Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

It is significant that this week’s Torah portions, Achrei-Mot and Kedoshim, both touch on the insidious problem of child abuse and pedophilia. Arguably, the sin against children must be universally decried as the worst sin of our age. The fact that the Torah delineates this section is indicative it has always been a problem in human society.

I came across an interesting article at the failedmessiah website today that was written by one of the most creative Orthodox rabbinic scholars today, Professor Marc B. Shapiro. I thought it would be intriguing to focus a little bit on this question, primarily because the problem continues to grow within the Haredi community.

He writes:

“…There is another theory as to why the sectarian hasidic world in particular has had so many cases of covering up and defending child sex abusers. It is that they simply do not regard these people as so terrible. The evidence for this appears obvious, in that in case of after case we see that they continue to allow sex abusers to teach and refuse to turn them over to the authorities and warn the parent body. Had they caught the rebbe eating at McDonald’s, you can be sure he would have been fired, but not so when it comes to fooling around with kids. The question is why do they have this outlook, and how come they don’t regard child sex abusers as so terrible? Here is a possible answer (which a wise person suggested). Look at where these societies get their information about human nature, the information that they regard as authentic and true. It does not come from modern psychology, but from Torah sources and folk beliefs. If you look only at traditional rabbinic literature, you won’t conclude that child sex abuse is as terrible as modern society views it. Yes, it is a sin and the person who commits it must repent as he must do with all sins, but there is nothing in the traditional literature that speaks to the great trauma suffered by the victim. How do we know about this trauma? Only from modern psychology and the testimony of the victims. Yet this type of evidence does not have much significance in the insular hasidic world (unless it is your own child who has been abused). Certainly modern psychology, which is often attacked by figures in that community, is not given much credence, especially not when they are confronted with an issur (prohibition) of mesirah (informing upon Jews to the secular authorities). This theory makes a lot of sense to me and I am curious to hear what others have to say.”

Is the professor correct?

It is written in the Mishnah: “A girl of three years and one day is betrothed (as a woman is acquired) by intercourse…if one of those forbidden to have relations with her according to the Torah does have relations with her, he is killed because of her, and she is exempt. If she is younger than that, (less than three years and a day), it is as one who sticks a finger in the eye” [1]

Maimonides similarly rules:

“When an adult male enters into relations with any of the women forbidden in connection with the above transgressions who is three years and one day old or more, he is liable for execution, koreth (“excision,” i.e.,  premature death or spiritual death in the hereafter) or lashes and she is not liable unless she is past majority. If she is younger than this, both participants are not liable, for the act is not considered as sexual relations.” Continue Reading

Two Legendary Antecedents

Solomon’s wisdom is well-known. In 1 Kings 3:16-28, two new mothers approach Solomon, bringing with them one dead baby, and one live one. Each mother presents the same story and accusation: She and the other woman live together and have both recently given birth to two baby boys. One night, soon after the birth of their respective infants, the other woman woke to find that she had smothered her own baby in her sleep. In anguish and jealousy, she took her dead son and exchanged it with the other mother’s child. The following morning, the woman discovered the dead baby, and soon realized that it was not her own son, but was the other woman’s instead.

After some deliberation, King Solomon calls for a sword to be brought before him. He declares that there is only one fair solution: the live son must be split in two, each woman receiving half of the child. Upon hearing this terrible verdict, the boy’s true mother cries out, “Please, My Lord, give her the live child—do not kill him!” However, the envious mother exclaims, “It shall be neither mine nor yours—divide it!” The identity of the real mother was obvious. Solomon instantly gives the live baby to the real mother, realizing that the true mother’s instincts were to protect her child, while the liar revealed that she did not truly love the child.[1]

Early rabbinic folklore records that  once there was a two-headed man lived in the time of King Solomon who fathered six normal children. He sired a seventh child who had two heads just like himself. After the father died, the son with two heads came before King Solomon demanding a double share of the inheritance. King Solomon covered one head and poured hot water on the other. and both mouths cried out: “We are dying, we are dying! We are but one, not two.” Solomon decided that the double-headed son was after all only a single being. From this experience, King Solomon proved that two heads are not necessarily better than one with respect to receiving a double inheritance! [2] Continue Reading

As people get ready for Passover, everyone runs around trying to find suitable foods for the holiday. Over the last several years, I have returned to an old Sephardi custom of my family that goes back literally hundreds of years–I now eat rice and beans during the holiday!

