While not taking issue with the actual psak, what concerns me is the effect on the definition of Orthodoxy. The question is: does this psak define Orthodoxy? or, should it define Orthodoxy? Is the OU stating that to be a member of its grouping within Torah -- and sub-groupings, with differing standards, within Torah are acceptable -- this is a rule OR is it stating that one who challenges this decision is outside of Torah? Is it really this psak or other considerations that lead people towards this psak that is then the real issue? Then by focusing on this psak, we are missing the point. I have always stated that in the early discussions regarding smicha for women, what I found most offensive about the discussion was the involvement of a female Reform rabbi in that discussion. That person's presence in that discussion clearly, to me, made the whole discussion outside the pale. That is the problem I feel demands the greater focus.
1 comment:
While not taking issue with the actual psak, what concerns me is the effect on the definition of Orthodoxy. The question is: does this psak define Orthodoxy? or, should it define Orthodoxy? Is the OU stating that to be a member of its grouping within Torah -- and sub-groupings, with differing standards, within Torah are acceptable -- this is a rule OR is it stating that one who challenges this decision is outside of Torah? Is it really this psak or other considerations that lead people towards this psak that is then the real issue? Then by focusing on this psak, we are missing the point. I have always stated that in the early discussions regarding smicha for women, what I found most offensive about the discussion was the involvement of a female Reform rabbi in that discussion. That person's presence in that discussion clearly, to me, made the whole discussion outside the pale. That is the problem I feel demands the greater focus.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Post a Comment