5 Counter-Feminism and Modern Orthodoxy

Counter-Feminism and Modern Orthodoxy

Te following discussion highlights the eforts of one of the most prominent rabbinical authorities within the Modern Orthodox camp to reject attempts at upgrading the public religious roles available to women. Te legal or “halakhic” position that he expounds is not unto itself exceptional. What is sui generis, rather, is his construction for polemical purposes of a “metanarrative of Jewish heresy” in which a historical chain that begins with the Sadducees in ancient times, includes Reform Judaism, and extends to contemporary Orthodox Jewish feminism is linked through the common complaint of rabbinic discrimination against women. Te overall stance put forward resembles—but is by no means identical to—that formerly associated with Haredi Ortho- doxy. Tis chapter can be considered a bookend to chapter 9. Tey each ofer novel and distinct perspectives on the roles that feminism and gender egalitarianism—through both their proponents and antago- nists—are playing in the realignment of American Orthodox Judaism.

Introduction In 1980 the late Israeli religious philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz declared, “Te question of women and Judaism is more crucial than all the political Copyright © 2015. Wayne State University Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted Copyright © under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

114

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 6/4/2017 10:52 PM via EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIV AN: 1052054 ; Ferziger, Adam S..; Beyond Sectarianism : The Realignment of American Orthodox Judaism Account: s8356098 COUNTER-FEMINISM AND MODERN ORTHODOXY

problems of the people and its state. Failure to deal with it seriously threatens the viability of the Judaism of Torah and Mitzvoth [commandments] in the contemporary world.”1 Tese refections came in response to the revolutionary changes that had taken place in the role of women within Orthodox Judaism over the previous century, and particularly the increasing tensions engendered by the campaign of Modern Orthodox women for greater religious egalitarianism. Te rise and intensifcation of religious feminism is one of the most signifcant revolutions to have taken place in Judaism within the modern period and promises to stand at the center of Orthodox discourse and debate both in North America and in Israel for many years to come. Indeed, it may serve as the strongest counterbalance to the “slide to the right” that has occurred in parallel. Alternatively, following the instincts of Leibowitz, the conficts sur- rounding the role of women in Orthodox Jewish ritual and leadership may become so severe that they will stimulate a rupture beyond repair. Ultimately this may spawn not just a realignment, but a full-fedged shattering of the contemporary American Orthodox mosaic.2 A considerable amount of scholarly and ideological discussion has been devoted in the last two decades to various aspects of Orthodox feminism.3 Te vast majority has concerned the novel approaches and interpretations of those dedicated to expanding the role of women within Orthodox Judaism. Tis chapter addresses the major stages and initiatives put forward by the advocates of Orthodox feminism since the 1970s. Its main focus, however, is on the emergence and ongoing development of dramatically negative reactions from one of the most infuential fgures within contemporary American Modern Orthodoxy to these phenomena since the early 1980s. Trough this description and analysis I will demonstrate that the fresh and creative liberal positions being forwarded by Orthodox feminism have provoked inventive religious thinking among those who are responding negatively as well— in a way that resembles the initial Orthodox response to Reform in the early nineteenth century. Tis comparison ofers additional weight to the evaluation that feminism is arguably the most potent agent of change in contemporary Orthodoxy. Moreover, the reaction portrayed here ofers a prime example of the complex dynamic of Haredization and navigation of ideological and social identifcation taking place within contemporary Modern Orthodoxy.

Orthodox Judaism and Feminism Religious expression among early modern European Orthodox Jewish women was focused primarily on the private sphere, and through study of a very limited Copyright © 2015. Wayne State University Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted Copyright © under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

