On the Role of Women in Services at New London Synagogue - A Discussion Paper with Recommendations

Consultation

In preparing this paper I’ve reviewed the contributions made at the special Open Meeting on the role of woman in December 2014, over 70 responses shared with me by email and at other meetings and the 250 responses to the Synagogue’s recently held survey, looking at both qualitative and quantitative data. Julian Futter and Lauren Sager-Weinstein have allowed me to correlate the responses to the survey with the demographic profile of those sharing these responses. I am grateful for their efforts. I have also discussed the issue with the Services Committee, Executive and Council. This is the third time I have been part of a formal consultation on this issue at New London –the January 2007 EGM took place during my first week as Rabbi of the Synagogue and a second consultation and EGM was held in 2009-10, under my Rabbinic leadership. I do feel I have gathered a reasonably accurate picture of the feelings of the community on this issue.

 

I want to record my enormous admiration to all those who have shared their thoughts on this often divisive issue; we have spoken passionately, thoughtfully and, almost without exception, gently. That is considerably to our merit.

 

The Voice of the Tradition

A fuller review of my understanding of the Jewish legal principles regarding women and Torah reading can be found here[1], regarding women and prayer leadership here[2] and regarding mixed seating here.[3] What follows is a much reduced summary.

 

In the time of the Talmud the reason women did not receive aliyot was that it was considered an affront to the ‘honour of the community.’ That phrase encapsulated the reflection of the social realities of communities in ancient times – a full engagement with the sources makes that clear. Clearly, in a contemporary society, this concern no longer exists. Members opposed to allowing women to read from the Torah suggest that as traditional practices have become embedded, they should now continue to be followed, regardless of any question of honour.

 

The notion that there is something about a woman which means that her voice should not be heard is an unsustainable position for us, as members of New London Synagogue. As a matter of Jewish law I hold that there is no technical role played by a leader of prayer that cannot be fulfilled by a woman – again, see the fuller treatment for further information. Therefore the decision as to who to call as a leader of prayer belongs to the community. The Talmud instructs us to call only the most appropriate (lit. hagun) to serve as prayer leaders. The question for us as a community is; does a person’s gender trump all other considerations of what might or might not be hagun?

 

Separate seating arose in connection to an idea that women were considered a distraction for men – who were held to have primary responsibilities for public worship. It has subsequently been justified as providing a particular environment in which both men and women can find greater connections to prayer separately than by being together. The question of whether the desire for increased spirituality (or decorum, or the appeal of coming to services) is better served by having mixed or single gender seating is hotly debated.

 

New London’s ‘traditional’ nature, and particularly the nature of the inheritance we receive from our founder Rabbi, Dr Louis Jacobs of blessed memory, has been much fought over, particularly in the Open Meeting. There are members, long-term students of Rabbi Jacobs, for whom our founding Rabbi’s teaching is one of conservativism and rejection of the need to ‘move with the times,’ and equally such students for whom Rabbi Jacobs stands for a rejection of the comfortable in favour of the what must be deemed reasonable and the belief that Judaism must never be rendered immune from development. Both viewpoints, of course, contain much that is true.

 

The Voice of the Community

In this paper I’m focussing on the data from the survey since these results match very closely the more general picture that emerges from other consultations (noting many members completed the survey, took part in the Open Meeting and also shared their feelings on the issue privately).

 

The survey asked, on the role of women, whether members felt the Synagogue had ‘gone too far already,’ ‘should not change,’ ‘should make some change short of becoming fully egalitarian,’ or ‘should become fully egalitarian.’ The raw data has been correlated against a range of other data as below – gender, age, length of membership, previous affiliation and frequency of attendance at services. ‘Even’ suggests that there is no bias towards the specific demographic among those giving the respective answer.

 

Answer	%	Gender	Age	Length of membership	Prev Affiliation	Freq attendance
Too far already	9.4%	Male 2:1	Even	Even	7:1 orthodox: others	Even
No change	27.2%	Even	Even	Even	4:1 orthodox: others	Even
Increased role	20%	Even	Even	Slightly skewed towards 3-5 years	2:1 orthodox: others	Even
Full egal	43%	Male 2:1	Even	Even	1:1:1 orthodox: reform: masorti	Even

 

There is no significant bias towards any age, gender or frequency of attendance at services.  However the more likely a member is to have joined NLS from an orthodox Synagogue, the more likely they are to want reduced roles for women. And the more likely they are to be ‘new-ish’ members the more likely they are to want some change short of full egalitarianism.

 

The quantitative responses to the survey do not reflect a number of comments shared in the survey and elsewhere from members who would prefer ‘full egalitarian’ for themselves, but knowing the feelings of other members, and the historical practice of the community, articulate a wish that the community does not move to full egalitarianism at this time, usually citing concerns lest a rift should develop.

 

In comments received, and especially at the Open Meeting, the dominant concern of those who wanted an increased role for women was around reading from the Torah and receiving aliyot in the main service. In part this is because service leading is technical and services in the mikdash[4] are most often led by our Cantor (as opposed to the general membership) and there is very broad support for that to continue. In part this is due to the particular way in which restricting women from reading from the Torah and receiving aliyot is connected to matters of cavod - honour.

 

Some members have suggested that the drive towards increased participation among women is coming from members who grew up abroad. The survey records members who feel we have gone too far are divided between British and foreign born 72%:28:% while members who want full egalitarian services split between British and foreign born 75%:25%.

 

I have not done extended demographic work on the issue of mixed seating. Responses to the survey were as follows.

