| Part of a series of articles on |
| Jewish feminism |
|---|
| Advocates |
| List of Jewish feminists |
| Groups |
| JOFA · National Council of Jewish Women · Shira Hadasha |
| Issues |
| Agunah · Feminism · Jewish marriage · Minyan · Mitzvah · Partnership minyan · Women in Judaism |
Partnership minyan (pl. partnership minyanim) is a term used by the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance (JOFA) to describe a prayer group that, according to its adherents, conforms to the strictures of Orthodox Judaism while still allowing for parts of the services to be led by both men and women. Leading parts of services in a minyan ("quorum") is traditionally regarded as a male role. Partnership minyanim are a new and relatively small phenomenon within Modern Orthodox Judaism intended to provide more opportunity to Jewish women to participate in synagogue services and rituals.
Contents |
JOFA defines a partnership minyan as:
Professor Tamar Ross explains:
Some partnership minyanim also wait to begin parts of the service requiring a minyan until 10 women as well as 10 men are present. Such a service is also known as a Shira Hadasha-style minyan, after Kehillat Shira Hadasha in Jerusalem, among the first such prayer groups to be established, in 2001. Various structural innovations have been devised to permit women to lead prayers while maintaining distinct men's and women's sections, such as separate shtenders (reader's lecterns) and a mechitza going down the middle of the room.[3] Men can also be limited in which service parts they can lead.
In response to arguments that the halakhic underpinnings of the approach are stronger if done on a temporary and situational basis, some Partnership Minyanim, including Shira Hadasha, have deliberately chosen to meet in spaces that are not regularly or permanently used for synagogue worship, and some meet on a situational schedule rather than every Shabbat. In keeping with arguments that women are permitted to read only some but not all the aliyot on shabbat, Partnership minyanim generally do not permit women to be called for the two aliyot reserved to a Kohen and Levi if they are present, but only the last five of the seven aliyot on Shabbat, plus the maftir for the reading from the Prophets. In keeping with arguments that the Talmudic sources involved apply only to the seven aliyot on Shabbat, some partnership minyanim meet only on Shabbat or on other occasions, such as Purim, where other special halakhic arguments supporting greater women's participation have been made. (See Women and megilla reading on Purim.)
Some minyanim, especially in Israel, meet regularly on every shabbat and on every holiday.
A small number of partnership minyanim have been established in Israel, the United States, Canada,[4] and Australia.[5]
The existence of partnership minyanim was preceded by an opinion by Modern Orthodox Rabbi Mendel Shapiro in 2001,[6] subsequently joined by Bar-Ilan University Talmud Professor Rabbi Daniel Sperber,[7] claiming that halakha (Jewish law) permits Orthodox women to be called to, and to read from, the Torah on Shabbat under certain conditions. These opinions rely on earlier authorities including the Magen Avraham. Dr. Joel B. Wolowelsky also expressed an opinion which, while not offering a formal opinion on the halachic issues, suggested that the partnership minyan enterprise was not necessarily inconsistent with an Orthodox hashkafah (outlook).[8].
Rabbi Shapiro's analysis focused on a Baraita (non-Mishnaic received oral tradition) in the Babylonian Talmud stating that:
Rabbi Shapiro's primary argument, based on the language of this baraita as well as traditional commentaries to it, was that women were only discouraged from performing public Torah reading based on a social concern for the dignity of the congregation ("Kevod HaTzibur"). While Jewish law usually demands that public rituals be led by those who are obligated in that particular ritual- and women are generally considered to be not obligated in public Torah reading- R. Shapiro demonstrated that public Torah reading is an exception, based on the baraita's explicitly allowing a minor, who is also not obligated, to lead. therefore, he argued, only "the dignity of the congregation" was invoked to discourage women from reading. He then analyzed the weight of the "dignity of the congregation" prohibition. Analyzing authorities on the law of Kevod HaTzibur, he noted a number of other situations which were rabbinically prohibited due to the "dignity of the congregation", such as rolling a Torah scroll in front of the congregation or having a person too young to have a beard serve as Hazzan (cantor). Citing authorities who held that congregational dignity could be waived in some of these matters, including the common practice of having teenagers lead the congregation in contemporary synagogues, he concluded that a congregation could waive its dignity on this issue as well, and an Orthodox congregation choosing to do so could call a woman to the Torah in much the same way that it could choose to have a teenager lead prayers at a Bar Mitzvah. Rabbi Shapiro also briefly addressed certain other objections, arguing for example that because some authorities have held that women can read the Megilla on Purim to men, chanting the Megilla, and hence the Torah, is not a kind of singing subject to restrictions on the issue of kol isha, the female singing voice.[6]