115

collection of Yiddish homiletic texts.4 Although religious education for Ortho- dox young women was provided in German-speaking Central Europe from the mid-nineteenth century, for over half a century this remained a relatively exceptional case.5 Broader revolutionary changes in traditionalist circles can be traced, however, to the immediate aftermath of World War I and the establishment of the Bais Yaakov (House of Jacob) women’s school and seminary network in Poland, whose founder, Sarah Schenirer, and initial location in Krakow were already mentioned in chapter 4. With the approbation of highly respected rabbinical authorities, a framework for women’s secondary education and teacher training emerged that included intensive study of practical Jewish law and bibli- cal texts.6 Graduates of these Bais Yaakov institutions served as institutional leaders and as role models for the ideal educated Haredi Orthodox woman throughout the twentieth century,7 and variations on this educational model remain the main focus for women’s public religious activity within the Haredi sector.8 Nonetheless, due to these changes, contemporary Haredi policymakers have felt compelled to articulate sociological arguments related to preservation of the traditional family as the basis for placing limits on the canon and scale of female Torah study.9 By contrast, starting in the mid-1970s, advanced religious education for Modern Orthodox women not only expanded but transformed dramatically.10 Numerous institutions were established both in the United States and in Israel that refocused female Orthodox study on rabbinic literature. Tis vast feld forms the central repository for Jewish religious law and theology, and had remained almost exclusively within the male domain. Over the following decades a gen- eration of Modern Orthodox women emerged for whom rabbinic texts and their methodologies were no longer foreign. Indeed, a small cadre of Modern Orthodox women slowly began to appear, women who were both deeply com- mitted to religious observance and in possession of expertise in Talmudic study that exceeded the norm, even among Modern Orthodox males from previous generations.11 By and large, rabbinical authorities associated with the Modern Orthodox community gave their support to this change.12 Opinions were much more divided, however, in regard to parallel requests for greater female participation in public ritual and in positions of religious leadership. From the 1980s, eforts to expand women’s opportunities within public prayer became one of the most contentious issues for Modern Orthodoxy. Isolated grassroots initiatives that had already begun in the late 1970s gained popularity and were accompanied by original attempts to reconcile this new phenomenon with accepted Orthodox practice and mores.13 Copyright © 2015. Wayne State University Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted Copyright © under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

116

Te 1981 publication of Blu Greenberg’s On Women and Judaism: A View from Tradition marked a turning point in this process, as it was the frst book-length attempt to articulate a forthright Orthodox feminist program.14 Beyond wrestling with the ideological tensions between Orthodoxy and feminism, Greenberg advocated greater women’s involvement in public ritual and discussed her own experi- ences as an active participant in an Orthodox women’s prayer group.15 Familiar with Orthodox rhetoric, she noted that her suggestions—regardless of their actual halakhic efcacy—would likely be viewed by Orthodox rabbis as following the path of the Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist movements, which had already adopted more egalitarian policies.16 In point of fact, the advent of women’s prayer services in particular inspired prominent rabbinical fgures within the Modern Orthodox milieu to issue opinions on the halakhic permissibility and advisability of this new feminism-inspired religious behavior. Te consensus was clearly against such innovations, with signifcant adjudicators forbidding the practice altogether.17 Signifcantly, during the early 1980s Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik expressed a clearly negative opinion of women’s prayer groups.18 As to the matter of whether he outright prohibited them, there remains a great deal of debate.19 Despite considerable rabbinic opposition, since the 1980s the network of women’s prayer services has grown, and they can be found in major Orthodox centers throughout North America, as well as in other Anglo countries and in areas with high concentrations of English speakers in Israel.20 Moreover, Ortho- dox feminists and their male supporters have in the meantime advanced new models for female involvement in religious activities that were previously exclusively male. Tese include leading parts of the prayer and chanting the Torah portion in “egalitarian” or partnership Orthodox (with a partition that separates the men and women) services,21 reciting the Ketubah (writ of marriage) under the wedding canopy,22 being appointed as “halakhic advisors” regarding Jewish family law,23 serving as “spiritual leaders” in Orthodox synagogues,24 and serving as legal advocates in Israeli rabbinic courts.25 Some of these changes have found support among esteemed rabbis and scholars, while others remain on the fringe.26 Yet for the most infuential rabbinical authorities within Modern Orthodoxy, many of these new eforts to alter traditional practice are considered to be absolutely illegitimate and pose great dangers.27 As such, feminism has become a major challenge to the future unity of Modern Orthodoxy and its factions.28

Te Evolution of the Schachter Tesis Rabbi Herschel (Zvi) Schachter (b. 1941) is, in the words of sociologist Samuel Heilman, “a key fgure in shaping the future of and orienting the worldview of Copyright © 2015. Wayne State University Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted Copyright © under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