For the greater part of early rabbinic history, rice and legumes used to be considered staple foods for Passover, but when did the change occur? More importantly, why did so many Ashkenazi communities give up on eating rice and legumes? Granted, this may not be the most interesting topic. True, many people could care less about the pedantic discussions regarding the Passover status of rice and legumes.

Nevertheless, the history of this old rabbinic controversy reveals something interesting about the psychology of the forbidding mind that continues to shape the attitudes of many observant Jews who are unaware of this custom’s history and controversy. From a psychoanalytical perspective, the human compulsion to forbid the permitted is what really fascinates me. Understanding the evolution of a community’s mindset can be as exciting as reading a good Sherlock Holmes mystery.

The Talmud mentions how Rav Pappi once gave permission to the Resh Galuta’s bakers to thicken a pot with flour made from hasissi (“oven-dried grain”—Rashi). Tosfot  considers Rashi’s insight to be a no-brainer and suggests that hasissi refers to lentil flour; ordinarily, this kind of flour does not become chametz—leavened. [1]. But even this interpretation is unclear. Why was lentil flour forbidden? Tosfot does not really offer a logical explanation. Could the appearance of anything that rises–even if it derives from vegetable flour be the reason for the custom to avoid  eating legumes during Passover?

One of the subsequent Tosfot scholars named Rabbi Yitschak of Corbeil (13th century) offers an explanation in his SeMaK (Sefer Mitzvot Katan). He claims that the prohibition was by no means a “new custom,” but had already existed for many generations. The rabbis of early medieval times feared that the grains of rice or legumes might get commingled with wheat, millet, barley, rye, and spelt. “Supposedly,” argued R. Yitzchak, “people used to place their grains in any sack container that was available for storage.” Perhaps the lentil flower became commingled with a bit of wheat flour. A person might easily think he was eating lentil bread, not realizing that some of the forbidden grains might also be a part of the bread. [2]

R. Yosef Caro (author of the Code of Jewish Law) writes in his Beit Yosef commentary to the Tur, that some scholars felt that the average person might not be able to distinguish between the unripened kernels of grain and legumes since they resemble one another.[3] In practice, R. Yosef Caro (in his Beit Yosef) disregards this fear, whereas the Ashkenazi Jews follow the more stringent view and abstain from eating rice and legumes during Passover. Once canonized as “tradition,” people tend to think this is the way it has always been, but it ain’t so! Early Ashkenazi rabbis objected to this stringency for many reasons.

Some rabbinic scholars considered the special Passover proscription as a “mistaken custom,” while R. Yerucham brusquely called  it a “foolish  custom.”  One might wonder, “Why perpetuate a custom that is logically absurd?” Evidently, the champions of common sense ran into a proverbial brick wall. We may derive solace knowing that not all the medieval Ashkenazi rabbis blindly followed this custom. The real reason why beans became forbidden was because beans were the standard food of mourners, and mourning is forbidden during the holidays! The medieval rabbis had forgotten this simple truth, hence the confusion.

There are other reasons why rice and legumes ought to be used for Passover:

• There are not a lot of Passover foods to choose from.

• Rabbinic certification traditionally charges exorbitant prices for their “kosher” supervision. Once again, the public gets taken advantage by the shepherds who are supposed to be concerned with their welfare (cf. Eze. 34ff).

• Halachic stringency sometimes creates a “Holier-than-Thou” type of mentality that trivializes the holiday’s spiritual importance.
• Food affects mood. Eating rice and legumes are healthier for a more balanced diet, and are also arguably preferable to the heavy animal proteins people imbibe during the holiday. A healthier diet makes one feel lighter and less weighed down–perfect metaphors for the spiritual lightness we ought to feel during this special time of the year. Complex carbohydrates are good for mind and energizing for the body!

Continue Reading

In Israel, I heard they are filming a new movie entitled, “Grumpy Old Rabbis.”

Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv sure looks like he could use a Kosher McDonald’s Happy Meal today. The HaAretz newspaper had a very interesting article how this centenarian continues to exert a powerful influence on the inner world of the Haredi community. His discordant halachic positions continue to send both the Israeli and Diaspora Jewish community reeling. Jews by Choice are among his favorite targets.