 

I don’t want to see any change in current seating arrangements	35 %
I wish to see some area for mixed seating, but want to preserve some areas for separate seating.	38 %
I wish to see full mixed seating in the main synagogue	27 %

 

If there was a mixed seating area I would sit in the mixed area
Yes	54%
No	46%

 

Many members, both using the comments section of the survey and in other communications, have pointed out that the particular architecture of New London allows for a separate men-only section on one side, mixed seating in the middle and a separate women-only section on the other side. Indeed we have done this on two occasions for egalitarian Bnei Mitzvah celebrations successfully. The question of what to do about seats that members have reserved for many years in the expectation of being located in a single-gendered seating area is complicated.

 

Many members opposed to further change on the issue have argued that the status quo should be considered a privileged position, either through its sheer force of existence, or as a result of being the practice of our founding Rabbi. I give consideration to the nature of this claimed-privilege below.

 

The Voice of This Rabbi

I have my own views on these matters, which I suspect are generally known. That said my role in this debate is not to serve as an advocate for my own position. Nor, however, do I accept that my role is one of adding up the votes on each side, and declaring the side with the tallest stack the winner. It’s more complicated than that. I’m wrestling with questions of ownership and leadership.

This sacred community does not belong to me as a personal possession. The community doesn’t even exclusively belong to its current members. It belongs in a complex weave to God and the traditions of our faith as understood through the rabbinic tradition - as well as the current membership, our future membership (whatever that may look like!) and our past membership (to include our founder Rabbi). This means that no single person’s personal proclivities, mine included, can be allowed to dominate even our internal deliberations, let alone the public debate. They must be suppressed behind an overarching desire to do what is right for the community even at the expense of our own ideals. In part this is about, at the very least, accepting outcomes that differ from our personal agenda. It also means that we must all work to ensure the unity and togetherness of the community, even as we engage in these emotive discussions. Again I commend all those members who have noted the importance of this in their responses.

 

However this ‘weave’ of ownership creates particular challenges. How does one balance the passionately articulated desire of a founder member of the community – a past Chairman – for no further change on this issue against the equally passionately articulated desire of a 12 year old girl who wants to be able to continue to read from the Torah after her one-off Bat Mitzvah exemption? On the one hand we must, as a community, focus on our future. On the other hand I am struck by the almost hurt tone of a member of longstanding who could not understand why someone wanting something different from the clear historical practice of this community would consider joining New London.

 

On the last occasion I engaged in this matter, in 2010, I aimed a proposal at what I considered the community’s sweet-spot; causing minimal discomfort to those did not want change while offering some provision to those who did, most notably around the issue of Bar and Bat Mitzvah ceremonies where pressure was particularly strong. The paper also imposed a three year moratorium on future discussions on the subject. That both did and did not work. The paper received significant majority support at General Meeting and the balancing act has proved doable. We have done exactly as we said we would. On the other hand no-one was ‘fooled.’ Members who felt, then, that we had gone too far remain anxious. Members who wanted more roles for women remain frustrated. The proposal which went to the last EGM was also inflexible. On the one hand it gave clarity, but on the other hand it meant that it was impossible to gain an experience of regular Shabbat morning services featuring elements of egalitarianism and/or mixed seating – these only being available for Bar and Bat Mitzvah celebrations.

 

At this time I feel it is important for us as a community to be more honest and to look further into the future. We need to be clearer about what we wish to become. Looking at the data received in these past months, and reflecting on the changes that have been manifest in the eight years since the EGM in 2007, it’s hard for me to imagine our future lies in restricting the role of women to peripheral parts of the service. In early 2007 the question ‘should any change be made’ was rejected by a single vote. Taking the figures of the survey as a guide (figures which are broadly matched by comments shared at the Open Meeting and otherwise) a very substantive majority (63% in the survey) now want an increased role for women. Some of that shift is due to membership growth, but there are also a number of members of long-standing who have changed their position in the past years. I was particularly struck at the Open Meeting by a founder member who spoke of watching his grand-daughter read from the Torah on her Bat Mitzvah and re-evaluating his position, even in his seventh decade.

 

I spend a great deal of time thinking about the next generation of New London Synagogue members (my own children, hopefully among them). For over 50 years we have waited for well-intentioned members of Anglo-Orthodoxy to come to our doors. The flood has never materialised. We have attracted refugees from orthodoxy, pushed away or rejected for one reason or another. But we have largely not proved attractive to those wishing for ‘just the same’ as the contemporary United Synagogue with added intellectual honesty. In fact the largest streams of refugees from the contemporary United Synagogue are drifting either in search of more extreme closed-mindedness or because of frustrations around a reduced role for women! We attract neither group. Our future does not lie in attempting to be similar to the United Synagogue.

 

We live in a society where ‘questions’ around the role of women are simply no longer questions for the vast majority, and particularly the vast majority of younger members of our society. It is assumed that men and women have equal roles and by retreating behind a veil of a religious exemption from the mores of our time, we find ourselves increasingly at odds with our society – that’s an odd experience for New London Synagogue. I attended the Noam Training Camp in the summer of 2014 and one of the undergraduate youth-leaders asked which Synagogue I served. ‘New London,’ I responded proudly, ‘Oh, the sexist one?’ came the response – charmed I’m sure. Short, God forbid, of the rise of religious fundamentalism on these shores I do not see this trend reversing.

 

Our future lies in two directions.

The first generation of New London children largely drifted away, we have to do better with our own youth. Members of the BM class at our Cheder have shared their opinions on this issue with me. They are committed to an egalitarian Jewish life and opposed to their (our) own Synagogue’s practice. That’s unsustainable.