117

the religious leadership of Modern Orthodoxy.”29 His formal position is Tal- mud lecturer and head of the Marcos and Adina Katz Institute for Advanced Research in Rabbinics (kollel) at Modern Orthodoxy’s fagship school for rabbinical training, RIETS at YU.30 In fact, the image of him teaching his students appears on the letterhead of the RIETS ofcial correspondence stationery.31 Due to his renown as a Talmudic scholar and religious adjudicator, rabbis and synagogue ofcers from across North America, in addition to heads of national organizations, consult him regularly on myriad issues relating to Jewish legal decision-making and public policy.32 Among others, the Israeli Chief Rabbin- ate recognized him and his RIETS colleague Rabbi Mordechai Willing as the only American authorities who could approve the appointment of rabbinical judges for Orthodox conversion courts in the United States. According to Rabbi Basil Herring, the former Executive Vice President of the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA)—the largest association of Orthodox rabbis in North Amer- ica—“One can say that they are representative of where Modern Orthodoxy is today.”33 Schachter’s authority is fortifed through his identifcation as one of the preeminent students of Soloveitchik (1903–93) and communicators of his ideas.34 Yet the nuances of Soloveitchik’s Orthodox worldview continue to be the subject of intense debate among both his followers and academic scholars. Indeed, critics complain that through his own publications and lectures, Schachter has sought to deemphasize his mentor’s numerous variances from the ideological norms of traditionalist Haredi Orthodoxy.35 Yet Schachter’s credentials as a brilliant Talmudist in his own right and as perhaps the deepest reservoir of knowledge about his teacher are uniformly recognized.36 As such, many Modern Orthodox rabbis who do not necessarily accept his presentation of the Soloveitchik legacy still consider Schachter’s legal decisions to be authoritative.37 Since the 1980s, he has spoken out vociferously against Orthodox feminism and published a series of prohibitive rulings regarding a variety of ritual innovations advanced by this camp. Schachter’s frst major statement on Orthodox feminism was published in 1985. Te spread of Orthodox women’s prayer groups had led Rabbi Louis Bern- stein, then president of the RCA, to turn in 1984 to leading YU rabbis in search of a clear-cut ruling on the permissibility of these ritual gatherings.38 Notably, the ofcial condemnation of such meetings by the Haredi-afliated Agudath ha- Rabbonim (Union of Orthodox Rabbis) was already publicized in late 1982.39 On December 13, 1984, a group of fve prominent rabbinic scholars from RIETS— including Schachter—presented their own decision forbidding women’s prayer Copyright © 2015. Wayne State University Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted Copyright © under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

118

services. During the following year Schachter expanded upon this position in a lengthy responsum titled “Ze’i lakh be-ikvei ha-zon” (“Follow you [fem. sing.] in the footsteps of the sheep”),40 which was frst published in the spring 1985 edition of the RIETS scholarly rabbinic journal, Beit Yitzhak.41 In the essay, Schachter advances numerous reasons for prohibiting Ortho- dox participation in female prayer groups, as well as in women’s hakafot—danc- ing while holding the Torah scroll on the Simhat Torah festival—and public women’s readings of the Book of Esther on the Purim holiday.42 At a number of junctures, however, he moves beyond technical points to meta-legal or policy considerations. In his opinion, the Orthodox women who promoted the prayer groups had internalized dangerous feminist ideals that had emerged within gen- tile society and had already been championed by the Conservative and Reform movements, the enemies of Orthodoxy.43 Tis point is expressed in strongest terms toward the end of the ruling:

Te women’s liberation movement has already succeeded in infuenc- ing some of the idolaters . . . and this infuence has already been trans- ferred from the idolatrous nations to our brothers-children of Israel the Conservatives,44 until they ruled to include women in a prayer quorum, honor them with being called to recite the blessing on the Torah, and to ordain them as rabbis. . . . And due to our many sins the hand of the Conservatives has become dominant. . . . [Tus] if Orthodox women shall participate in such quorums [minyanim],45 it would appear to all as if they partially accept the counterfeit approach of the Conserva- tives. . . . For any issue which unto itself may be deemed permissible, but has become a symbol of destruction of the [true] religion . . . such an activity is transformed into a forbidden one.46

Schachter’s was among the most extensive and forceful responses in its time to the advent of Orthodox feminism. He was unequivocal in judging the entire feminist movement, without distinguishing between various trends, in purely negative terms. As foreseen by Blu Greenberg, the main thrust of his 1985 argument—which is predicated on preventing changes that draw similarities to liberal Jewish denominations—focuses on interdenominational rivalries.47 Following a polemical tradition that can be traced to the nineteenth-century struggle with the nascent Reform movement, Schachter disqualifes ceremo- nial innovation even if legal justifcation can be found, due to its association with non-Orthodox movements.48 Tis fear of encroachment from Reform and Copyright © 2015. Wayne State University Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted Copyright © under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