Rabbi Sperber agreed with Rabbi Shapiro's argument that the baraita in Megillah 23a indicated that the Sages instituted "we do not call a woman" as a later prohibition, and that calling a woman was originally permitted. He focused on the concept of Kevod HaBriyot ("human dignity"), a Talmudic concept by which rabbinical prohibitions are sometimes waived in order to preserve honor or dignity. Noting that the concept had received modern applications by Orthodox decisors including an opinion by Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg permitting wearing a hearing aid on Shabbat (based on a Talmudic opinion overriding the rabbinic prohibition against carrying on Shabbat to permit a person needing to defecate to carry wiping material), Rabbi Shapiro argued that the Kevod HaBriyot concept could be applied to override the rabbinic prohibition against calling women to the Torah on grounds of human dignity or respect.[7]
Dr. Wolowelsky wrote that although the Talmud appears to have an iron-clad rule that a Kohen should always be called to the Torah first and early practice gave precedence to Torah scholars, the Magen Avraham proposed the then-novel idea that individuals observing special occasions, such as a wedding or Bar Mitzvah, should have precedence. The Magen Avraham's view eventually prevailed, and subsequent commentators, including Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, developed his ideas to the point of creating various exceptions under which a Yisrael observing a special occasion could sometimes be called first even if a Kohen is present and refuses to waive the first aliyah. Observing that it is important to be able to tell whether a new approach can be considered a legitimate effort to develop the tradition or an illegitimate attempt to manipulate it, he suggested that changes in traditional concepts of respect involved in the idea of sometimes calling a woman to the Torah based on the Magen Avraham's ideas, may not necessarily be any more radical or threatening to the tradition, from a hashkfic (outlook or worldview) point of view, than the changes involved in developments leading to sometimes not calling a Kohen first.[8].
The halakhic opinions supporting a partnership minyan and permitting an expanded role for women are developments on the far left of Modern Orthodox Judaism that currently represent the views of a very small number of Modern Orthodox rabbis, and have not been accepted by any major Orthodox organizations or rabbinical authorities. A number of objections have been raised to various aspects of partnership minyanim, and to the view that their practices are not consistent with halakha (Jewish law). Critics have argued that their claims to be a practice within Orthodox Judaism are illegitimate.
Rabbi Yehudah Herzl Henkin objected to Rabbi Shapiro's claims. In addition to point-by-point halakhic counterarguments, he also said:
Rabbi/Dr. Gidon Rothstein (author of Murderer in the Mikdash[10]), in an article in the Rabbinical Council of America's journal Tradition, analyzed Rabbi Shapiro's arguments and concluded that
Among other arguments, Rabbi Rothstein argued that even according to the lenient opinions that congregations can waive their "dignity", they can do so only on a temporary and situational basis, or as a concession to a particular circumstance after the fact, but not on a permanent basis. Even having a teenager as a regular Hazzan is not comparable, because:
Rabbi Rothstein also argued that only a few of the medieval commentators held that a woman could intrinsically read all the aliyot, that most held they could read only some and some major authorities held they could read only the last one. He argued that the authorities who held a woman could read only the last aliyah "carry greater weight" than the authorities who held they could read more:
Rabbi Rothstein concluded, therefore, that "granting all of Rabbi Shapiros points still only supports women reading the seventh portion."[11]
Rabbi Rothstein also argued that women are not members of the public community with respect to Torah reading, and the dignity of the community would be affronted by "outsourcing" obligations to non-members:
An article in The Forward (September 20, 2002) summarized Orthodox views immediately following the initial partnership minyan congregations:
Rabbi Yaakov Ariel, the chief rabbi of Ramat Gan, criticized these minyanim in Hazofe, arguing that they do not conform to Jewish law or to Orthodox ideals of prayer, in which men and women must be kept separate at all times. In his critique, Rabbi Ariel wrote that the violation of the "dignity of the congregation" involved refers to the sexual distraction that would be experienced if men and women were not kept separate. He argued that because this sexual distraction is part of human nature, waiving it is out of the question. He also wrote that there could be a problem of kol isha (hearing a woman's singing voice). He argued that partnership minyanim would cause a dispute that would result in a split in the orthodox community, and that women's participation harms the sacredness of the synagogue.[13][14] Elitzur Bar-Asher wrote a rebuttal.[15]
Rabbi Aryeh A. Frimer, author of a number of scholarly works on the status of women in Orthodox halakha including Women and Minyan,[16] wrote a critique of Rabbi Sperber's arguments in the blog post he entitled "Lo Zu haDerekh: A Review of Rabbi Prof. Daniel Sperber's Darka shel Halakha"[17].
