What positive ideas did the Hellenists have which should not be included as an aid for Torah?

Linked below, is an interesting article on Hellenism in the Jeiwsh Press (“Are You A Hellenist” , 12/5/07) by R. Gil student.

I suppose the question is inyana d’yoma for the upcoming holiday of Chanukah, but more inyona d’yoma for the topics in this post, and similar one’s in our times.

Kol tuv.

WRT the first two, there are other reasons why putting women in these roles is a good idea. Yo’atzot make it easier for women to ask questions they wouldn’t otherwise have asked. The doubt “should I ask, shouldn’t I?” doesn’t have to factor in as much embarassment because of the nature of the question.

And a to’enet allows many women to get justice in beis din where they would otherwise simply be nervous, timid, or otherwise not speak up for themselves in a room full of knowledgable men.

But what is the need for a Maharat? To define the need one has to presume the post-feminism world we live in, with concepts of gender politics and balancing power, the notion that being in front of a shul is important because it’s flashy and contains overt authority. Then, once given that worldview, of course the woman seeking spiritual satisfaction would want to pursue a rabbinic role (regardless of the actual word used). But is that actually a worldview we should embrace and accommodate? Or is it one we should combat and educate our girls to avoid? Where is the cheshbon hanefesh asking these questions before the step of ordaining a Maharat was taken?

Which brings me to the basic problem I have with Open Orthodoxy. It makes the assumption that if I can fit something to halakhah, perhaps with the invocation of some valid (but rarely used) qulos, and I want to do it, there is nothing unorthodox about doing so.

I hope to be around in 50 years to pass judgment on where Open Orthodoxy went. Their current attitude to halakhah is much like the Conservative movement’s circa 1940. How do I make the system accommodate my desired conclusion? And while they don’t house true kefirah, as JTS did at that time, there is a strong tendency in the left to downplay the role of the limits of belief. Whether its Marc Shapiro’s book on the subject, Prof Kugel speaking at YU, etc… (Another weak notion of aggadita, in addition to not asking “would the mesorah consider this a good idea?”)

I’m not saying Open Orthodoxy is Conservative Judaism of 60 years ago. Rather, I see them as walking the same path and pray they do not make the same mistakes.

-micha

Nevertheless, I disagree with some of your analysis of the women’s issues here. While you are happy to point out that the trend in societal values has had an impact on views and attitudes in the Modern Orthodox world, you fail to entertain the possibility that the more traditional attitudes that prevailed fifty years ago could also have been influenced by trends and conventional wisdom adopted from the surrounding culture which was, at that time, much more conservative.

Of course, I am playing devil’s advocate here to a certain extent, but it is equally reasonable to argue that, despite the availability of plenty of halakhic material allowing women to, for example, answer questions on issues of Jewish Law, influence exerted upon Jewish communities by the more Victorian morality of secular (or Christian) society in the past prevented them from giving these sources a fair hearing at the time. Now that society’s stance has changed, we are capable of a more objective evaluation of this material.

How can you invoke cultural trends to support your argument but discount them when they diminish the force of your position?

Best,

Josh Maroof

A Teaneck resident writes: “How simplistic — and wrong. But nothwithstanding such attitudes, many women in R. Pruzansky’s shul ask the yoetzet in Teaneck niddah-related shailot rather than him, and the same is true in many other Teaneck shuls whose rabbis have not supported — and some have even actively opposed — the yoetzet. Teaneck is lucky to have one rabbi wise enough, and brave enough, to be a true leader on this and other issues — and it’s not R. Pruzansky.”

RSP – Just curious: if one point of the yoetzet is to ensure the modesty of the questioning woman in this most sensitive area of life (certainly an understandable sentiment, even if I disagree – there are other ways to assure modesty), then how does he know which women from which shuls are asking questions ? Just wondering.
And he just says the “straight line” is “simplistic and wrong,” without explaining why it is wrong. (It is simplistic, in the sense of being obvious.)
And, if anything, the “brave” approach in today’s climate (in which liberals tolerate everyone who agrees with them) is to stand for tradition against the progressive onslaught.
But, in fact, to be real for a moment, I don’t consider myself “brave,” nor my colleague – let’s limit bravery to people who risk life and limb for the freedom of others, the safety of Israel, etc. – the mere expression of opinion is not “brave” by any reasonable definition of the word.