119

Conservatives was not new to American Orthodoxy either, and it had infuenced the decisions of Schachter’s mentor, Soloveitchik, as well.49 Indeed, due to the 1983 decision by Reform to recognize patrilineal descent as the basis for Jewish identity as well as debates in Israel over the recognition of non-Orthodox con- versions, 1985 was a period of particularly intensive interdenominational rivalry.50 Tus, while Schachter’s frst major response already testifes to his deep antipathy toward feminism and its Orthodox sympathizers, it can be viewed to a great extent as part of the ongoing struggle of the Orthodox minority to protect itself from the infuence of the larger and more powerful liberal factions.51 By 1997 direct interdenominational hostilities were beginning to decline,52 while internal Orthodox conficts over feminism were only intensifying. A book of Schachter’s collected legal writings that appeared that year does not contain any new discussion of feminism, but through its publication he indicated that he saw women’s issues as the focal battleground for Orthodoxy. Among the forty legal responsa gathered in the volume, the only one relating to feminism is a republished version of his 1985 decision prohibiting women’s prayer groups, along with some notable additions.53 Nevertheless, he chose to name the entire book Be-Ikvei ha-Zon (In the Footsteps of the Sheep), the same phrase that adorns the title of the volume’s lone entry regarding feminism and Orthodoxy. By doing so, then, he highlighted both the importance of responding to the challenge of Orthodox feminism and the overall centrality of this issue to his entire Ortho- dox outlook.54 During that same year, 1997, Schachter also delivered a public lecture at YU titled “Woman at Prayer. ” Tere he referred to women’s prayer groups as an “imi- tation mitzvah [commandment]” and maintained that Soloveitchik unequivo- cally prohibited such gatherings. Schachter admitted that some of the Orthodox women who attend do so out of sincere religious intentions, but since many of the founders had been infuenced by the Reform and Conservative movements, any association was disqualifed.55 It would appear, then, that by 1997 Schachter had begun to direct both oral presentations and even more so printed publications toward advancing the confict with feminism to the center of his Orthodox discourse.56 As yet, however, he had not articulated a theory that viewed this debate in terms that went beyond the denominational struggles that had fgured so prominently in previous years— and for that matter the two centuries since the advent of Reform Judaism.57 His most original and dramatic arguments would emerge in his responses to eforts in the early twenty-frst century to integrate women into mixed-gender ritual Copyright © 2015. Wayne State University Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted Copyright © under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

120

settings and the support that these initiatives received from highly respected fgures within the Orthodox world. In 2003 Schachter published an essay titled “On the Matter of Maso- rah.”58 Te initial theme is the signifcance of masorah—longstanding traditions of handed-down religious behavior—for deciding normative Jewish law, even when the textual sources may allow for alternative rulings.59 He then applies this principle as the basis for prohibiting public Torah recital by women, an issue that had risen to the forefront of Modern Orthodox debate after a learned essay sanctioning this practice was published by Rabbi Professor Daniel Sperber in the liberal Orthodox-sponsored Edah Journal.60 Te topic had actually already drawn a great deal of attention due to an article by Rabbi Mendel Shapiro that appeared two years earlier in the same journal.61 At that time, however, Schachter had refrained from responding. Shapiro is a RIETS-trained ordained rabbi, but he is also a practicing lawyer who lives in Jerusalem and was relatively unknown prior to publication of his essay. Sperber, by contrast, is the author of numerous works that have gained acclaim within the Orthodox world. He is also a descen- dant of a prominent rabbinic family, a world-famous professor of Talmud, an Israel Prize winner, and a longtime rabbi of Orthodox synagogues in Jerusalem.62 Once Sperber gave his approbation to Orthodox women’s public Torah recital, therefore, Schachter apparently saw a greater necessity to respond.63 Toward the end of his essay, Schachter reinforced his prohibitive ruling by depicting a “historical tradition” relating to women and Judaism:

Te Tzdukim [Sadducees] were apparently bothered with the fact that the Torah discriminated against women regarding the laws of yerusha [inheritance], and they attempted to “rectify” this “injustice” somewhat. In later years the early Christians adopted several of the positions of the earlier Tzdukim.64 Te Talmud . . . records that the early Christians divided yerushos [inheritances] equally between sons and daughters. Several centuries later, the Reform movement continued with this complaint against the tradition, that the rabbis were discriminating unfairly against women by having them sit separately in the synagogue, etc. Tis complaint has developed historically to become the symbol of rebellion against our masorah. Te fact that this symbolizes harisus hadas [destruction of the religion], causes it to become a prohibited activity.65

In this narrative, which is unparalleled among Orthodox authorities, feminists have not simply followed the path of their Reform and Conservative Copyright © 2015. Wayne State University Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted Copyright © under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

