After I read this book, I decided
that I wouldn’t be able to write about it in this forum. The topic of Orthodoxy
and Feminism seems to be one that I should not be able to have a strong opinion
about. Although I don’t have such a problem with different people having
different roles (e.g. Kohanim and Yisraelim), how is it fair for me, as a male,
to decide what others should feel and/or do? How can I have a sympathizing view
of something that does not directly affect me? At the same time, the Rabbis
that made the Halachos as we know them, needed to make formal rules for the
entire community, ones that we accepted to be bounded by as a community. It is
here that Ross’ “vision for the future” came in for me. I realized that part of
my apprehension was the fact that I know women that are significantly more
versed in these topics than I am. Even more so, there are more and more women
learning as much if not more Torah on a daily basis than I. In many ways it be
these people, who should be working out the intersection of these values. This is
precisely what Ross views as what will happen. The more women that delve into
traditional sources, the greater voice they will have in the Halakhik
discourse. Although Ross puts this together with her view of Halakha, it seems
that it does not need to be so. A greater women’s voice in the discourse can
only add debate, which is more firmly entrenched in rabbinic culture than
anything.
Practically, I don’t know how this
will, or should, play out. I think most would agree that a change with the
Agunot situation would be positive, but other than that, each Halakha (or
minhag) would be on a more discretionary basis. Perhaps, adding of women to the Halakhic conversation won't measurably change things that we do in or out of
synagogue. What it would do is give women representation in the system that
their community lives by. That perspective may be all that is needed to make
the system be “up to date” while still being able to keep to the traditions
that we have held for so long.
In
terms of the theological points Ross makes I would just like to make a couple
of points. Ross discusses a revelation from G-d that is constant. There was not
one revelation that is the source of all knowledge, and everything came after
it is secondary. Rather, G-d is still revealing himself to us in the ideas that
come up every generation. I always hoped that there was somewhat of a middle
ground. The Torah was reveled to us at Sinai, but I would like to think that
the general flow of Halakha has a guiding hand. Also, while Ross’ view of
feminism can be easily said with this theory, it is not fully tied with it.
Secondly, Ross views Halakha as a system where we have to subordinate ourselves
to those before us, where the Rabbis have us in a bind. I never saw it that
way. As a people, we accepted the Talmud Bavli. While they did make rules for
us, we had to accept the corpus for it to have effect. At this point we need to
accept this choice, but it was a choice we as a people made, not an overbearing
arrangement.
Since this is a sensitive topic to
some, please understand that this was me free writing. I may have misstated
myself, so feel free (as always) to comment and interject. I may have not
always used the right wording, but to be fair I am a math major after all.
