Rabbi Pinchos Lipschutz: April 2011

Remembering Yetzias Mitzrayim

By Rabbi Pinchos Lipschutz

The Mishnah in the first perek of Maseches Brachos quotes the following statement of Rabi Elazar ben Azaryah: “Harei ani keven shivim shanah velo zochisi shetei’omeir Yetzias Mitzrayim baleilos ad shedrasha Ben Zoma, shene’emar lemaan tizkor es yom tzeischa mei’Eretz Mitzrayim kol yemei chayecha, yemei chayecha hayomim, kol yemei chayecha haleilos - I am like a seventy-year-old man, but I did not merit that Yetzias Mitzrayim should be mentioned at night, until Ben Zoma expounded it, as it says, ‘In order that you remember the day you left Mitzrayim all the days of your life.’ ‘The days of your life’ would have only indicated the days. [The extra word] ‘kol,’ all, includes the nights as well.”

There are several problematic issues with this statement, which we recite at the Seder. Firstly, of what consequence is it to know that the Tanna felt as though he is seventy years old? Secondly, the posuk from which Ben Zoma derived his lesson discusses the obligation of remembering Yetzias Mitzrayim. Rabi Elazar ben Azaryah was searching for an obligation to mention Yetzias Mitzrayim. How does Ben Zoma’s drasha of kol for zechirah, remembering, demonstrate that there is a chiyuv of amirah, reciting? He still was not zoche to mention the story of the exodus from Mitzrayim.

The underpinning of the mitzvah of zechiras Yetzias Mitzrayim is to reinforce emunah in Hakadosh Boruch Hu. The Ramban writes at the end of Parshas Bo that the makkos occurred so that it would be shown that Hashem created the world and did not leave it to natural occurrences. Thus, the posuk states, “Lemann teida ki ani Hashem bekerev haaretz,” and, “Lemaan teida ki laShem haaretz.” Hashem created the world and rules over it.

Miracles such as these do not transpire on a regular basis, Hashem therefore commanded us to retell the tale of Yetzias Mitzrayim to our children and our children’s children, for all generations. Thus, there are many commandments which we perform as a zeicher, a remembrance, l’Yetzias Mitzrayim.

It is by recalling the great and more famous miracles which took place that man accepts that there are hidden miracles which take place in our everyday lives. The Ramban writes that this is the foundation of the entire Torah. One cannot claim to have a share in the Torah until he accepts that everything that transpires to us on a daily basis is miraculous. Nothing happens by itself, due to nature, or through the so-called “way of the world.”

Perhaps, allegorically, we can deduce an additional important lesson from the Mishnah of Rabi Elazar ben Azaryah. He stated that it is as if he is seventy years old, because, as the posuk states, “Yemei shenoseinu bahem shivim shanah,” the average age to which a person lives is seventy. He was saying that in his lifetime in which he had seen, experienced and learned much, he had not yet merited to see that people should look to Yetzias Mitzrayim as a source of chizuk in dealing with their trials and tribulations. This is why he used the conjugation of “shetei’omeir,” which is the grammatical nifal, meaning that it should be said, as opposed to stating that there is an obligation for people to say it.

“Velo zochisi shetei’omeir Yetzias Mitzrayim baleilos.” Allegorically, Laylah doesn’t only mean night. It refers to a dark period in a person’s life. Every Shabbos we say in davening “ve’emunascha baleilos,” indicating the need to maintain belief in Hashem when all is dark and unclear.

Rabi Elazar ben Azaryah, in essence, was stating that he did not witness people who were experiencing difficulties turning to the recital of the story of Yetzias Mitzrayim for chizuk in their emunah and bitachon. He never heard people speak of how they looked back to Yetzias Mitzrayim to see how all that transpires is for the good and how Hashem ultimately saves the Jewish people from their dire straits and from the difficult situations they find themselves in.