121

contemporaries. Rather, through their behavior they had declared themselves direct heirs to the heretical groups who deviated from normative Judaism since ancient times.66 For beyond any other areas of dispute with the rabbis, according to Schachter, the complaint that linked all these historical heresies was discrimination against women. As such, anyone who raises objections to accepted rabbinic policy on this topic is clearly aligned with the deviant legacy and intent upon destroying the religion.67 During the following year, 2004, Schachter published an additional essay titled “Can Women Be Rabbis?” which dealt with another burgeoning internal Orthodox controversy connected to feminism.68 Specifcally, he attacked a new custom in which Modern Orthodox couples invite a learned woman—sometimes the bride’s mentor in Torah studies—to recite the text of the ketubah (marriage writ) under the wedding canopy.69 Following the masorah thesis, he argued that the fact that there is no law which requires a male reader70 does not automatically mean that having a female one is consistent with other hallowed values that emerge from the halakhah.71 Here, once again, Schachter returned to comparing Orthodox feminists with classical heretics and the common goal of destroying rabbinic Judaism:

Clearly the motivation to have a woman read the kesuba is to make the following statement: the rabbis, or better yet—the G-d of the Jews, has been discriminating against women all these millennia, and has cheated them of their equal rights, and it’s high time that this injustice be straightened out. . . . Te Talmud records that during the period of the Second Temple the Tzdukim [Sadducees] had many disputes with the chachamim [Sages]. . . . One of their big issues was this issue of discrimination against women. . . . Years later, after the destruction of the Second Temple, the early Christians picked up some of the “shtik” [chicanery] of the Tzdukim. . . . History repeats itself. In recent years, the Reform and the Conservative movements have expressed this same complaint against the rabbis, or better put—against the G-d of the Jews: discrimination against women! Look what has become of the Tzdukim, the early Christians, the Reform, and the Conservatives.72

Unlike both 1985, when interdenominational tensions were particularly acute, and 1997, when a decline was only beginning to be recognized, scholars have confrmed that by the frst years of the twenty-frst century American Jewish denominational relations had entered a period of nonconfrontationalism.73 Not Copyright © 2015. Wayne State University Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted Copyright © under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

122

only was there less direct animus, but (as will be discussed in chapter 6) this period saw pioneering Orthodox eforts to interface with broader American Jewry that entailed even greater direct contact with non-Orthodox institutions and leaders. Tus, Schachter’s references in 2003 and 2004 to the Reform and Conservative movements should not be understood, primarily, as part of a polemical assault against these groups. Rather, their role is more symbolic: together with the Sad- ducees and Christians, they constitute factions that found their roots in Jewish tradition, but whose theologies and religious behaviors had placed them irrevo- cably—in Schachter’s opinion—beyond the framework of normative Judaism. By associating the claims of the Orthodox feminists with them, he was declaring that they too were destined for a similar fate. Indeed, in contrast to the references to the Reform and Conservatives that are ubiquitous within twentieth-century Orthodox polemics, it is the repetitive interjection of the ancient prototypes of Jewish heresy that stands out in Schachter’s twenty-frst-century critique of Orthodox feminism. As a world-renowned Talmud scholar, he had no trouble identifying sources con- necting arguments over the legal status or role of women with all the afore- mentioned “heretical” groups. Yet he was equally aware that it was only with the emergence of the American Reform and Conservative movements that the status and role of women became a central area of dispute and vehicle for boundary maintenance.74 Te Talmud, for example, certainly records the Sad- ducee critique regarding distribution of inheritance, but this was by no means among the most prominent of the Sadducee grievances that play out in rabbinic literature.75 By expanding the debate over the role of women in Judaism beyond twentieth-century denominational battles, Schachter sought to clarify that feminism had become the main dividing line and the central challenge for the soul of American Judaism. Veritably, his position resembles those spoken in the name of American Haredi Orthodoxy. Rabbi Nisson Wolpin, for example, was the longtime editor of the Jewish Observer, the ofcial English-language publication of Agudath Israel.76 In February 1997 he wrote: “For some proponents of a classical Modern Orthodoxy, who seem to automatically reject any association with right wingness, the only enticing frontiers seem to be those that border with Con- servatism. Tis includes questioning the rabbinical authority of leading poskim [adjudicators], sponsoring women’s prayer groups and Krias HaTorah [Torah reading] gatherings, as well as other gestures of surrender to feminist demands, in total departure from established practice.”77 Similarities notwithstanding, by introducing the analogy between Orthodox feminism and the ancient sectarians, Copyright © 2015. Wayne State University Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted Copyright © under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

123

Schachter’s narrative actually bespeaks a more militant tone than that generally associated with American Haredi discourse. In fact, a closer historical precedent for this rhetorical strategy can actually be found among the radical polemical tactics that were championed by zealous Hungarian Ultra-Orthodox Jews during the mid-nineteenth century.