We also must do more to be attractive to new members, to include refugees from orthodoxy and Reform as well as those who have no current Jewish point of connection or home. We are, to an extent, attractive already – and there are those among our new members who find us comfortable because of the reduced role of women – but I don’t want us to be attractive because we are cosy. I want our future membership to be drawn to New London because we are courageous in encountering the challenges of the age, intellectually honest about our beliefs and committed to engaging with our faith in a traditional manner, even if we are doing things that are less traditional.

 

That said questions about the privileged position of current practice do weigh heavily on me. We celebrated our 50^th year last year and I was touched, again and again, by the sacrifices so many made over so many years to have the kind of services they wanted enshrined somewhere in Anglo-Jewry. I believe some will find change that happens slowly easier to accept than they fear, but I know many will not. Also, despite all the Open Meetings and surveys, I don’t feel any of us have an accurate sense of what a more egalitarian service, or mixed-seating, would feel like, on a regular basis – outside of our current experience with BM celebrations. The proposals I am making are an attempt to explore that in the context of a majority position looking for more opportunities for women to have regular aliyot in the mikdash, while retaining a strong non-egalitarian praying community for those who wish for that.

 

Proposal

I make the following proposal for the consideration of the community;

 

·         On Torah Reading

As a substantive change to the form and conduct of services we will move to institute egalitarian Torah reading on alternate weeks. This includes offering aliyot, opportunities to reading from torah and haftarah, standing sagan, shamash, hagbah and gelilah to both men and women.[5] I refer to such services as Torah-egal.

We shall begin with one in six Torah-egal services for the next six months, in addition to scheduled egalitarian BM celebrations.[6] The frequency of Torah-egal services shall be increased to be monthly and then fortnightly in six month intervals. The issue shall be revisited at the end of the 24 month period. The nature of that revisiting shall be in line with the constitutional processes of the Synagogue.[7]

While regularity and clear communication regarding scheduling is important, the Rabbi and Services Committee shall have leeway to alter the schedule of Torah-egal Shabbat services should, for example, a run of egalitarian BM celebrations or the fall of Festivals make such alteration in the best interests of the community.

Second Day Rosh Hashanah and the services of Simhat Torah shall be Torah-egal in the coming year. The other Tishrei Festivals shall not be.

Services for future Yomim Tovim shall be either Torah-egal or not on a similar timetable to Shabbat services with the precise dates and details a matter for the Rabbi and services committee.

 

·         On Seating Arrangements

As a substantive change to the form and conduct of services we will schedule an infrequent series of services where mixed seating, as well as separate seating, shall be available on a ‘normal’ Shabbat. There shall be eight such services over the next 24 months, in addition to egalitarian BM celebrations. The issue shall be revisited at the end of the 24 month period. It is however envisaged that we will retain substantial separate seating areas into the future. The scheduling and exact delineation of seating areas shall be determined by the Rabbi in consultation with the services committee and executive more broadly and shall largely but not exclusively overlap with egalitarian services (as below). Services during Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur this coming year shall not offer mixed seating.

 

·         On Prayer Leadership

As a substantive change to the form and conduct of services we will schedule an infrequent series of Shabbat morning services which can be led by women as well as men. There shall be eight such services over the next 24 months, in addition to egalitarian BM celebrations. When bringing in new service leaders, of either gender, our goal shall be to maintain the professional, skilled and dignified nature of our services in the tradition of Minhag Anglia. It is envisaged that we will remain a community led, in prayer, by our Cantor for the vast majority of services into the future. The issue shall be revisited at the end of the 24 month period. The scheduling and exact delineation of what shall be led by women shall be determined by the Rabbi in consultation with the services committee and executive and in continued consultation with the community and shall largely but not exclusively overlap with mixed-seating services (as above). Services during Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur this coming year shall be male-led.

 

What Will Services Be Like Under the New Proposals?

These changes, while substantive, do not affect the vast majority of what goes on a Shabbat morning.

Aside from egal-BM celebrations and the rare occasions when we trial areas of mixed seating and egalitarian prayer-leadership, there will be no difference between current and proposed services during Shacharit or Musaf. During the Torah service the leadership of that service will continue to be male (and predominantly Cantor) led. On alternate weeks all the Aliyot and associated honours will be taken by men. On alternate weeks, perhaps, three or four Aliyot will be taken by women with, perhaps, one or two associated honours. On some alternate weeks there may be some women who will leyn, but we don’t have a vast cadre of women, or indeed men, able to read the longer Aliyot we read in the mikdash. While I hope more members, of both genders, will develop the skills needed to leyn, the experience of listening to the reading of the Torah will not change dramatically from what is experienced currently, even on Torah-egal weeks.

 

Services in the Hall

Currently we offer two kinds of service in the hall; the Minyan Chadash and a non-egalitarian service when there is an egalitarian service in the mikdash.

Some have suggested the Minyan Chadash, or the Kiddush Hall more generally, should be the outlet for those who wish for egalitarian services in the mikdash. That has always been disputed both by those who appreciate the Minyan Chadash as a participative and more informal environment than services in the mikdash, and also by those who wish for egalitarian services in the mikdash which, for reasons of both architecture and clergy-presence, has always had a different place in the heart of members than the Hall. In theory I see no reason for the support of the Minyan Chadash to be impacted by more egalitarian services in the mikdash. In practice we have, at the present time, a limited number of lay members able to read from the Torah – especially the longer aliyot that feature in the main service and that means, in particular, scheduling of leyning in the mikdash shall be sensitive to the needs of the Minyan Chadash. This will receive the attention of the relevant professional and lay leaders.