People failed to realize the lessons evident in that tale of deliverance on their own, until Ben Zomah taught them to do so through his drasha of “kol yemei chayecha.” It was following his drasha that they took heed of his message that every day of their lives, and during the leilos of their lives, they can receive succor and support by repeating the story of Yetzias Mitzrayim.

With this in mind, perhaps we can offer a homiletical explanation of Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s response to Avrohom Avinu when he questioned how he is to be assured of Hashem’s promises to him that he would inherit the land of Canaan.

Avrohom asked, “Bamoh eidah ki irashenah” (Bereishis 15:8). The response was that his offspring would be enslaved in a strange land for 400 years. They would be set free with much wealth, and the nation which enslaved them would be punished. How does this fact that his children would be enslaved in a strange land answer his question of how he could be sure that, in fact, they would inherit the land?

Rashi explains that Avrohom didn’t doubt the word of Hashem. Rather, he was asking how he could be guaranteed that his offspring would merit the land, for perhaps their sins would cause them to be unworthy of inheriting Eretz Canaan.

Hashem therefore responded to him that from the tale of Yetzias Mitzrayim, Avrohom could derive the emunah and bitachon necessary to know that he can be comforted in the knowledge that Hashem’s promise to him would be kept. For just as the Jews would be delivered from their enslavement even though they had fallen to the 49^th degree of tumah, Jews for all time, from the period of Avrohom onward, could derive chizuk from that experience to enable them to withstand the nisyonos of life.

When Yaakov Avinu went down to Mitzrayim many years later, he brought with him the seedlings for the atzei shittim believing that they would be used to build the mishkon when his children would leave that foreign land. He was thereby realizing the lesson of emunah that had been passed from Avrohom to his children, that the Bnei Avrohom would be enslaved in a foreign land for many years and then leave “b’rechush gadol.”

“Shetei’omeir Yetzias Mitzrayim baleilos.” It is not sufficient to believe the miracles which transpired as we left Mitzrayim. There is a specific obligation to recount them and constantly repeat them.

Words are an integral part of the geulah. At the beginning of Parshas Shemos, when Hashem appeared to Moshe Rabbeinu and appointed him to lead the Bnei Yisroel out of Mitzrayim, Moshe responded that he isn’t the right person to lead the liberation. He said, “Lo ish devorim anochi - I am not a man of words.” To be a leader it is insufficient for one to be suffused with love of his people, be the paragon of virtue and the consummate believer; Moshe believed that the man who would lead the Jews out of bondage also had to be an “ish devorim.” In order to bring about the geulah, he had to be capable of expressing in spoken words the promise Hashem had made to him regarding the deliverance of the Bnei Yisroel from their servitude.

Thus, it is not sufficient to believe that Hashem is the Creator Who delivers us from bondage, from exile, and from personal travails. Rather, we must enunciate that belief verbally. Shetei’omeir. It must be said.

We must say that Hashem changed creation, maasei bereishis, to release us from slavery. We must say that the promise to Avrohom was fulfilled in its entirety. We must say that Yetzias Mitzrayim gave birth to a new people, an act which led to the presentation of the Torah to Am Yisroel on Har Sinai. We must say that although Hashem told Avrohom that his children would be enslaved for 400 years, due to His infinite kindness He started counting that period from the birth of Yitzchok (Rashi, Bereishis, 15:13).

It is interesting to note that Avrohom was foretold of the birth of his son Yitzchok on Pesach. Although it was preordained that his descendants would be required to dwell in a foreign land for 400 years, nevertheless, since Yitzchok was forced to go into exile, the gezeirah of golus is counted as beginning with his birth.

At the time, they may have questioned why the son of Avrohom, who had been promised the Holy Land, was forced to leave his home and move to Grar. It is only in hindsight that we appreciate that it was Divinely ordained that he be exiled so that the period of golus can be counted as commencing many years before the Jews actually went down to Egypt.

My dear friend, Rav Dovid Klugmann, brought to my attention a shmuess that Rav Simcha Zissel Brodie, rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Chevron, delivered, quoting from his predecessor, Rav Moshe Mordechai Epstein.