Te Ultra-Orthodox Tradition and Counter-Feminism As well as serving as the birthplace for liberal Jewish religious denominations, nineteenth-century Central Europe also witnessed the rise of Orthodox streams that labored to develop responses to modernity that were consistent with accepted Jewish law and customs. In Germany, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808–88) was the primary architect of a “Neo-Orthodoxy” that synthesized Jewish tradition with European culture.78 While similar Orthodox models could be found in Hungary as well, as discussed in chapter 1, the prevailing Hungarian approach in the second half of the nineteenth century was that associated with the legacy of Hatam Sofer (Rabbi Moses Sofer, 1762–1839), whose antimodernism was epito- mized in the motto “all that is new is biblically forbidden.”79 Not surprisingly, American Modern Orthodoxy has looked to Hirsch as one of the forerunners for its outlook, while American Haredi Orthodoxy has demonstrated greater afnity to Sofer’s worldview.80 Despite their diferences regarding broader modern culture, the Sofer and Hirsch schools in Central Europe shared an absolute antipathy to all forms of Reform or liberal Judaism. In fact, both the late nineteenth-century Hungarians whom scholars refer to as the “Ultra-Orthodox” and Hirsch himself rendered canonical status to a statement by Sofer that is quite reminiscent of those cited above in the name of Schachter.81 In one of his 1819 correspondences denounc- ing the advent of the Reform Temple in Hamburg, Sofer declared: “If we had the power over them, my opinion would be to separate them from us [our bor- ders], we should not give our daughters to their sons, and their sons should not be accepted for our daughters so as not to be drawn after them. Teir sect should be considered like those of Zadok and Boethus, Anan, and Saul, they among themselves and we among ourselves.”82 From Sofer’s perspective, Reform was the archenemy of “authentic Judaism.” It was a direct threat to the majority of Jews in his day who were still allegiant to halakhic observance and traditional customs. Terefore, like Schachter’s critique of the Orthodox feminists, Sofer delegitimized his contemporary foes by equating them with well-known historical examples of heretical groups, such as the Second Temple–era Saddu- cees (Zadok), Boethusians, and early Christians (Saul), as well as the medieval Copyright © 2015. Wayne State University Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted Copyright © under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

124

Karaites (Anan), who had all eventually become detached from normative Jew- ish life. Tis, in turn, he hoped, would dissuade the majority of Jews from associating with the Reformers and adopting their ideology and religious behavior. Notwithstanding the fact that both Sofer’s Ultra-Orthodox followers as well as Samson Raphael Hirsch identifed with this statement,83 Schachter’s construction of a similar narrative in regard to Orthodox feminism is more reminiscent of the Hungarian polemical tradition. Hirsch’s late nineteenth-century battles were dedicated primarily to his denominational war against Reform and his eforts to completely separate between them and all Jews who continued to observe the halakhah. By contrast, the main target of Hungarian Ultra-Orthodoxy’s cam- paigns was not the liberal Neologue movement, but rather the observant Jews who aimed to create an Orthodoxy that integrated elements of modern culture into their Weltanschauung. While the Hungarian Orthodox continued to dele- gitimize their liberal foes, by the mid-1870s the denominational boundaries of Hungarian Jewry were fairly concretized. What remained fuid, however, were the varieties of approaches among the Orthodox themselves.84 Te case of Rabbi Esriel Hildesheimer (noted in chapter 1) ofers a fne illustration of this phenomenon. Tis German-born Orthodox rabbinical fgure served from 1851 through 1869 as the rabbi of the Hungarian Jewish community of Eisenstadt (Burgenland region). During this period he founded and orchestrated the frst yeshiva in Hungary that included a full program in secular studies. In addition, he advocated for the creation of an Orthodox rabbinical seminary that would include academic and vocational training as part of its educational requirements. Needless to say, these innovations were heavily criti- cized by his Ultra-Orthodox adversaries. Hildesheimer eventually returned to Germany, where the modern rabbinical seminary that he founded gained him great fame as a champion of Orthodoxy.85 Yet his Hungarian Ultra-Orthodox opponents feared that even after his departure followers of his approach would remain active. Terefore they made conscious eforts to demonize him and label him as the archenemy of Judaism. In 1872, for example, one of the leading Ultra- Orthodox authorities, Rabbi Hayyim Sofer, declared: “Te wicked Hildesheimer is the horse and chariot of the evil inclination, his bravery and success are super- natural, no other than Esau’s minister rides with him. All the religious criminals who have arisen over hundreds of years did not labor towards the destruction of religion and faith as he did.”86 Following the model of his mentor Hatam Sofer, he vilifed Hildesheimer by comparing him to the historical enemies of Judaism, in this case actually claiming that this latest foe was even worse than his evil predecessors. Yet, as pointed out above, Hildesheimer was a highly competent Copyright © 2015. Wayne State University Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted Copyright © under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

