Many look at synagogue life as exclusionary of women and feel there is no place for them.

To reject services that are more inclusive of women on the basis that it just never was done denies the evolutionary nature of many of our practices. Additions to the siddur, women’s education, and Rosh Chodesh celebrations are examples of modifications that accommodate changing times. Our criteria for these ought to be whether halachah permits them and whether positive gains are achieved.

We are well aware of the changes that other movements in Judaism have introduced that go beyond halachah. Once the Reform and Conservative movements entered these paths, the lines were drawn, and change within Orthodoxy became much harder to achieve. To not allow change where it can be permitted is to allow other movements, by their practices, to define for us our limits.

Robert Schore
Monsey, NY

Avi Goldstein responds: Robert Schore is correct that Orthodoxy does not reject innovation simply because it is new. (He is incorrect, however, in confining these advances to those outside the “frum” community, by which I assume he means the so-called “ultra-Orthodox.” All the changes he enumerates are present within a large part of that grouping as well.)

Yet Mr. Schore does acknowledge that Reform and Conservative Judaism have stepped beyond the bounds of normative Judaism. One arena in which excesses have occurred is the synagogue, and it is precisely here that Drisha crossed the line, by permitting women to lead services, to have aliyos, and to read from the Torah.

In my editorial I conceded that it may be possible to justify Drisha’s innovations in halachah. But that is only after resort to a host of legal somersaults. Halachah means not just a consultation of the legal literature, in a desperate search to justify a predetermined conclusion. It also involves consultation with Torah authorities. This is especially true when considering a radical innovation in Orthodoxy’s public conduct.

It is ironic that Mr. Schore takes me to task for criticizing Drisha rather than first consulting them. Whom did Drisha consult before instituting this change from normative Judaism? Does it have a single Torah giant who approved?

Contrary to Mr. Schore’s assertion, the editorial did not state that whether Zeide did something is the sole criterion for determining our course of action. Of course there are other considerations. But masorah — tradition — does play a large part.

Tangentially, Mr. Schore categorizes the advances for Orthodoxy in religious education, chessed, and raising a family as occurring outside “Jewish life.” Not true! These are all vital parcels of the Jewish experience.

Finally, as Mr. Schore writes, Jewish unity is a precious value, especially before Rosh Hashanah, but it does not exclude heartfelt disagreement. Unity must not preclude a defense of the integrity of the Rosh Hashanah service itself. The editorial was not written with venom. As stated at the conclusion, it was written with the hope that Drisha will return to the mainstream.

The Jewish Homemaker welcomes letters from readers. We reserve the right to edit for clarity and length. Letters must be signed and dated.

Send letters to:
The Jewish Homemaker
Letters to the Editor
391 Troy Ave.
Brooklyn, NY 11213

or e-mail: letters@homemaker.org