Most elderly Haredi scholars are known for their Responsa decisions pertaining to Jewish law. This elderly rabbi has never written a halachic work, and yet when he speaks, many of the leading Israeli Haredi rabbis are afraid to disagree with him. Is it because of his scholarship? Or is it because of his unique ability to commandeer Haredi politics? I suspect more the latter.

Remember one eternal halachic truth: A man may know the entire Talmud, Codes and commentaries and still be a boorish individual.

Readers may recall how Rabbi Elyashiv recently (about six months ago) banned the use of Shabbat elevators, which are essential for many high-rise senior centers and hotels that cater to an Orthodox elderly clientele. This rabbi did not seem to care what kind of hardship his legal decision would cause frail elderly people who can barely walk down the corridor  in the event a Shabbat elevator became “forbidden.” Fortunately, the people asserted their voice and Rabbi Elyashiv backed down on this issue.

HaAretz reported, “We saw proof of that two weeks ago, when two words from him, ‘Don’t compromise,’ caused his two representatives in the Knesset to attack the conversion bill initiated by MK David Rotem (Yisrael Beiteinu), which was designed to make the process of conversion in Israel much easier . . .” The ghost of Shammai must be gloating over Hillel, who always sought to welcome perspective converts. Shammai is reborn in the persona of Rabbi Elyashiv.

Unfortunately, like Rabbi Eliezer Shach (whose sour disposition lasted till he was 103 years old), Rabbi Elyashiv sees the Haredi community at war with the rest of the secular and Jewish world. For him, there is no such thing as “compromise.” Unlike the great Haredi rabbis of the past generations, e.g., R. Moshe Feinstein, Rabbi Eliezer Yehuda Waldenberg, and Rabbi Shlomo Auerbach, Rabbi Elyashiv tends to focus on the issues that politically divide Jews; he is not someone who strives for harmonization. Under his influence, we are witnessing what has been dubbed as the “Haredi Intifada,” where rioting has been a weekly activity for young Haredi kids that prefer rioting to football on Shabbat. Rabbi Elyashiv has yet to publicly condemn such unlawful behavior.

When we consider the daily scandals coming out in the news from Israel regarding its Haredi members’ behavior, we are reminded of the words of the great Greek cynic, Diogenes, who was  famous for walking through the streets of Athens in broad daylight waving a lantern and announcing that he was looking for a “honest man”  (It’s a little bit like trying to find an honest politician in Washington). According to another legend, Diogenes lit a lamp in broad daylight and said, as he went about, “I am looking for a man.” It is a pity we do not have a rabbinic Diogenes wandering the streets of Mea She’arim and B’nai Brak with a lantern in broad daylight, exclaiming the same ethical proclamation,“I am looking for a mentsch …” We need moral and articulate teachers today more than we need Talmud scholars who lack the ability to correct a wayward generation with a soothing but compelling ethical voice.

Continue Reading

At one of my classes, some student asked a pretty interesting question: In Orthodox Judaism, can a woman perform brit milah (ritual circumcision)?

A Talmudic Discussion

There is a controversy in the Talmud  regarding this very issue between Daru bar Papa who cites in the name of Rav, and Rabbi Yochanan, who differs with Rav. Here is the substance of the argument. Daru b. Papa held that only someone who is obligated to observe the precept of circumcision can act as mohel (the one who performs the circumcision) for others, whereas R. Yochanan felt that a woman can act as a mohelet as indicated in the story of Tziporah (see Exod. 4:24‑26 for details). [1]

In practical terms, R. Yosef Caro, the Halacha follows R. Yochanan and a woman may act as mohelet [2] but Maimonides adds one stipulation: this only applies in the event that a male Mohel is not available, however, she is certainly permitted to do so as a religious duty.[3] However, Rema cites authorities who differ on this matter, and discourages a woman from doing acting in this capacity. In fact, the same passage in the halacha states there is no legal obligation on the part of the mother to even circumcise her child, for the duty falls upon the father.

To the best of my knowledge, there is not a single Haredi or Hasidic scholar living today who would literally endorse such a scandalous halachic position. Were such an opinion like this considered halachically normative, many young Jewish men would choose never to get circumcised.