125

religious authority who went on to achieve great renown as an architect and defender of Orthodoxy in his native Germany. It comes as no surprise, then, that the Ultra-Orthodox summoned the association with ancient sectarians—invoked originally by Hatam Sofer regarding the Reform—in reference to their modernist Orthodox adversaries. Historian Michael Silber emphasizes this point in his description of the attacks of Ultra- Orthodox ideologue Rabbi Akiva Yosef Schlesinger on the moderates: “Tese hypocritical, ‘righteous’ rabbis, smug in their conviction that cultural synthesis was not only traditionally sanctioned, but also the only proper course to save Orthodoxy, were dubbed by Schlesinger Sadducees. Tis was a felicitous choice, pregnant with both the implication that the Neo-Orthodox were on the surface ‘similar to the Pharisees,’ but actually a sect apart.”87 Tis Central European scenario lends insight into Schachter’s early twenty- frst-century American rulings. His interjection of Orthodox feminism into the historical chain of Jewish heresy was not intended primarily to disparage liberal Jewish streams. Recall that such interdenominational tensions had not disap- peared, but they were low on the Orthodox agenda. Meanwhile, the internal Orthodox battles over feminism were still heating up. Tus, his comparisons of feminist advocates with ancient sectarians—like those applied by the Ultra- Orthodox to Hildesheimer and his followers—were intended to highlight the destructive quality of this approach for the future viability of Orthodoxy.

Between Right and Left Having set in bold the parallels between his religious rhetoric and that of nineteenth-century Ultra-Orthodox strategies, I note that from other perspectives, precedent for Schachter’s campaign against Orthodox feminism can also be located within Hirsch’s German Neo-Orthodox paradigm. Bear in mind the contrast between Hirsch’s antagonistic policies toward Reform and his overall embrace of modern culture. Similarly, there is much that distinguishes Schachter’s vehement opposition to Orthodox feminism from his attitudes toward other eforts to adjust Orthodoxy to contemporary realities. While Schachter certainly advocates a far more temperate approach to modernity than other disciples of Soloveitchik do, he continues to support positions that would fnd no adherents within traditionalist Haredi Orthodox circles.88 In the introduction to his book Be-Ikvei ha-Zon, he writes: “Situations are always changing, history constantly moves forward. Our world is diferent than that in which our rabbis and parents’ parents lived, and if we consistently try to imitate exactly the ways of our fathers, sometimes it will turn out that we have Copyright © 2015. Wayne State University Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted Copyright © under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

126

deviated from the tradition. For our rabbis themselves would not have acted that way if they faced today’s reality.”89 Schachter’s perception of the need to adjust to new historical realities is refected, on one hand, in his forceful responses to Orthodox feminism, which are far more unequivocal than those of his mentor.90 On the other hand, however, he also expresses his appreciation for the necessity of at times “deviating from tradition” in his support of positions taken by Soloveitchik that diverged dramatically from those of traditionalist Haredi Orthodoxy. Like his teacher, who set the standard for American Modern Ortho- doxy, Schachter identifes forthrightly with Religious-Zionism.91 He also stands behind his rabbi’s support of Yeshiva University, an institution where higher Talmudic learning according to the Lithuanian tradition is integrated with a full-fedged academic program.92 Most signifcantly for the current discussion, despite his clear opposition to many aspects of Orthodox feminism, regarding some manifestations of increased religious roles for women he has demonstrated greater tolerance. He defends his teacher for sanctioning Talmudic studies for women,93 and he also rules—again in the name of his teacher—that women could serve as Orthodox synagogue ofcers (but not as president).94 Tus, from the point of view of institutional afliation, the constituency that looks to him as a religious authority, for signifcant ideological stands, and even for the education that he has provided for some his own children, Schachter is a leader within Modern Orthodoxy and not the Haredi camp.95 Schachter’s accommodations to Modern Orthodox norms can be partially attributed to his deep respect for Soloveitchik. While he certainly has made eforts to describe his teacher as less maverick than others do, Schachter nonetheless remains loyal in areas in which Soloveitchik’s departure from the Ortho- dox norms of his Eastern European roots is unequivocal. Yet Schachter has also demonstrated his independence from his mentor, and it would be presumptuous to assume that his public positions on major issues of religious controversy are singularly the result of the esteem with which he holds Soloveitchik. How then to view the relationship between Schachter’s position as a religious leader for Modern Orthodoxy and his adoption of radical rejectionist strategies previously associated with the most zealous Ultra-Orthodox factions? One possible explanation is to understand Schachter as a prime practitioner of the “Haredization” of American Modern Orthodoxy or the “sliding to the right” already encountered in this book. Tat is, particularly since the 1970s, a signifcant sector within American Modern Orthodoxy has gravitated toward the sec- tarian worldview and traditionalist practices previously associated with Haredi Orthodoxy. Some manifestations of this move, as noted, include increased Copyright © 2015. Wayne State University Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted Copyright © under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

