In liberal Jewish synagogues across the country, women have achieved feminist success. They wear ritual garments. They read from the Torah. They are rabbis. But when you enter an Orthodox Jewish synagogue, you enter a gender time warp. Here, women do not count in a prayer quorum. They are not permitted near the Torah. In many cases, you would be hard-pressed even to figure out where the women are located, since they may be seated behind a curtain or wall, or upstairs in a gallery, far from the action. As Tevye the milkman would say, "Sounds crazy, no?" In many synagogues, women cannot even hold a position of any meaningful leadership: The National Council of Young Israel forbids its 140-member Orthodox synagogues to elect a female president.
If a female synagogue president can be prohibited, imagine the Orthodox Jewish reaction to a female rabbi -- a woman with religious authority. Two years ago, a prominent Orthodox rabbi in New York, Avi Weiss of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, in consultation with Blu Greenberg, founder of the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance, bravely broke with conventional Orthodox tradition and ordained Sara Hurwitz. Since the mid-1990s, at least three other Orthodox rabbis had followed their conscience and quietly ordained individual women. But Weiss was the first to ordain a woman publicly.
Weiss never actually called Hurwitz "rabbi." Instead, Weiss coined a term, "maharat," an acronym of four Hebrew words -- manhigah, hilhatit, ruhanit and toranit -- which means a "female leader in Jewish religious law, spiritual matters and Torah." The word is cumbersome; it requires detailed explanation. Everyone with a passing familiarity of Judaism has at least some notion of the concept of "rabbi." But no one, not even those steeped in Orthodox Jewish culture and tradition, not even those of us immersed in the feminist world, can easily explain the definition or derivation of "maharat." When asked about the term, I typically reel off the Hebrew words that are its building blocks, then I translate them into English. I inevitably forget one of the terms, get confused and start again. The process is exhausting, confusing and off-putting.
More troubling, "maharat" connotes a secondary status. For this reason, I opposed the title the instant I heard it. Created for women alone, and designed to differentiate women rabbis from "real" rabbis, the title evokes the bridesmaid who is never the bride.
Last year, Weiss announced that Hurwitz had a new title: "rabba" (ra-BAH). This term, he said, would clarify that Hurtwitz is a full member of the rabbinic staff. A feminized version of the title "rabbi" made sense; Hurwitz has the same credentials as a male rabbi. She completed the same course of study required of male rabbis and works in the same capacity, with the same pastoral obligations.
True, Hurwitz was not being called "rabbi," which Orthodox feminists prefer, because the term conveys the same authority and respect that men enjoy. But in the Orthodox Jewish world, change comes slowly. "Rabba" was close enough -- and the implications obvious enough -- to make those of us active in Orthodox feminism feel triumphant. Moreover, Weiss announced that Hurwitz would head a new seminary for women, Yeshivat Maharat, educating a future pool of women for the rabbinate, so that she would not be the one and only "rabba."
So here you have a woman rabbi who cedes the status of rabbi to respect right-wing members of the Orthodox world. How did that wing react? By denouncing those with the audacity even to imagine that women could approach religious leadership. A March 2010 statement from Agudath Israel, an ultra-Orthodox organization of rabbis, threatened to expel Hurwitz's synagogue from Orthodoxy. The Rabbinical Council of America, one of the world's largest and oldest organizations of Orthodox rabbis, likewise pressured Weiss.
After several weeks, Weiss retreated -- somewhat. He agreed not to ordain women as rabbis at Yeshivat Maharat and not to confer the title "rabba" upon the graduates. Turns out that Hurwitz is indeed the one and only "rabba."
Last month, the most liberal Orthodox rabbinic group in the United States, theInternational Rabbinic Fellowship, which was founded three years ago by Weiss, together with Rabbi Marc Angel, voted down its first proposal to accept women as members of the organization. But at least the issue is on the agenda.
The current state of affairs is immoral and shameful. There is no halakhic (Jewish legal) prohibition against female rabbis. A "rabbi" is simply a teacher and master of Jewish texts and law. Therefore, some of us are taking matters into our own hands. We don't have the religious authority to ordain anyone. But we recognize the rabbinic status of the handful of women who have been ordained by Orthodox authorities.
We are also involved in independent prayer groups in which women and men lead together, even though they do not sit together. These groups are not egalitarian: women may not lead every part of the service. But women are encouraged to lead all parts for which there is no halakhic prohibition. In the independent prayer group I attend on the upper east side of Manhattan, Yavneh, women recite Hallel, one of the most beautiful songs of praise in the liturgy; women hold the Torah; women read from the Torah; women recite the blessing over the wine.
Like Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof, we struggle with the concept that sacred tradition is fixed yet flexible. Everyone involved in religion -- any religion, in any level of observance -- knows that the key is to find the balance between tradition and modernity.
