By Rabbi Steven Pruzansky
Torah jurisprudence is based on the principle of “majority rule.” If we routinely followed minority opinions, the Torah would fragment into many Torot and we would cease to be a unified people. Of course, the unity of Torah was much greater in ancient than recent times because of the finality of the Sanhedrin’s judgments. Nonetheless, in matters that affect the klal, we have been able to sustain the oneness of the Jewish people by maintaining uniform standards. Thus, observant Jews can daven in any shul, regardless of nusach, as long as there is adherence to basic norms. The presence or absence of amechitzah is one classic dividing line.
Although we are taught to “follow the majority” (Shemot 23:2), what happens to the minority opinion? The Lubavitcher Rebbe (on that verse, as recorded in the Kehot Publication Society anthology, 2015 edition) offered three possibilities of understanding the majority-minority dynamic: the majority opinion simply outweighs the minority opinion, the minority opinion is nullified, or the minority unites with the majority and moves forward together. (Rav Kook, interestingly, argued that the majority view prevails not just because it is numerically superior but because the sheer numbers mean that more potential opinions, sevarot and viewpoints were entertained.)
The Rebbe then explained how it is that the minority unites with the majority. There are two possibilities: the minority defers to the opinion of the majority because that is what the Torah demands, even though they remain unconvinced; or the minority, understanding the Torah rule, reconsiders its position until they become convinced that the majority, were, in fact, correct. Of these two scenarios, the second one is the ideal and fosters true unity among the Jewish people, a unity that emerges from a deep sense of humility and kavod talmidei chachamim.
Last month’s OU declaration on the prohibition of female clergy in Jewish life, authored by seven distinguished Rabbanim and Roshei Yeshiva, clearly reflects the overwhelming consensus of rabbinic thought on the matter. This is a matter that has been obvious for millennia and has only become an issue of late because of trends in the secular society. But the reaction of advocates of female clergy has not followed either model delineated by the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Among the small cohort of activists, there is a refusal both to defer to rabbinic authority as well as a reluctance to re-evaluate their position. Among the professional activists, many have taken to penning daily op-ed pieces, as if psak is influenced by social media on the one hand or by passionate redundancy on the other. It is not, of course, but as modern start-ups use “crowd funding” to raise seed money, these activists have created something like “crowd-paskening” within their echo chamber. This is not only divisive but dangerous.
The psak ratified what was conventional wisdom and Jewish practice since Sinai, something that even Reform Judaism recognized until the 1970’s and Conservative Judaism until the 1980’s. Reading the literature of those times and the relentless (but ultimately futile) opposition of the JTS Talmud faculty to women’s ordination is proof both of the motivations of the activists – a cause driven by currents blowing through the secular world – and the obviousness of the prohibition. I have addressed the reasons for the prohibition at length in the past; suffice it to say that the requirement for a mechitzah in shul is less grounded in the sources than is the prohibition of female clergy. And we know how the mechitzah issue played out in Orthodox life.
Today, rabbis from every wing of Orthodoxy, probably representing over 95% of Orthodox Jews, if not more, oppose the notion of female clergy. In the words of one dear colleague, “this science is settled.” To be sure, there will always be deniers who insist that the data is not being understood properly and they have an approach that no one ever considered before, but they are in a distinct minority and they are unfortunately treading on hazardous ground.
Years ago, I wrote of “The Rise of the Neo-Cons,” and the renaissance of the ideology that spawned the birth of Conservative Judaism and its eventual disengagement from traditional Orthodoxy, Torah observance, and today, real influence in Jewish life. Many of their early ideologues were Orthodox rabbis, some were fine talmidei chachamim, and all, I’m convinced, were sincere in their quest to save Torah for American Jewry by modernizing it and conforming it to what they perceived to be the people’s desires. They had a good run but the movement eventually foundered on a lack of authenticity and commitment to the Torah, such that today it is almost indistinguishable from Reform Judaism. The modern neo-Cons, I fear, are making the same mistake, and compounding their errors with the obstinacy of rejecting the opinion of the vast majority of their colleagues. There is no sense, at present, that there is any reconsideration or unification with the majority opinion. Some, disciples of Rav Soloveitchik zt”l, are openly disdainful of his opinion, and some have embarked on a shameless campaign to discredit the Rav as an authority, not realizing that they are discrediting themselves in the process in addition to disrespecting one of the bearers of the Mesorah in the last century, a deed condemned the Rambam (Hilchot Teshuvah 3:8).
This week brought even more proof that they are leading their small flock into a minefield of heresy. One female ordainee opined that it is about time that halacha reconsider the normative rule that dates to Sinai that women do not count for a minyan. Say what you will, but this was one of the predictions of the JTS faculty that opposed female ordination: that the next step inevitably would be changing the structure of the minyan, and so it was, and is. And the “reason” is also predictable: the assertion was that in a society where women count in everything, how can they not count for a minyan? This is a compelling argument in the small part of the religious world that measures every halacha and minhag by secular values to assess whether it passes muster, and if it doesn’t, it has no merit. But few religious Jews, frankly, employ Western values as the barometer by which they measure the worth of the Torah. The justified fear is that those who do will not remain religious Jews for long.
One by-product of the refusal of the minority to follow the opinion of the majority is that it undermines rabbinic authority – i.e., theirs. Their small band of followers will follow them only insofar as the band agrees with their decisions but will renounce any deviations from their pre-determined conclusions. If rabbis reject the consequences of “lo tasur,” why shouldn’t their laity? The results are very democratic but not very halachic; nor are they sustainable. That is a simple historical truth.
With the OU statement, the matter really is settled. Those who insist on going forward anyway will not be causing a schism in the future but are causing one right now. To have shuls in which Orthodox Jews would not enter because of the presence of female clergy is an act of self-excommunication. Those who continue to insist that the whole world is wrong but they’re right – or are praying for an “eilu va’eilu” outcome – are cheating their followers and ultimately robbing them and their children of their heritage. We know the end of this story, so why go down that road?
There have been occasions when I asked a “she’elah” on a particular issue and was puzzled or disappointed in the psak. But I followed it regardless. If I wanted to rely on my own opinion, I wouldn’t have asked. That deference is what the Torah seeks. Think of the contribution advocates of female clergy could make, and the worlds they would save, if they announced that they accept the psak and will find a way to comply. That would show greatness, true leadership and love of the Jewish people.