By the way, some rabbinic commentaries assert that Tziporah merely started the act of circumcision on her son, but it was really Moses who completed it.

Adding a Psychological Perspective

From a psychological perspective, the reluctance to utilize a female mohelet may have something to do with Freud’s theory of the “castration complex.” Freud theorized that castration anxiety is based on a deep‑seated fear or anxiety in boys and men said to originate during the genital stage of sexual development; Freud asserts that a boy, when seeing a girl’s genitalia, falsely presumes that the girl had her penis removed probably as punishment for some misbehavior. The young boy then becomes anxious lest the same happen to him.[4]

It is worth noting that in some cultures, notably 19th century Europe, it was not unheard of for parents to threaten their children with castration, or to otherwise threaten their genitals, a phenomenon Freud documents several times.

Freud’s Castration Complex in Patriarchal Religious Societies

Freud’s controversial theory may also help clarify why some Halachic authorities are reluctant to go along with a female mohelet. Freud’s controversial theory may even help explain why male dominated societies like the Muslim and Haredi fundamentalists fear women’s liberation.

The fear that the patriarchal conceptions of masculinity being broken, may explain in part why there exists such an animus directed toward women in these closed societies. Basically, male dominated cultures are fearful of appearing “impotent,” and will do almost anything to promote the image of strength and virility–the trademark of mullahs and Haredi Gedolim (“Giants” ) alike (obviously, another example of Freudian wish-fulfillment, or the Nietzschean “will to power”).

The unraveling of the patriarchal order frightens men, perhaps on a very primordial level. Some scholars suggest that the ascendancy of the patriarchal religions of antiquity was because of their unconscious fear of the goddess religions. Whether this theory is correct or not, remains to be seen. However, it does fit a Freudian castration theory quite well. Continue Reading

Let me apologize if the following material seems obtusely worded. Some rabbis have a serious problem expressing coherent thoughts that appeal to common sense. Clearly, some of our ancestors were lacking in this department. The Talmudic style of reasoning called, “pilpul” (“peppered” didactic reasoning) can appeal to the inner sophist we all have. At times, I like to refer to this style of argumentation as, “rabbinicspeak,” and to understand or argue with it, you have to almost think like a mental contortionist.

Continuing with our last thought, how could Deborah in the Bible (Judg. 4:4) serve as a judge, according to the Talmudic and medieval rabbis?  The 13th century of scholars known as the Tosfot, try to make sense of the problem posed. To their credit, Tosfot offers at least adds fluidity to much of its interpretation; they are a lot like the girl with the curl, when they are good . .  . you know the rest of the story. The same may be said of the Tosfot interpretations.

Ba’ale Tosfot discuss the problem from a variety of perspectives:

A. One answer proposed suggests that that Deborah was a judge because her community accepted her. Tosfot also admits that a woman is considered to be an equal in every matter of jurisprudence, except when it comes to serving as a witness. [1]

B. The Jerusalem Talmud rules that a woman is not allowed to act as a judge [2]; the case of Deborah is the exception–and certainly not the norm. Deborah was chosen by virtue of the Shekhinah resting upon her.[3]

C. Alternatively, one may accept a woman to serve as a judge, just like two litigants may accept a relative to serve as a judge–provided each party agrees. [4]

D. Some scholars say that Deborah could only “teach,” but she could not render legal decisions–only men could do that.[5] Continue Reading

This past week, the Jewish Star updated its article about the maverick Modern Orthodox named Rabbi Avi Weiss, who recently backed down from a confrontation with the RCA (Rabbinical Council of America) over his decision to offer ordination to a Sara Hurwitz, as an Orthodox rabbi.

Frankly, I am not surprised at all by the series of events that ensued. Surprisingly, Agudath Israel spokesman Rabbi Avi Shafran admitted that the issue whether women may become rabbis or not is not a matter of “Torah law,” or not; in his opinion, it is morally wrong. Shafran remarked, “[If] Weiss had the backing of a world-class posek (halachic decisor) he would have a claim that he’s not departing [from the mesorah], but he does not have any such backings on the recognized Orthodox spectrum, chareidi or central. He’s changing the face of mesorah without anyone of stature behind him.”

I am curious: Where does the Torah speak about rabbis in the first place, since “rabbis” did not exist in biblical times?

