Thanks so much for this…after reading some of the news from the Conservative movement’s biennal, it raised my spirits. Especially when I’m grappling, among other things, with this quote from Rabbi Artson:
“. . .we do not mandate that women rabbinical students must put on tefillin. They must learn how tefillin are worn and adjusted, but the decision to wear them is (for women) personal and we respect that diversity.”
For me, this is a set back in the women’s movement on the Jewish front. It’s setting up a situation in which female rabbis would not be as respected as males.
If you can give me a postitive take on it, I’d love to hear it. I’m having real issues with this, and with all the statements about how pluralistic the Conservative movement is, as demonstrated by the fact that affiliated synagogues are allowed to be non-egalitarian. This is easy for men to say, they are accepted anywhere, egalitarian or not. But the fact that I could go to a minyan at a Conservative affiliated shul, and not be counted is ridiculous and upsetting.
No, it’s ridiculous and upsetting. You should be upset.
The only enocouraging take I have is that the seminaries are getting closer to being 1/2 women. Eventually we’ll take on leadership, and then hopefully things will be better. There’s still what to do.
Btw, do yall who are upset by non-egalitarian shuls belonging to the Conservative movement, do you see it as a halakhic issue or a meta- or non-halakhic issue? The recent conference(?) where there were statements made that the Conservative movement should stop being halakhic seemed to have to do with this…
Well, there is a perfectly easy halakhic argument (I have neither the time nor energy to go through the sources now, I have them around here somewhere…) for not having a mechitza, so I don’t consider the debate as necessarily halakhic. I think it has a lot to do with people’s differing visions of the movement, their individual comfort levels with certain kinds of change, and, to a large degree, their comfort with the changes in the status of women in the movement. I don’t know a lot of female laypeople or leaders who are rallying for mechitza shuls–the women who prefer davening with a mechitza tend to just go to an Orthodox shul.
I’m not asking about the halakhic arguments for having or not having a mehhitza, or being or not being egalitarian… i’m talking about arguments some people make for expelling non-egalitarian shuls from the Conservative movement. Is there a halakhic basis for that, i.e. are they saying that halakha demands egalitarianism? Or are they working only on meta- or non-halakhic considerations?
I don’t think anyone’s saying that halakha demands egalitarianism. The movement’s old catchphrase were that we’re “a big tent,” ie able to hold people on many sides of the spectrum in one place. What’s retained and what’s not is more a question of who’s in the tent and who wants to be, and who thinks they can stand to be in the dang tent with which other people, etc.
SO I was at that part of the USCJ biennial, and the gentleman who made that comment is R. Creditor, who seemed partially interested in getting people actively thinking more than anything else. (He was also a Fabulous speaker.)But his arguement as I understood it was that if we think that egalitarianism is halakhically acceptable, than it is immoral for us to still support non-egal congregations. For myself, I am certainly egalitarian, but I’m not sure that I would go so far as R. Creditor was. I don’t know. Other people have a right to their beliefs, and we have no reason to call those beliefs non-halakhic, even if they aren’t Our best view of halakha.
There might also be a useful (and not especially halakhic) distinction between congregations which “we” view as immoral (is this the same thing as “unhalakhic”?) and congregations which “we” view as simply Not Part Of The Same Movement We Are In. Judaism (rabbinic or Second Temple) has pretty much always featured a plethora of parties, sects, minhagim, and so forth. I’ve said elsewhere that I would like to find language which indicates “those people over there practice a real form of Judaism, but not my real form of Judaism.”
Whether or not the Conservative movement should then include non-egalitarian shuls (which have a logical alternate home in the Traditional breakaway movement, I would think) is a separate question.
