The Rav was Wrong, Just Say it Already

Finally, the first volley in an anti-Rav, but Modern Orthodox attack has been launched. Rabbi Michael Broyde, writing at Hirhurim, has declared a certain mainstream story about Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik to be “perplexing” and “Halakhically problematic”.

Of course, Rabbi Broyde is entirely correct; its just a damn shame that he failed to go further. We must be honest with ourselves: the story he quotes regarding the Rav needs to be immediately excised from the Modern Orthodox canon. The story, i.e. the “famous woman wants to wear a talit” story, runs as follows:

During the mid-1970′s, one of R. Kelemer’s woman congregants at the Young Israel of Brookline was interested in wearing a talit and tsitsit during the prayer services. After R. Kelemer had expressed to her his hesitations about the matter, she approached R. Soloveitchik — who lived in Brookline — on the matter. The Rav explained that in light of the novelty of the action, it needed to be adopted gradually. Accordingly, he suggested that she first try wearing a talit without tsitsit (which is, of course, allowed for women.) The Rav asked the woman to return to him after three months, at which time they would discuss the matter further. When the two met once again, she described to R. Soloveitchik the magnificent nature of her religious experience in wearing the talit. The Rav pointed out to the woman that wearing a talit without tsitsit lacked any halakhically authentic element of mitsvah. It was obvious, therefore, that what generated her sense of “religious high” was not an enhanced kiyyum hamitsvah, but something else. Under such circumstances, the Rav maintained, wearing a talit was an inappropriate use of the mitsvah. Consequently, the Rav forbade the woman from wearing a talit with tsitsit.

The story is problematic on several levels. As Rabbi Broyde points out, when a woman wears a four cornered garment sans tzitzit she violates a mitzvah aseh actively misses out on a mitzvah aseh kiyumi, and for the Rav to counsel that of her is certainly suspect rabbinic practice. Furthermore, this tale begs the obvious question of whether the Rav would have radically revised his ruling had the woman responded differently. In Rabbi Broyde's words: “If the women had responded to the Rav’s request that . . . “every day her heart had been broken by the knowledge that she was not fulfilling a positive commandment of the Torah” would the Rav have agreed to let her wear a tallit? In public?” And either way, surely this one woman's subjective experience is no ground for extrapolating to other women who aspire to wear tzitzit, unless you conceive of “women congregants” not as individuals but as a generic class of feel-good idiots.

But we can add a few more. For one, the Rav's tactic was nothing less than insulting and disingenuous. Why put an honest Jew, in search of spiritual fulfillment, through this bizarre and condescending experiment? Was she beneath an honest statement of the Rav's concerns, or did the he simply take pleasure in seeing her fail his cruel little test? In addition, why in God's name is “an enhanced kiyum hamitzvah” the only legitimate source for feeling close to God? Its almost as if the Rav thinks it utterly vile for someone to feel attached to the Divine through, say, a brush with the glory of nature or, say, the wonder of one's grandchildren lighting hannukah candles. (But wait, your grandchildren are not yet b'nai mitzvah, you foolish woman!) The irony of course, is that the woman was following a direct psak halakha, such that her actions were indeed the very fulfillment of her halakhic obligation in this context.

In sum, the story attests to the very worst Rabbinic stereotypes: joyous condescension to others' lack of Jewish knowledge, willful disregard to women's sincere spiritual needs, and a general preference for legalism over humanism.

So let it be known: thoughtful, intelligent, Modern Orthodox individuals have one of two options – claim that this story never really happened, or admit that it was one of the Rav's major missteps. However great and noble the Rav (and, I think he was both) this was an exception and must be regarded as such. Label the story apocryphal, or assign it to the Rav Apocrypha. But never cite it approvingly again.