But wait, it gets more interesting than just that.

Rabbi Shafran further argues that the ordination of a woman ran counter to the concept of tzniut, (modesty). It includes the idea that women are demeaned, not honoured, when they are placed in the public eye,” said Rabbi Shafran, “and that a position like the one suggested here is violative of that concept.”

Rabbi Steven Pruzansky of Teaneck, NJ, expresses a similar position in his blog: “There are two greater objections: the utter disregard of norms of tzniut, with which ModOs generally struggle, and the corruption of the methodology of psak that transmits the Mesora and Jewish cultural norms and societal values. The only way to consider in this context the compelling Jewish value of “the glory of the King’s daughter is within” (kal kevuda bat melech penima- Tehillim 45:14) is essentially to discount it and say it has no relevance in the modern Western world. Thus, this ideal of Jewish femininity – the disinclination to seek a public spiritual role, cited by Chazal hundreds of times – is simply written out of the Torah system. And why ? …” Continue Reading

One of my favorite concepts in logic is the reductio ad absurdum (Latin: “reduction to the absurd”)  argument, which is a logical method of argument that proves the falsity of a premise  by following its implications to a logical but absurd conclusion.

“Fortifying the Walls of Conversion” ?

Today, at a conference dedicated to “fortifying walls of conversion,”  the Israeli Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger expressed moral support for Rabbi Sherman, who annulled thousands of conversions carried out by Rabbi Chaim Druckman, who has been the past acting  director of the National Conversion Authority in Israel.

In the past couple of years or more, Haredi politicians in Israel have on a number of occasions tried to oust the rabbi, most notably under the corrupt leadership of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert , but Rav Druckman refused to go and there was nothing his critics could do to force him to leave. Even after his departure from the directorship, Haredi politicians and rabbis are still trying to overturn all of his conversions, which may affect the status of about 15,000 converts in Israel.

Explaining Why Revoking Conversions is Wrongheaded

The concept of revoking a conversion is a recent innovation in rabbinic law. As we have posted in other places, the Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) does not sanction revocation of conversions at all. Should a convert return to his former gentile roots, the halacha still considers him as a “sinful Israelite.” [1]

Sometimes even the most obvious biblical passages can be perplexing. One interesting verse is a case in point:

“Therefore, do not say, ‘What shall we eat in the seventh year, if we do not then sow or reap our crop?’ I will bestow such blessings on you in the sixth year that there will then be crop enough for three years. When you sow in the eighth year, you will continue to eat from the old crop; and even into the ninth year, when the crop comes in, you will still have the old to eat from” (Lev. 25:20-22).

It is difficult to determine how seriously the ancient Jews observed the שמיטה‎  “Sabbatical Year” (literally “release”). The fact that people attempted to keep it at all, given the hard economic realities, is  remarkable.  The inhabitants of Jerusalem in the 5th cent. B.C.E. swore to let the ground remain fallow during the seventh year (Neh. 10:31). During the Maccabean revolution, the Syrian army led by general Lysias, took over the fortress of Beth-zur because food was in short supply during the sabbatical year when the attack was made. Its people “evacuated the city, because they had no provisions there to withstand a siege, since it was a sabbatical year for the land” (1 Maccabees 6:49, cf. vv. 53-54).

Josephus records that both Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar remitted Israel’s taxes during the Sabbatical years.^[1] Tactius also attests to the Jewish observance of the Sabbatical year but attributed the custom to “indolence.”^[2]

Given the animosity between Judea and Rome, the Romans demanded that the Jewish remnant of Judea continue paying the crop tax. No exceptions were made whatsoever for the struggling Jewish population of the land.

In the aftermath of the failed Bar Kochba revolution, the rabbis modified the law regarding the Sabbatical year during the Roman period to allow for food to be grown in order so that the people should survive, and be able to pay its taxes to a hostile Roman government.

What makes this an intriguing passage is the fact that the Sabbatical year continued to be observed even in a post-exilic era and most Halachic authorities ruled that the Sabbatical year was still a rabbinic obligation.  The only reason the Sages exempted the farmers was because the imminent danger they faced should they have disobeyed. Other authorities insisted that it was biblically required, while others still maintained it was a nothing more than a pious custom.^[3] Continue Reading

I have often felt that misogyny has been one of the oldest sins since Adam and Eve.  The woman’s liberation movement has some remarkable antecedents in American history. It is remarkable how much the 20th century fight for gender rights have completely overturned thousands of years of  male hegemony.  It is no wonder why traditional religious societies across the globe fear it–change is necessary as it is inevitable.