As many of you know, I’m a tallit-and-tefillin-wearing, service-leading, Torah-leining and haftarah-chanting hard-core egalitarian. It’s just my luck that I’m now living in a neighborhood in which the only Conservative synagogue is a traditional one. As a consequence, I find myself caught in the middle of this disagreement. On the one hand, I would certainly like to see all Conservative synagogues, including my own, become egalitarian. But as a member of a traditional Conservative synagogue for roughly 20 years, I cannot, in good conscience, advocate the expulsion of non-egalitarian synagogues from the USCJ.
What have my fellow and sister congregants, many of whom have been associated with Conservative Judaism for decades, done to deserve to be expelled from their “home?” The traditionalists are the elders of the Conservative movement. Whether or not we agree with them, they deserve some kavod (respect). I hope that the USCJ will continue to advocate a “large tent.”
My problem with the “large tent” theory is that women who wish to wear tefillin and leyn and lead services, etc., are not always allowed in the tent. I see your situation as a prime example. A “hard-core” egalitarian man would still be able to fully practice. You, a woman, are not able to practice within a movement that supposedly allows for all.
I do respect the elders of the congregation, but I feel that they do not respect me. They can come to my synagogue and practice, but I can’t fully practice at their synagogue.
I realize you are in a bind, and I wish it were different. I wish the choice wasn’t that you and your fellow congregants would be expelled from their “home.” I wish the choice is that the elders would have to realize that the time for this change is now, and allow women to fully practice everywhere in the movement.
Funny!! – Rashi’s daughters are said to have worn teffilin, however – just a minor point – according to some opinions (shulchan aruch?) hair combed backwards (i.e. if that is against the natural ‘grain’ of the hair) would be considered a ‘chaztita’ a separation between the teffilin and the head – the poster – it really just says – F* U to everyone! – I think you could go farther and put ‘SHEMA ISRAEL’ or something in the place where it says ‘WE CAN DO IT’? also at the bottom of the poster – something like the ‘Brought to You By The Campain For Holy – Women in Teffilin ?!?!?!’
I really don’t think the poster is meant to be saying f-you to everybody. It’s interesting how people who say things that challenge the status quo are often interpreted as meaning that, no?
Actually ( re your comment above, DAnya) I do think that halakha mandates egalitarianism (see my essay in Rabbi Dorff’s new book).
OTOH, I DON’T advocate kicking out non-egal shuls from the movement. I have mixed feelings because of the job thing ( they are currently perfectly within their rights to refuse to hire women, and this is a problem in a movement where women are having trouble getting adequately paying jobs -including a big differential as to whether they even recieve very rock-bottom requirements like …health insurance!), but on the whole I think that eventually both Conservative (and Orthodox) shuls WILL eventually be egalitarian. It’s moving that way, it will just take a while. We ‘re used t things changing very quickly, but Judaism doesn’t work that way: we have to stay the course to make sure that halakha DOESN’T get run over or abandoned, and that means change will be slow.
A colleague of moine responding to a simlar comment by another colleague of mine said that he found the attitude that it wil change anyway so we don’t have to do anything about it to be not comforting, and perhaps even condescending. Nevertheless, IMO that’s the way thigns are going – and hsould.
I always feel more offended by conservative shules that aren’t egalitarian than by orthodox shules. I think this is because (at least from my point of view) the non egalitarianism in orthodoxy might stem from fairly earnest respect for halacha whereas it seems to me that in the conservative movement when shule is not egalitarian, it is to do with conservatism with a small c and sexism. Having said that, I don’t think mehitza is not egalitarian.
What do people think about this?
Just thought you all should know that the brilliant artist of rosie the tefillin wearer, who crafted her sleek straps in microsoft paint, is a reconstructionist (or was for a while…)
I found your blog via my hit tracker, and I guess I’m coming to the party a little late, but since you asked, I’m the girl who cobbled that little picture together with Microsoft Paint one day around two years ago. It tickled me to see it pop up now after so long. If you’re curious, here’s a link the original post: http://sospire.blogspot.com/2004/03/who-knew-that-rosie-riveter-was-lefty.html
HEE!
That’s fabulous.