Rabbi Frimer briefly critiqued Mendal Shapiro's argument that kevod hatzibur can be waived, arguing that it was unwaivable both because women have been exempted from prominent communal roles out of considerations of modesty, and because since in his view women are not obligated to read while men are, women cannot fulfill the obligation for men.
Rabbi Frimer had two main disagreements with Rabbi Daniel Sperber. His first disagreement was with R. Sperber's view that the Beraita in Megilla 23a ("but the sages say we do not call a woman...") reflected only a recommendation or advice. He marshalled authorities who held that it was obligatory with permission a leniency available only for an emergency[18]. In his view these authorities had the better argument.
Rabbi Frimer's second and what he characterized as his most important objection was to R. Sperber's argument that kevod hatzibur could be overridden by the principle of kevod habriyot. He strongly objected to the idea of kevod habriyot overriding a rabbinic decree in its entirety, arguing that the kind of embarrassment or shame that would make it possible to invoke kevod habriyot had to come from factors (such as excrement or nakedness) external to the decree that occurred only in limited circumstances. He argued that a rabbinic decree cannot itself be regarded as shameful or embarrassing. To permit a rabbinic prohibition to be characterized as an embarrassment, R. Frimer argued, would give anyone "carte blanch" to abrogate any Rabbinic prohibition simply by saying "This offends me." He said that "Such a position is untenable, if not unthinkable." Accordingly, he argued that "kevod ha-beroyyot cannot be invoked to nullify a rabbinic commandment, where the shame comes from the very fulfillment of the rabbinic injunction itself."
After noting that R. Sperber "did what a Torah scholar is supposed to do" in making a creative suggestion and presenting it to the scholarly community for criticism and discussion, R. Frimer finished by criticizing those attempting to enact R. Sperber's views into practice immediately. "Considering the novelty of this innovation, religious integrity and sensitivity requires serious consultation with renowned halakhic authorities of recognized stature - prior to acting on such a significant departure from normative halakha." He concluded with a reflection that "the halakhic process is a search for truth - Divine truth" and stressed the importance of not adapting an approach "simply because it yields the desired result."
Because liturgical roles in partnership minyanim are based on gender, some liberal Jews find partnership minyanim objectionable on egalitarian grounds. The Reform and Reconstructionist movements, as well as most of Conservative Judaism, grant men and women identical roles in their synagogues, services, and leadership.
A test of the Partnership Minyan format at the Wesleyan University Hillel in 2005 led to significant objections among non-Orthodox students, with sophomore Erica Belkin calling it "a test of how far the Jewish community's pluralism and tolerance would extend" and junior Daniella Schmidt stating that "At Wesleyan, we make an effort to provide safe spaces for everyone, including those who prefer orthodox traditions like the mechitza. However, these traditions should not come at the expense of others’ safe space and inclusion."[19]
In February 2008, Elitzur and Michal Bar-Asher released a guide to partnership minyanim called Halachic Minyan[20] which the Jerusalem Post characterized as "the first official guide of its kind".[21]
The guide, in addition to covering the issues of Torah reading and Shabbat services covered by the Shapiro and Sperber opinions, outlined women's participation in a variety of additional areas, the third aliyah to a daily Torah reading; serving as gabbai for a Torah reading; leading kabbalat shabbat and pseukei d'zimra[20], the tekiot for blowing the Shofar, leading piyuttim during the repetition of the High Holiday Amidah, and other areas. Audrey Trachtman, a board member of the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance, characterized it as "an exciting and important step" but as "a discussion, not intended to be uniform practice."[21]
According to the Jerusalem Post, Ramat Gan Chief Rabbi Ya'acov Ariel responded to the publication of the guide by repeating a prohibition against taking part in a partnership minyan, saying that doing so is prohibited by Jewish law.[14]
Alan Haber wrote an op-ed editorial in the Jerusalem Post criticizing the guide. He argued that the guide is "not a work of halacha" because:
Calling this last point a "much more fundamental deficiency," Haber wrote that
In the JOFA 10th Anniversary International Conference on Feminism & Orthodoxy (February 10–11, 2007), three members of these minyanim (Elitzur Bar-Asher, Michal Bar-Asher Siegal and Alanna Cooper), in a session under the title: "Beyond Women's Issues: Partnership Minyanim Engages Orthodoxy," discussed issues they encountered and approaches to resolving them in implementing this style of worship, as well as their personal ideological approaches.[23]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||