Seducing By Scents

I came across an interesting article from House and Garden Magazine that illustrates just how much we have changed as a society over the last 300 years. It reads, “Legislation proposed in England in the 1700s: All women of whatever age, rank, profession, or degree, whether virgin, maid or widow, that shall impose upon, seduce and betray into matrimony any of His Majesty’s subjects, by scents, paints, cosmetic washes, artificial teeth, false hair, Spanish wool, iron stays, hoops, high‑heeled shoes or bolstered hips shall incur the penalty of the law now in force against witchcraft and the like misdemeanors and that marriage, upon conviction, shall stand null and void.” —- Act of Parliament, 1670

Incidentally, one of our readers (see comments) points out that this story was originally a joke that appeared in the magazine. That is an interesting thought, but who really knows for sure?

The Humble Beginnings of Women’s Liberation

Now move the clock ahead about 100 years later . . . Abagail Adams penned one of the most famous letters of her era, demanding that the new Declaration of Independence respect the rights of its female citizens, which she unabashedly says:

“I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws, which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power in the hands of the husbands. Remember all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation. That your sex are naturally tyrannical is a truth so thoroughly established as to admit of no dispute; but such of you as wish to be happy, willingly give tip the harsh title of master for the more tender and endearing one of friend. Why, then, not put it out of the power of the vicious and the lawless to use us with cruelty and indignity with impunity?” [1]

—-Abigail (Smith) Adams (1744-1818), Letter to John Adams, [March 31, 1776]

John Adam’s Fear of “Petticoat Despotism”

Her husband John Adams replied:

I cannot but laugh…We have been told that our struggle has loosened the bands of government everywhere; that children and apprentices were disobedient; that schools and colleges were grown turbulent; that Indians slighted their guardians and Negroes grew insolent to their masters. But your letter was the first intimation that another tribe more numerous and powerful than all the rest were grown discontented. This is rather too coarse a compliment, but you are so saucy, I won’t blot it out. Depend on it, we know better than to repeal our masculine systems. Although they are in full force, you know they are little more than theory. We dare not exert our power in its full latitude. We are obliged to go fair and softly, and in practice you know we are the subjects. We have only the name of masters, and rather than give up this, which would completely subject us to the despotism of the petticoat, I hope General Washington and all our brave heroes would fight. [2]

Back to the Future: The early 2oth Century  Debate Concerning Women’s Suffrage

It is remarkable that the world has changed so much over the last 250 years. Some of you might be surprised to know that back in the 1915 many Orthodox rabbis opposed the right for women to vote. Woman’s suffrage proved to be a very divisive issue among American Orthodox Jews. Some rabbis felt that a women’s place is in the home. The rabbis feared that society will become corrupt should women invade the institutions of political power.

Chief Sephardic Rabbi Ben Tzion Uziel pointed out that there was nothing in the Torah to forbid women voting.  However, other rabbis argued, it’s against tradition—a woman’s place is in her home. Let the men worry about the politics!

Rabbi Uziel replied that in the olden days, men used to live in tents, in the desert, should we all go back to living in the wilderness just like our ancestors did? Ah, but the rabbis replied. If we give women equal rights to vote, they will want more freedom tomorrow, and who knows where that will lead to?

And That was Only the Beginning . . .

In a way, those early 20^th century Orthodox rabbis were right.

An interesting debate has been developing in the Orthodox Jewish community. And that is the issue of Women’s “Prayer Groups.” Some have taken offense to women having “Minyanim” because only men can have Minyans.

Outraged by the growth of Ortho-feminism, a Queens-Long Island council of Modern Orthodox rabbis, the event symbolized a larger, possibly dangerous trend – the growing acceptance of women’s prayer groups.

Its action this month to ban groups such as the one in Hillcrest that hosted the bat mitzvah has shocked hundreds of observant women worldwide and a number of Orthodox leaders, elicited at least two letters urging reconsideration, and caused one leader of the rabbinical council to resign. Continue Reading