Thanks so much for this…after reading some of the news from the Conservative movement’s biennal, it raised my spirits. Especially when I’m grappling, among other things, with this quote from Rabbi Artson:
“. . .we do not mandate that women rabbinical students must put on tefillin. They must learn how tefillin are worn and adjusted, but the decision to wear them is (for women) personal and we respect that diversity.”
For me, this is a set back in the women’s movement on the Jewish front. It’s setting up a situation in which female rabbis would not be as respected as males.
If you can give me a postitive take on it, I’d love to hear it. I’m having real issues with this, and with all the statements about how pluralistic the Conservative movement is, as demonstrated by the fact that affiliated synagogues are allowed to be non-egalitarian. This is easy for men to say, they are accepted anywhere, egalitarian or not. But the fact that I could go to a minyan at a Conservative affiliated shul, and not be counted is ridiculous and upsetting.
No, it’s ridiculous and upsetting. You should be upset.
The only enocouraging take I have is that the seminaries are getting closer to being 1/2 women. Eventually we’ll take on leadership, and then hopefully things will be better. There’s still what to do.
Who knew Rosie the Riveter was a lefty?
Btw, do yall who are upset by non-egalitarian shuls belonging to the Conservative movement, do you see it as a halakhic issue or a meta- or non-halakhic issue? The recent conference(?) where there were statements made that the Conservative movement should stop being halakhic seemed to have to do with this…
Well, there is a perfectly easy halakhic argument (I have neither the time nor energy to go through the sources now, I have them around here somewhere…) for not having a mechitza, so I don’t consider the debate as necessarily halakhic. I think it has a lot to do with people’s differing visions of the movement, their individual comfort levels with certain kinds of change, and, to a large degree, their comfort with the changes in the status of women in the movement. I don’t know a lot of female laypeople or leaders who are rallying for mechitza shuls–the women who prefer davening with a mechitza tend to just go to an Orthodox shul.
I’m not asking about the halakhic arguments for having or not having a mehhitza, or being or not being egalitarian… i’m talking about arguments some people make for expelling non-egalitarian shuls from the Conservative movement. Is there a halakhic basis for that, i.e. are they saying that halakha demands egalitarianism? Or are they working only on meta- or non-halakhic considerations?
I don’t think anyone’s saying that halakha demands egalitarianism. The movement’s old catchphrase were that we’re “a big tent,” ie able to hold people on many sides of the spectrum in one place. What’s retained and what’s not is more a question of who’s in the tent and who wants to be, and who thinks they can stand to be in the dang tent with which other people, etc.
SO I was at that part of the USCJ biennial, and the gentleman who made that comment is R. Creditor, who seemed partially interested in getting people actively thinking more than anything else. (He was also a Fabulous speaker.)But his arguement as I understood it was that if we think that egalitarianism is halakhically acceptable, than it is immoral for us to still support non-egal congregations. For myself, I am certainly egalitarian, but I’m not sure that I would go so far as R. Creditor was. I don’t know. Other people have a right to their beliefs, and we have no reason to call those beliefs non-halakhic, even if they aren’t Our best view of halakha.
There might also be a useful (and not especially halakhic) distinction between congregations which “we” view as immoral (is this the same thing as “unhalakhic”?) and congregations which “we” view as simply Not Part Of The Same Movement We Are In. Judaism (rabbinic or Second Temple) has pretty much always featured a plethora of parties, sects, minhagim, and so forth. I’ve said elsewhere that I would like to find language which indicates “those people over there practice a real form of Judaism, but not my real form of Judaism.”
Whether or not the Conservative movement should then include non-egalitarian shuls (which have a logical alternate home in the Traditional breakaway movement, I would think) is a separate question.