127

punctiliousness in observance of the halakhah, greater dedication to religious studies combined with deemphasis of secular education, more rigid segregation of sexes, and focus on particularistic Orthodox values to the exclusion of both universal ones and those seemingly shared among Jews of all stripes. Within YU, Schachter is one of the central exponents of this direction. Many of his students, who themselves were nurtured in Modern Orthodox communities and day schools, have adopted the dress style associated with non-Hasidic traditionalist circles. In addition, like those within the Haredi camp who choose to attain post–high school degrees, they deemphasize the educational value of university studies and perceive college purely as a necessity for earning a living.96 Schachter himself has consistently highlighted Jewish particularism and has expressed deep appreciation for the religious worldview associated with Haredi Orthodoxy.97 His repudiation of Orthodox feminism can be viewed, then, as an essential component in his eforts to neutralize more liberal trends within Mod- ern Orthodoxy, thus expediting a realignment of American Orthodoxy that does away with the distinctions between the “right wing” of Modern Orthodoxy and the Haredi sector. Notwithstanding the possibility that it is a push toward the Haredi worldview that underlies Schachter’s antagonism to Orthodox feminism, it is important to distinguish between religious leanings and full identifcation. Inas- much as Schachter increasingly puts forward Haredi-like views, he remains, as emphasized above, afliated with Yeshiva University and has not abandoned key elements in his religious ideology that are squarely associated with Modern Orthodoxy and are disparaged by the traditionalists. Consequently, I suggest a more nuanced account of Schachter that stops short of viewing his rejection of Orthodox feminism as one more indication that he is moving Modern Ortho- doxy head frst toward the Haredi religious camp.98 A return to the model of Orthodoxy articulated by Samson Raphael Hirsch lends insight into that of Schachter as well. Historian Jacob Katz addresses the apparent contradiction between Hirsch’s exceedingly positive attitude toward modern culture and his absolute renunciation of those Jewish communities whose exposure to contemporary ideals led them to afliate with the Reform movement. Katz sees this seeming paradox as refecting Hirsch’s alienation from both the left and the right.99 Unhappy with the antagonism of the traditionalist rabbis to modern culture, but even more vehemently opposed to the polar approach put forward by the Reform, he advanced a third alternative that was in direct confict with both extremes. To his mind, this was the only true path for Orthodoxy. Copyright © 2015. Wayne State University Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted Copyright © under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

128

Like Hirsch’s approach to those fellow modernists whom he believed to have crossed the boundary beyond authentic Judaism, once Schachter reached the conclusion that feminism was outside the border, he drafted the most lethal rhetorical weapons available within the Orthodox arsenal for attacking its latest archenemy. By listing Orthodox feminists among the historic enemies of normative rabbinic Judaism, he made clear that to his mind there was absolutely no place for them within contemporary Orthodoxy in any of its manifestations. Schachter is less of a utopian idealist than Hirsch was and is far more sym- pathetic to the Haredi Orthodox outlook than to the positive approach to non- Jewish culture associated with Modern Orthodoxy. Nevertheless, he is dedicated to advancing a hybrid Orthodoxy that is heavily infuenced by Haredi ideals but remains situated within a Modern Orthodox milieu that accepts core positions staked out by his teacher, Soloveitchik. On a personal level as well, Schachter continues to see his mandate as serving a predominantly non-Haredi constituency. Within this role, Schachter’s strategy is to bolster a conservative line without necessarily erasing the boundaries that continue to distinguish his camp from its Haredi co-religionists.100 Copyright © 2015. Wayne State University Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted Copyright © under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

129