 

The non-egalitarian, or traditional, services that have taken place in the Hall when egalitarian services have taken place in the mikdash present a different challenge. They have not attracted the constituency of members they were designed to attract. We have struggled to make a Minyan on some occasions, relying on pre-service ring-arounds and availing of the good will of members who would rather be in the egalitarian service both as service leaders and participants. It is not clear to me that these services should continue, and certainly I don’t advocate we look to create a permanent weekly non- Torah-egalitarian service. But I would be interested to hear more from members whose needs are met by this service as to their suggestions as to what should happen.

 

These proposals recognise that, for the majority of members, this is an issue about services in the mikdash. As one member put it to me, because we can’t deal with this issue using separate spaces we have to deal with it at separate times.

 

A Concluding Thought

I don’t feel triumphant making these recommendations. I know they will cause pain to a significant minority of members about whom I care deeply. That makes me deeply sad. I have spent many, many hours trying to work out the best recommendations I can make for the future of this community I care about so deeply. This is as good a job as I feel I have been able to do.

 

In particular I plead with all membership, particularly those whose feelings are not reflected in the recommendations made above, for understanding and patience. Being part of a community always makes calls on our ability to tolerate views other than our own. I am aware that calling for toleration in the context of the recommendations in this document is not an easy ask. But I do so call. I have to. It’s not just I don’t want to lose any member from this community, it’s also that we are about so much more than the gender of the person who reads from the Torah. New London is, and will continue to be, a community for people who are prepared to wrestle at the meeting point of tradition and modernity. And while there will always be discomfort in the meeting place of two such mighty opposing forces, there is so much more that binds us; a love of traditional liturgy, the dignity of our services, the sense that this is a community ‘for people like us;’ with our enquiring minds, our passions and our sense of justice and decency. I hope your love of this community and the approach to Judaism we represent, even as we consider such a dramatic step, will allow us all to continue to walk together into our future.

 

Rabbi Jeremy

 

---

[1] http://rabbionanarrowbridge.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/my-responsum-on-women-reading-from-torah.html

[2] http://rabbionanarrowbridge.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/on-women-and-leader-prayers-texts-for.html

[3] http://www.schechter.edu/Lil1-e.pdf

[4] In this paper I use word mikdash to so describe the Synagogue’s main prayer space, to distinguish services held there from those held in the Hall.

[5] I have written a responsa on the matter of women and the Cohen and Levi Aliyot, it can be read at http://rabbionanarrowbridge.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/on-aliyot-for-daughters-of-cohenim-and.html. It may be women will not regularly perform Hagba’ah.

[6] There will be an egalitarian BM celebration on 4^th July. The BM celebrations on 17^th October and 21^st November will be Torah egalitarian. The BM celebration on 5^th March may be egalitarian. There are no other egalitarian BM celebrations planned before Pesach 2016.

[7] Any changes are the responsibility of the Rabbi in consultation with Services Committee, changes deemed substantive by the Chair need the agreement of Council and membership at General Meeting.

Why do Jews eat dairy products at Shavuot? It's a love thing.

The classic Jewish food of Shavuot is cheesecake (or smatana in my family), in any event – something dairy. Why? It’s not something specified in the Torah. But the classic Rabbinic answer is that the Jews knew there would be something in the revelation of Shavuot about meat, and not knowing what it would be, not wanting to start off a relationship with God post-revelation on the wrong foot, they were extra careful.

It’s a touching idea.

 

Perhaps the most beautiful series of Midrashim around the giving of Torah are those that compare this moment to a wedding, between God and the people of Israel with the Torah serving as the Ketubah –revelation is understood as love. The blessing said daily just before the Shema includes the wish that we should ‘understand, comprehend, and fulfil all the words of Your Torah in love.’ The blessing has the word love as its first and last word. And this is the key to the ‘decision’ to eat meat – the decision to be extra careful.

 

Relationships are based on care, on the decisions we take to ensure that those we love, those we wish will love us, will not be hurt by actions. When in love we take the initiative in actions that keep the possibility of hurt far away. If you are falling in love, you turn up early for a date. You floss. You check whether the trains are running before you head off on some romantic bank-holiday trip together. Love, between God and Israel, or between Israelites – or any human – is taking a step before being asked to so do. Love is not rocking back, arms crossed over the chest, waiting to be impressed. Love takes a leap, a risk, an open heart, a willingness to experience that which we don’t entirely know.

 

So my request, this Shavuot eve, is leap a little, step forward a little, try a little.

We have a wonderful Tikkun Leyl evening planned. You can come later even if you haven’t booked the dinner. We have services throughout the Yom Tov, and there is much to experience. You might even fall in love with Torah and its creator,

 

Shabbat shalom and Chag Sameach,

 

Thoughts on Democracy - On Election Night

I voted.

I took my three year old daughter with me to the polling station early Thursday morning. I spent the short walk to the polling station trying why it was so important we didn’t go straight to school. My daughter didn’t look particularly impressed. Let me try a more adult audience.

 

The Jews of Britain were given the vote in 1858 - just over 150 years ago. Actually the story is more multi-layered than that. There was an attempt to give Jews the vote in 1753, the Jewish Naturalisation Act was passed – but the legislation was followed by such an uproar that it was repealed a year later.

I’m never impressed by the claim that the ancient Greeks invented democracy. The notion that every human, regardless of race, gender, religion ... deserves a say in the leadership of the societies in which they live is not the democracy of ancient Greece. Too many supposed democracies limit suffrage in one way or another and, as Jews, we should always be nervous and police the most universal definitions of suffrage. The notion that we should all get to play our part in choosing how are to be led is a fragile one and protected better in this country, in this week, than in many many other times and places.