The paperback edition of Taking Back God: American Women Rising Up for Religious Equality is now available from Counterpoint.
The regular dialogue the two faiths have maintained since the Catholic Church renounced anti-Semitism at the Second Vatican Council, should be "a model for transformed relations with Islam," Rabbi Richard Marker told an interfaith conference.
Marker addressed the opening session on Sunday evening of a meeting reviewing four decades of Catholic-Jewish efforts to forge closer ties after 1,900 years of Christian anti-Semitism and to ask how the dialogue can progress in the future.
"Forty years in the histories of two great world religions is but a blink of an eye," Marker, chairman of the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultation, said. "But 40 years of a relationship is a sign of its maturity."
"The focus of the world is no longer specifically on Jewish- Christian amity. We must, for so many reasons, involve the third of our Abrahamic siblings . . . Islam."
Major faiths have held countless bilateral meetings to foster better ties since the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) launched the world's largest church on the path of dialogue.
Christian and Jewish leaders increasingly meet their Muslim counterparts to seek common ground and better understanding, but none of these discussions have the history or depth of the Catholic-Jewish dialogue officially begun in 1971.
In those 40 years, the Catholic Church has apologized for its sins against the Jewish people and recognized Judaism as its spiritual "elder brother," a step that Jewish leaders praise as a historic change in perspective.
Dialogue Not Always Easy
The dialogue has not always been easy. There is still much mutual misunderstanding at the grass-roots level and Jewish leaders are quick to criticize the Vatican
Cardinal Kurt Koch, the Vatican
Benedict has also been harshly criticized by Jews for ending the excommunication of a Holocaust-denying bishop and promoting sainthood for Pope Pius XII, who Jews allege did not do enough to save their people from the Nazis during World War Two.
Paris Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois, host of the four-day meeting, said Catholics and Jews had come to know each other as friends over the 40 years of dialogue. "Of course, we must make sure . . . that anti-Semitism is unambiguously exposed as a sin against God and humanity, for anti-Semitism is unfortunately not dead," he told the meeting. During the meeting, participants will plant a tree in memory of Ilan Halimi, a French Jew killed by an anti-Semitic gang in 2006, and visit the Drancy camp outsideParis
"Many Jews have organized Jewish-Catholic dialogue so it is totally focused on what we Jews think are Christian failures," he said. "This situation cannot continue much longer."
Catholic officials were unlikely to want to continue such a one-sided dialogue, he said, and some Jews see the need to define their role in an increasingly pluralist world.
"Jews will not compromise their religious integrity . . . by saying that Christians can be models for us not despite their Christian faith but because of their Christian faith," he said.
By Michele Chabin Religion News Service
It's wholly appropriate that Balaam's legacy -- at least to the few Bible enthusiasts who even know who he is -- is likely to evoke the expression "Balaam's ass."
In fact, the Old Testament narrative about Balaam (HebrewBilam), which appears in Numbers 22-24, shows a scoundrel who is essentially a cursing agent for hire. Remember the 2003 film The Cooler, in which William H. Macy's character is supposed jinx the luck of casino-goers? Balaam could have been his mentor.The Moabite king Balak, concerned about the looming Jewish people en route to Palestine (Hebrew Cana'an) after having broken out of Egypt, hires Balaam to curse the Jews and halt their progress.
In a classic move, God puts a bit (Hebrew davar) into Balaam's mouth and forces him to bless, rather than curse the Jews. There is literary closure in the story, as Balaam, on his way to Moab, had struck his donkey for thrice straying from the path. Little did Balaam know that the donkey was yielding to an invisible angel on the path -- until the donkey was given the power of speech.
Thus, the donkey was able to speak its mind, but Balaam, as much as he wanted to curse the Jewish people, could only compose love poems about them which were later canonized into Jewish prayer.
So why would someone invest in artistic representations of such an abominable character? Who would want to decorate their home or places of work or worship with such a symbol?
In fact, a terracotta Balaam (1575-78) by the Italian sculptor Tommaso Porlezza della Porta (c. 1546-1606), recently acquired by the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, served as a model for a larger sculpture that was placed in a major Italian pilgrimage site -- the Santa Casa in Loreto, a shrine around the remains of what was believed to be Mary's birthplace.
"Tradition has it that the house was miraculously brought from Nazareth (in Palestine) to Loreto (central Italy) by angels," according to a Rijksmuseum release (PDF). "Loreto was the major papal construction and sculpture project of the 16th century."
According the release, the Rijksmuseum had been trying to acquire the 22.5 cm sculpture for three years, since Frits Scholten (Dutch bio, Google translation), senior curator of sculpture, saw it at a dealer's shop in London.
"At the time the sculpture was reserved for an American museum. However, the financial crisis meant that the museum was unable to raise the necessary funds to purchase it," according to the release. The Rijksmuseum then learned that the Louvre was interested, and it secured the sculpture at the 11th hour.