As many of you know, I’m a tallit-and-tefillin-wearing, service-leading, Torah-leining and haftarah-chanting hard-core egalitarian. It’s just my luck that I’m now living in a neighborhood in which the only Conservative synagogue is a traditional one. As a consequence, I find myself caught in the middle of this disagreement. On the one hand, I would certainly like to see all Conservative synagogues, including my own, become egalitarian. But as a member of a traditional Conservative synagogue for roughly 20 years, I cannot, in good conscience, advocate the expulsion of non-egalitarian synagogues from the USCJ.
What have my fellow and sister congregants, many of whom have been associated with Conservative Judaism for decades, done to deserve to be expelled from their “home?” The traditionalists are the elders of the Conservative movement. Whether or not we agree with them, they deserve some kavod (respect). I hope that the USCJ will continue to advocate a “large tent.”
My problem with the “large tent” theory is that women who wish to wear tefillin and leyn and lead services, etc., are not always allowed in the tent. I see your situation as a prime example. A “hard-core” egalitarian man would still be able to fully practice. You, a woman, are not able to practice within a movement that supposedly allows for all.
I do respect the elders of the congregation, but I feel that they do not respect me. They can come to my synagogue and practice, but I can’t fully practice at their synagogue.
I realize you are in a bind, and I wish it were different. I wish the choice wasn’t that you and your fellow congregants would be expelled from their “home.” I wish the choice is that the elders would have to realize that the time for this change is now, and allow women to fully practice everywhere in the movement.
Funny!! – Rashi’s daughters are said to have worn teffilin, however – just a minor point – according to some opinions (shulchan aruch?) hair combed backwards (i.e. if that is against the natural ‘grain’ of the hair) would be considered a ‘chaztita’ a separation between the teffilin and the head – the poster – it really just says – F* U to everyone! – I think you could go farther and put ‘SHEMA ISRAEL’ or something in the place where it says ‘WE CAN DO IT’? also at the bottom of the poster – something like the ‘Brought to You By The Campain For Holy – Women in Teffilin ?!?!?!’
I really don’t think the poster is meant to be saying f-you to everybody. It’s interesting how people who say things that challenge the status quo are often interpreted as meaning that, no?
Actually ( re your comment above, DAnya) I do think that halakha mandates egalitarianism (see my essay in Rabbi Dorff’s new book).
OTOH, I DON’T advocate kicking out non-egal shuls from the movement. I have mixed feelings because of the job thing ( they are currently perfectly within their rights to refuse to hire women, and this is a problem in a movement where women are having trouble getting adequately paying jobs -including a big differential as to whether they even recieve very rock-bottom requirements like …health insurance!), but on the whole I think that eventually both Conservative (and Orthodox) shuls WILL eventually be egalitarian. It’s moving that way, it will just take a while. We ‘re used t things changing very quickly, but Judaism doesn’t work that way: we have to stay the course to make sure that halakha DOESN’T get run over or abandoned, and that means change will be slow.
A colleague of moine responding to a simlar comment by another colleague of mine said that he found the attitude that it wil change anyway so we don’t have to do anything about it to be not comforting, and perhaps even condescending. Nevertheless, IMO that’s the way thigns are going – and hsould.
I always feel more offended by conservative shules that aren’t egalitarian than by orthodox shules. I think this is because (at least from my point of view) the non egalitarianism in orthodoxy might stem from fairly earnest respect for halacha whereas it seems to me that in the conservative movement when shule is not egalitarian, it is to do with conservatism with a small c and sexism. Having said that, I don’t think mehitza is not egalitarian.
What do people think about this?
Just thought you all should know that the brilliant artist of rosie the tefillin wearer, who crafted her sleek straps in microsoft paint, is a reconstructionist (or was for a while…)
Ooh, but who did it? I’d love to give proper attribution if possible….
Hi Danya,
I found your blog via my hit tracker, and I guess I’m coming to the party a little late, but since you asked, I’m the girl who cobbled that little picture together with Microsoft Paint one day around two years ago. It tickled me to see it pop up now after so long. If you’re curious, here’s a link the original post:
http://sospire.blogspot.com/2004/03/who-knew-that-rosie-riveter-was-lefty.html