 

After services tomorrow we are going to discuss our member Peter Pomerantzev’s terrific book on contemporary Russia – Nothing is True and Everything is Possible. In many ways it’s a story about the meaninglessness of the term ‘democracy,’ as applied to life in Russia. There are elections, sure. But the culture of leadership is not that of a country governed, in Lincoln’s glorious phrase, ‘by the people, for the people.’ And that is, principally, because not enough of ‘the people’ cared enough about raising their hands to protest against the dereliction of a commitment to civil society when the tough guys and the well-placed guys grabbed what they could grab. By the way, it’s going to be a great discussion. Do come, even if you haven’t read the book.

 

As a Jew the most interesting element of democracy, for me, is not the picking of the winner, but rather the necessity of checks and balances. A democracy needs a constitutional framework to implement the allocation of power – and its removal. It also enshrines the notion of difference – proper democracies value difference. I love the term ‘Loyal Opposition’ – it suggests that disagreement and difference are not the same as treachery. That’s great news if you do things differently, and tend to disagreement, as so many Jew do.

 

Of course democracy is flawed. This has been written before the result of Thursday’s election are known. But, dear God, we are grateful for the opportunity to be alive in this time, and in this country, and we should never take such fortune for granted,

 

Shabbat shalom

 

Rabbi Jeremy

 

Tales of Light and Darkness

The news of the horrendous earthquake in Nepal has punctured my week; as I know it has done for so many of us. My thoughts and prayers are with those bereft. Susan Neiman, in her book, Evil in Modern Thought, documents how the earthquake that struck Lisbon in the mid-eighteenth century can be seen as the starting point for the collapse of religious world-views that sought to claim there is indeed perfect order in the world. There is something utterly appalling in the loss of life and the misery and suffering of those left behind. In her book Neiman documents how Leibniz’s claim that this is the ‘best of all possible worlds’ was exposed to ridicule in the aftermath of that quake, and it’s easy to feel bereft when facing the disasters of today. Of course the Bible’s itself finds earthquakes empty of redemptive possibility. Elijah is told to look out over a plate-tectonic rupture and is told God was not present in that moment. In the Book of Kings God’s presence is manifest only in a ‘still small voice.’ I suspect for us today God’s presence comes in the small moments of kindness, moments of possibility even amongst the destruction. I think that is why it is so important to respond to destruction with an act of Tzedakah – a charitable gift, these gifts, even of a few pounds are pinpricks of redemption amongst the darkness.

 

I’m proud our BM group of our Cheder responded, on the day after the quake, by organising a collection – funds were paid over to the World Jewish Relief Nepal Earthquake Disaster Appeal. And proud too of the responses of so many of our members who replied to share that they too have responded to this moment of darkness with a gift of hope, life and redemptive possibility.

 

In this week of darkness I’ve been lifted by a very different event, hosted at New London on Wednesday evening. We were approached to host an evening of music featuring the poetry of the great Arabic mystic Ibn Al-Arabi, and the great Rabbinic scholar and philosopher Abraham Ibn-Ezra. The event, organised by the Maqam Project at SOAS and Jewdas, was a marvellous success, most notable for the presence of 400 people come together to hear an oud player and his drummer provide accompaniment for poems a thousand years old sung in languages very few understood. Or maybe 400 people turned up to New London for a different reason. Maybe the real reason for the vast attendance was that we all wanted to celebrate the possibility of a connection between Jewish and Arabic culture, no matter how esoteric. Certainly that sense of connection was palpable at the concert. It was joyous and genuinely moving. In the moments between the last note of the concert and the warm applause there was a glimmer of light, possibility itself existed – another pinprick of light. After all the darkness, the loss of life, the earthquakes and everything else, it was special indeed to hear the still small voice.

 

To donate to World Jewish Relief’s Nepal Disaster Relief Appeal, please click [here - https://www.wjr.org.uk/]

For a short video taken at the concert, please click [here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xNOrJeDgX4&feature=youtu.be]

Shabbat shalom,

 

Rabbi Jeremy

 

A Celebration of Arabic & Jewish Culture - at New London

What a great evening at New London.

Ed Emory from the Maqam Project of SOAS and the Jewdas team brought four wonderful musicians to the Synagogue to perform the poetry of Ibn Al-Arabi and Abraham Ibn Ezra.

A video of the final piece of the evening - and what an evening - is here.

On Aliyot for the Daughters of Cohenim (And Levy'im)

 

SAMS STANDARDS

Policy on Bat Cohen

 

Question:

As a community that gives first aliyah to cohanim and (otherwise) gives aliyot equally to men and women, which aliyot should the daughters of cohanim receive?

Also, does the marriage of a daughter of a cohen to a non-cohen, or the marriage of a yisraelit to a cohen, change matters regarding the aliyot that she should receive?

Also, what appellation should be given to a woman who is the daughter/wife of a cohen?

Finally, is there any difference between the law as applies for the daughters of cohanim and those of leviim?

 

Answer:

This is an untidy issue for Masorti jurisprudence. We are caught, as a movement, between one ancient tradition that gives special honour to a select few and the desire to honour all, a tradition that has ancient roots, but is also shaped particularly by a contemporary understanding of the role of women. Moreover, we are standing on thin ice in the search for Rabbinic authority on which to rely, the tradition not having dealt systematically with the issue of giving women aliyot until 1955.

 

The two leading treatments are by Rabbi Joel Roth in a paper accepted by the American CJLS[1] (which suggests that women should receive first aliyot) and a paper by Rabbi Raphael Harris accepted by the Israeli Vaad Halacha (which suggests they should not).[2]

 

The Cohen and the First Aliyah (As Applied to Males)

Mishnah Gittin 5:8 reads,

 

The cohen reads first, the levi after him and the yisrael after him, because of the ways of peace [mipnei darkei shalom].