In the release, Scholten says the sculpture, which features "excellent artistic quality," is "important" due to its tie to Loreto. "It will add a key element to the international profile of the Rijksmuseum collection," he says. "Though it may be small, it's of monumental significance. Large sculpture is embodied in this small model."
Over e-mail, Scholten addressed the religious significance of the work.
Menachem Wecker: How exactly do we know this depicts Balaam, given the lack of any attributes of his (like a donkey, for example)?
Frits Scholten: The sculpture was made for the Santa Casa in Loreto. The archival sources concerning the building and decoration reveal the details about the sculptures, their makers and the iconographical program.
What is Balaam holding in his hand? Though it looks like a tablet (i.e. prophet recording his prophecy), could it be a reference to the object he used to strike the donkey?
FS: The tablet which Balaam holds is a wide spread attribute of prophets, referring to his prophecies. In the Northern tradition the tablet is often replaced by a banderol (with inscription). The tablet does not refer in any way to the story of Balaam and the donkey.
How common is Balaam as a subject in art? (I know of a few manuscript illuminations and a Rembrandt of Balaam attacking his donkey. Could those have been inspirations at all?)
FS: Balaam is a rare subject; in our sculpture he is depicted in a rather formal way, as one of the prophets who foretold the birth of Christ through Mary. Hence his presence at the Santa Casa shrine, which contains the remains of the house where the Virgin was born. Rembrandt and others were more interested in the story of Balaam and the donkey, in particular in the dramatic turn of events of that story. That interest is specific to the Baroque.
In the Old Testament, Balaam is certainly portrayed as a villain. How has he been interpreted in Christian tradition, particularly during the 17th century?
FS: Although he often was considered a villain, theology also considered him as a prophet who played a role in the history of salvation, by predicting the coming of Christ.
Are there any inscriptions on the sculpture, and if so, what do they reveal?
FS: No, there are no inscriptions, nor signatures or dates.
What, if anything, do we know about the faith of Tommaso Porlezza della Porta? Did he frequently mine biblical subjects?
FS: Della Porta worked predominantly for the papal court in Rome. He designed among other things the large figure of St. Peter on top of Trajan's column in Rome. Furthermore, a very accomplished, multi-figured group of the Descent from the Cross was carved by him from one single block of marble; in this piece he clearly tried to rival Michelangelo. During his later career he turned more to retoring and dealing in Antique sculptures that had been excavated in Rome. At his death he left a large collection of antique sculpture. The most famous among these was a standing woman made of porphyry and now in the Louvre in Paris.
Image: The prophet Balaam, Tommaso Porlezza della Porta, 1576-1578. Courtesy: Rijksmuseum.
JERUSALEM -- Nearly 100 American Orthodox rabbis have signed a letter demanding that the conversions they perform outside Israel be recognized -- at least for immigration purposes -- by Israel's Interior Ministry.
The rabbis -- including members of the Rabbinical Council of America, the Orthodox Union, Yeshiva University and the International Rabbinic Fellowship -- were caught off guard by an article in the New York Jewish Week that said the ministry had empowered Israel's Chief Rabbinate to scrutinize the Jewishness of Orthodox converts.
Although the Rabbinate, which has sole authority over Jewish marriage in Israel, began to scrutinize Orthodox converts who wanted to marry under its auspices a few years ago, it had not previously had decision-making power on immigration issues.
In their letter delivered Tuesday (Feb. 22), the U.S. rabbis said they are "concerned" that some of the conversions performed under their auspices are being questioned.
"Recent reports that the Interior Ministry is consulting with the Israeli Chief Rabbinate are disturbing," the rabbis wrote. "We find this unacceptable, and turn to you in an effort to insure that those individuals whom we convert will automatically be eligible for (immigration to Israel) as they have been in the past."
In a statement, Natan Sharansky, chairman of the Jewish Agency, a quasi-governmental body that facilitates the immigration of Diaspora Jews, asked the Israeli government "to consult with us on deciding which communities are normative communities."
The Rabbinate automatically recognizes only those conversions performed by special conversion courts in a handful of large, established Jewish communities.
"One must differentiate between Halacha (Jewish law) and the Law of Return," Sharansky said, referring to the immigration law that permits overseas converts from various streams as well as anyone who can prove they had a Jewish grandparent to immigrate.
Rabbi Seth Farber, an American-born Orthodox rabbi in Israel who helped spearhead the rabbis' letter, said Interior Ministry officials "don't understand the landscape of North American Jewry. They believe that the Chief Rabbinate is the central authority of Orthodox communities around the world, but this is inaccurate."
Farber, the director of ITIM, an organization that often advocates for converts, called it "ironic" that the most religious converts are coming under scrutiny while Reform and Conservative converts are not.
"We believe in the unity of the Jewish people and we're prepared to fight this in court," Farber said.
No comments:
Post a Comment