 

By the time of the Shulchan Arukh it is settled that, ‘even if the cohen is an ignoramus, they still read first, even before the wisest scholar in Israel’ (OH 135:4). It is also settled halachah that one cannot call a cohen to anything other than the first aliyah, maftir or extra hosafot aliyot. The exception to this is in the case:

 

Where there is no levi in the Synagogue. Then the cohen who read first, blesses a second time in place of [bimkom] the levi. But you don’t call a different cohen, lest people say the first is flawed [pagum]. (SA OH 135:8)

This concern not to suggest that a cohen is flawed, or pagum, is an important feature in the laws relating to distribution of aliyot. The concern is so strong that the Mishnah Brurah even prohibits calling the son of the first cohen to read bimkom levi since one might think that the father married a divorcee or otherwise made profane the priestly standing of his own son (OH 135:29). There is, throughout the relevant material in the Shulchan Arukh and Mishneh Brurah, a concern not to embarrass anyone with genuine cohen lineage by giving them, or anyone else, an aliyah that might suggest otherwise.

 

The Rabbis use a number of verses to find scriptural authority for this claim. The most satisfactory claim is based on Leviticus 21:8, as understood by the Talmud Gittin 59b.[3]

 

And you shall make [the Priest] kodesh.

The school of Yishmael taught ‘make kodesh’ in all matters connected to kedushah. To open first [receive the first aliyah], to bless first [lead birkat hamazon] and to get first choice on the best portions.

 

Holiness, in a post-Temple Jewish world, becomes ‘going first’. This explanation stresses the connection between getting the first aliyah and avodat hakodesh – the work of the Priest in the Temple. The first aliyah, therefore, is some kind of zecher l’mikdash – a memory of the time of the Temple; however the extent to which this is the case will be addressed in more detail below.

 

The Status, Rights and Obligations of the Daughter of a Cohen

The child of any kosher marriage takes the status of the father, and this applies equally to sons and daughters. Mishnah Kiddushin 3:12 states:

 

Whenever there is kiddushin and there is no sin [in the coupling of father and mother], the child follows [the status] of the male [the father].

And who is this? This is a female Cohen, Levite or Israelite to a male Cohen, Levite or Israel.[4]

 

Therefore the daughters of a male cohen and a parent allowed to marry a cohen are considered cohanot (a Rabbinic term used, as we will see below, in the Mishnah).

 

But what does this mean in terms of the religious rights and responsibilities of the Priesthood? Rabbi Harris suggests there are no implications; that wherever the Rabbis discuss matters of cultic or ritual significance only the males are addressed. In doing so, he claims, they develop the androcentricity of verses regarding the Priesthood in the Bible. Numbers 3:15, for example, states:

 

Count the bnei Levi, according to their tribe and their family, count all the males from one month upwards.

 

It is clear that both sons and daughters of a male cohen are permitted to eat Terumah – special foods made available to the cohen and, as Leviticus 22:11 states, anyone born in his house. However, Rabbi Harris dismisses that this can teach us anything about aliyot since the right to eat terumah is entirely ‘relational’, i.e. dependent on her relation to her father and does not vest in the daughter in her own right. Certainly the way in which the Mishnah treats the daughter of a cohen’s right to eat other foods made available for the Priesthood doesn’t suggest her ability to eat them is in any way a special right that is her own.

 

The Thanksgiving offering and the Shlamim offering are light offerings … and they are eaten in any part of the city… The cuts which are raised up as a heave offering are eaten by Priests, their women, their children and their slaves. (Mishnayot Zevachim 5:5 & 6 conflated for ease of presentation)

 

Notice the classic Mishnaic triplet of women, kids and slaves. It leads one to consider that the religious idea driving the Mishnah is looking after those who cannot look after themselves (in the eyes of the Mishnah) rather than recognising any inherent holiness in the wife or daughter of a priest.

Mishnah Sotah 3.7 – while recognising the daughters of cohanim as ‘cohanot’ – nonetheless makes clear that daughters of cohanim have very different (and fewer) rights and obligations than their brothers.

 

What is the difference between a cohen and cohanot? …

Cohanot can profane their status [by marrying converts or divorcees], a cohen can not.

Cohanot is allowed to become unclean through attending the dead, a cohen can not.

Cohanot cannot eat kodshim [one category of foods given to the priestly class], a cohen can.

 

These texts and those like them leave Rabbi Harris inclining against upsetting the ancient primacy of the male-cohen in the context of receiving the first aliyah. Since, Rabbi Harris claims, the first aliyah is intimately related to Priestly service and since women didn’t do Priestly service, and especially since change might be perceived as controversial, he recommends shav v’al toseh – sit tight and don’t do anything.

 

How Close is the Relationship Between Temple Priestly Service and the First Aliyah?

Rabbi Roth suggests that if the contemporary rights and obligations of the Cohen were entirely contingent on being able to do Priestly service in Temple times one would expect that baalei mumin – those with certain physical blemishes who were prohibited from Temple service – would also be prohibited from the rights, and exempt from the obligations, of the contemporary cohen. But this is not the case. Baalei mumin are allowed to eat of the holiest sacrifices, they may officiate at the ceremony of the egel arufah, bless the people and must not defile themselves by attending on the dead.[5] This opens the possibility of the cohen having rights and obligations that are not contingent on their ability to do Temple service, but rather solely a function of their birth into the family of the sons of Aaron. This raises the question of whether the right to the first aliyah should be seen as such a right, or as a right contingent on the ability to do Priestly service.

 

Rabbi Roth has discovered a fascinating, and tragic, case which casts some light on this issue. A cohen, the victim of Nazi persecution, has been castrated. Can he get the first aliyah? Rav Oshri held that if there is no other cohen around, the man can since:

 

The elements of the priestly prerogative [including the right to receive the first aliyah] are not contingent on his serving at the altar at all, and even where a priest is not entitled to serve at the alter, as a baal mum, he nonetheless retains the sanctity of the priesthood and [he should be permitted to receive the first aliyah].[6]

 

All of which suggests that the right to the first aliyah is not as closely connected to Priestly service (and therefore is not as androcentric) as we might have thought.

 

When the Daughter of a Priest Marries a Non-Priest

Leviticus 22:12 states:

 

The daughter of a Priest - when she [marries a non-Priest] - should no longer eat the holy trumah.

 

We see a similar sentiment in the Talmud, Yevamot 87a, commenting on Numbers 18:19:

 

I have given you all these holy trumot, to you, your sons and daughters while they are with you.

Rava stated ‘with you’ only when they are with you [i.e. not ‘with’ anyone else].

 

This is very significant authority for the notion that a significant part of priestly rights, gained by the daughter of a cohen on birth, is lost on her marriage to a non-cohen. But it is too much to say that all the rights of the daughter of a priest pass on marriage. Some quasi-priestly rights persist.

 

Firstly we should consider the case of pidiyon haben – redemption of the firstborn. The ‘opening of the womb’ of a yisraelit woman must be redeemed by a cohen. However, if the mother was herself a daughter of a cohen (or levi) the child is exempt, regardless of the status of the father. Even the Talmud professes surprise at this.

But doesn’t the Bible say [we should consider the child] according to their families, their father’s house [a very common phrase, especially at the beginning of Numbers]. However Mar, son of Rav Yosef says the matter depends on the [status of the woman with the] womb. (Bekorot 47a) [7]

 

Secondly, there is the case of eating trumah bshogeg. If a non-cohen mistakenly eats trumah they have to repay to the Priest what they have eaten with a 20% additional fine (see Leviticus 22:14). But if the accidental trumah nosher is a Priest’s daughter who has married a non-cohen, she is exempt from the surcharge (Mishnah Terumot 7:2).[8] 

 

Matanot Cehunah – gifts to the Priests of the shoulders, cheeks and stomach – can also be given to daughters of cohanim even when married to non-cohanim. Ulla, one of the great Rabbis of the Talmud, specifically understood the relevant verse he should give them to the priest (Deut 18:3) to include women married to non-cohamin.[9]

 

The same is true of the first shearing of a sheep, also a priestly gift. As Rambam points out:

 

The first shearing is ordinary [hol] in every regard. Therefore I say that one gives it to the daughter of the cohen even though she is married to an Israelite, like animal gifts. It seems to me that one rule applies to both. (MT Bikurim 10:17)

 

When Rambam considers the first shearing ‘ordinary’ he makes a key point – namely that the right to these gifts is NOT connected to the ‘holy’ Priestly service (performed exclusively by males). This makes clear that there are some rights of the priest that can be considered ‘holy’ – i.e. intimately connected to Priestly service (and only open to men) while other rights can be considered ‘ordinary’, i.e. based on being born into a special family and, as such, a right that might apply equally to men and women. The question is whether the right of the first aliyah is a ‘holy’ or an ‘ordinary’ right accruing to the priestly line.

 

Rabbi Roth makes the claim that the right is ordinary; he claims that the collection of instances where the special treatment of a daughter of a cohen persists even post-marriage:

Makes it reasonable and proper for the Law Committee to decide that daughters of priests and levites be accorded the same aliyot that are normally accorded to priests and levites. This should be the case whether they are single or married. Their status regarding being called to the Torah should not be determined by the lineage of their husbands, but by their own paternal lineage.

 

The Teshuvot of Rabbis Roth and Harris

Rabbi Roth makes two claims: firstly that the right of first aliyah is ‘ordinary’ and not directly connected to temple service and secondly that there are enough priestly rights in the daughter of a Priest to allow us to consider that she should receive the first aliyah even after she has married a non-cohen.

With a certain amount of trepidation I am not entirely unconvinced by my teacher’s analysis, particularly as applied to a married woman.

 

On the connection between Temple service and the first aliyah, while the case of a baal mum is of interest, it does not, for me, trump the connection between Priestly service in Temple times and the notion of ‘going first’. (See the statement of the School of Yishmael, Gittin 59b discussed above.)

 

Moreover, while some vestiges of priestly rights do remain with the daughter of a cohen after her marriage, the examples cited above should be read narrowly and not as a general case. It is no surprise to see the focus on the ‘womb’ (mother) in the case of pidiyon ha-ben, particularly given other applications of this rule. The case of the accidental trumah nosher can be explained simply in terms of a concession to a reality – she used to be able to eat terumah, so if she makes a mistake in her married state there ought to be some understanding here. This leaves the issue of Priestly gifts, which is hardly a crushing precedent, certainly when compared to the far more general notion that a daughter of a priest who marries a non-priest is considered to have left the house of her father to join that of her husband.

 

I also have serious misgivings with the approach of Rabbi Harris. His claim that, in matters relating to religious ritual, there is no kedushah applied to the daughter of the priest goes too far, particularly in the case of the unmarried daughter. Furthermore, Harris’s recommendation, shav v’al toseh – sit tight and don’t do anything – is not a workable principle for a community where you have to make some decision about what aliyot to give women. It is wrong to claim that these women are not cohanot (at least until marriage) and therefore giving her a later aliyah is an affront and suggests a p’gamah or flaw in her priestly lineage, which I am unwilling to do. One could duck the issue by only giving such women maftir or hosafot (rarely distributed) aliyot, but this seems cowardly and is frankly unfair (might one even say an affront to darkei shalom – the ways of peace). That said, I consider Harris correct in claiming that the wife of a cohen has only a relationship to the cehuna and should not be considered a cohen in her own right.

 

Appellations

None of this has any impact on the name by which a woman is called to the Torah. The daughter of a cohen is to be called X bat Y Ha-Cohen, regardless of who she subsequently marries. The reason for retaining the marker ‘ha-cohen’ has nothing to do with the status of the woman; rather it is a reference to the father. We can learn this principle from laws relating to the writing of legal documents, such as bills of divorce.

 

In our lands [when putting the names of a husband into a get] we write X ben Y ha-cohen, or ha-levi. This is also the standard regarding the father of the woman, we write [X bat Y] ha-cohen, or ha-levi even if [the woman’s father] has become an apostate. (Kav Naki, Seder Ha-Get par. 24)[10]

 

The fact that this statement appears in discussion of a woman who has been married makes it clear that the daughter of a cohen retains the honorific in her name regardless of who she marries. We can also learn, from this focus on the father of the person, that a yisraelit who marries a cohen does not pick up an honorific on marriage.

 

Conclusion

I would like to chart a middle path between Rabbis Roth and Harris. Daughters of a cohen do have some personal connection to the kedushah of their fathers and they should therefore receive the first aliyah while they are ‘with their fathers’, i.e. not married. However, if they marry a non-cohen they should be considered to have left the house of their father and entered that of their husband. The wife of a cohen has only a relationship to the priesthood and her marriage should not impact on the aliyot that she should receive. I should also state that I have seen nothing applicable to the matter at hand that suggests that the wives or daughters of leviim should be treated differently to cohanim.

 

 

Halachah L’Maseh – Practical Matters

• The unmarried daughter of a cohen should be eligible only for first aliyah (as cohen), maftir and hosafot.
• The daughter of a cohen who marries a non-cohen shall be eligible for the same aliyot as her husband, [11] though she shall still be called to the Torah X bat Y Ha-Cohen.
• The daughter of a yisrael who marries a cohen shall continue to be only eligible for shlishi and subsequent aliyot.
• The same rules shall apply to the daughter of a levi. With the exception that the daughter of a levi who marries a cohen does not become eligible for the first aliyah; rather she should continue to receive second aliyah, maftir and hosafot.

 

Rabbi Jeremy Gordon

St Albans Masorti Synagogue

July 2006

 

 

---

[1] http://rabbinicalassembly.org/teshuvot/docs/19861990/roth_daughtersaliyot.pdf

[2] http://www.responsafortoday.com/vol3/vol3.htm

[3] The other attempts are based on Deut 31:9, 21:5 and I Chron 23:13, but they need not delay us at this time.

[4] This explains why the child of a female cohen and a yisrael is considered a yisrael

[5] See Zevahim 101b, Sifra Deut piska 208, Megillah 24b and Sifra to Lev 21:1 & 6 respectively.

[6] Responsa Mi ma-amikim 2:7, p.41. My emphasis.

[7] See Bekhorot 47a tosafot DHM Mar, MT Bikkurim 11:10, SA YD 301.18. My emphasis.

[8] See also Emor 6:2, 97d, which explains the reason being that the daughter of a Priest is not to be considered a ‘stranger’ to terumah even after her marriage to a stranger.

[9] Hulin 131b; see also Rashi.

[10] I am grateful to Rabbi Charles Kraus for providing me with this source.

[11] This would also apply in the case of daughter of a cohen who married a levi. She would be able to receive the second aliyah even though the daughter of a yisrael who marries a levi remains a yisrael. Cohanim should correctly be seen as a subset of leviim, not a different grouping. Therefore such a woman leaves the particular (the cehunah) and enters the general category of her husband (in this case the family of levi) in the same way that the daughter of a cohen who marries a yisrael leaves the particular (the cehunah) and enters the general category of her husband (the family of yisrael).

Asylum Drop-In - A Pesach Call

Dear Friends,

 

Our sister synagogue, the New North London has, for the last 9 years, been carrying out heroic work at a drop-in centre for destitute asylum seekers, providing them once a month with hot food and clothing along with supermarket and travel vouchers. The service has been so successful that they are full to capacity and have now reached out to our own community to see if we might be able to provide a similar service for 80 clients who they can sadly no longer accommodate.

To do this we need VOLUNTEERS to commit to regularly preparing for the monthly event. This requires sorting through donations of clothing, cooking simple filling foods and collecting the vouchers for the clients. And we need other volunteers to come down on the day (to a venue in North London) to serve the food, distribute the vouchers and just chat with the visitors in a friendly environment over a cup of tea.

 

Amongst these volunteers we need a couple people to step up as COORDINATORS, taking a leadership role in overseeing this core group.

 

Lastly, this initiative is not expensive but it will take some funding. There are few overheads, but each client will be provided with £5 travel and £10 supermarket vouchers. We’re also looking for DONORS. We welcome pledges large and small. £15 per month will provide one voucher for one person.

 

This is a terrific time to be reaching out to the community – with Pesach’s messages of freedom and hospitality so timely. It would be so fitting to be able to provide a welcome to new strangers, the largest numbers of whom come from Eritrea, Iran, Pakistan and Syria.

 

If you have questions, please let me know.

If you would like to volunteer, might be interested in being a donor or even a coordinator, please let me know so we can forge ahead with this project.

 

Happy Passover

 

Yours,

 

Rabbi Jeremy