Imagine, he said, living at the time of the Spanish Inquisition. As the wicked Spaniards were brutally chasing the Jews from their country, the Jewish people were no doubt waiting to see Divine retribution exacted upon their former hosts. They were undoubtedly sure that the kingdom would dissolve in punishment for the way they treated the Am Hanivchar.

Instead, to their great amazement, not only was the kingdom not punished, but it was rewarded. In 1492, Christopher Columbus discovered America and opened up avenues of wealth and commerce for the very country which the Jews thought was deserving of being destroyed. No doubt, for generations after, they sat in puzzled wonderment, unable to comprehend why Hashem had rewarded the very people they thought would be decimated.

It was only centuries later that the questions were answered. America became a place of refuge for Jews and defeated the Third Reich, which sought our destruction. In fact, it was the Spaniards who themselves were laying the groundwork for the salvation of the Jews through their discovery and settlement of the American continent. It was all part of the Divine plan. Before fading off into oblivion, the very monarchy which so tortured the Jews established the land which would welcome and save them many years later.

Rav Brodie would repeat this idea and add that following the awful Holocaust that engulfed our people in the last century, claiming so many millions of lives and wiping out so many innocents, people will be prone to question the ways of Hashem.

In truth, Hashem is preparing the world for the ultimate redemption. Sometimes, within a few generations the Divine intention becomes apparent, while in other instances it can take centuries in order to comprehend the ways of Hashem. Yet other times we just have to wait until the coming of Moshiach in order to understand how all that transpired was part of a plan to bring the world to its ultimate purpose.

Perhaps that is the explanation for the shitah of the Chachomim who argue with Ben Zomah and say, “Yemei chayecha ha’olam hazeh, kol yemei chayecha lehovi limos haMoshiach.” The Chachomim say that the way for a Jew to derive chizuk in olam hazeh is by looking forward to the yemos haMoshiach. They maintain that not only can we become strengthened as we are tossed about in the storm of life by looking back at the miracles which took place during Yetzias Mitzrayim, but also by looking ahead to the period of Moshiach. If we recognize that the world is being prepared for the coming of Moshiach, then we can accept and understand the turbulence that surrounds us.

We have questions and many worries in our personal lives. The world appears to be at a breaking point. The news from Eretz Yisroel fills our hearts with worry that war will break out as bloodthirsty terrorists display an unquenchable appetite for Jewish blood. The economy teeters and no solution is apparent. Leadership is nonexistent. The good suffer, while the evil triumph. Why? When will it end? How can we hold out?

We must look back to Yetzias Mitzrayim and recount the miracles that took place there and the many acts of Divine mercy which enabled our deliverance. We must look through the pages of Jewish history and see the hidden Hand which guided and steered us through the ages. We must look forward to the period of Acharis Hayomim, recognizing that what we are living through is the chevlei Moshiach. If we do, we will be able to persevere and remain strong and determined until the time Moshiach ben Yosef arrives and declares, “Higi’ah zeman geulaschem.”

May we see it soon, in our day.

Chag kosher vesomei’ach.

Easy Does It

By Rabbi Pinchos Lipschutz

I heard an amazing story last week which I feel obligated to share with you. It is not Pesach-related per se, but its message resonates at times when people are tense such as during the pre-Yom Tov frenzy and other periods of the year.

There was a certain rosh yeshiva who did something which upset Rav Elazar Menachem Man Shach. For several days, Rav Shach was beside himself, wondering how such a great man could err the way Rav Shach perceived he had. Although he was ninety years old and weak, he decided that he had to go discuss the matter with the rosh yeshiva.

Rav Shach summoned a close talmid to accompany him on the trip to Yerushalayim. Rav Shach was very agitated and was looking forward to putting the matter to rest.

When Rav Shach and his talmid arrived at the home of the rosh yeshiva, the rebbetzin answered the door. She was so proud that Rav Shach came to visit them in their home that she ushered him into the dining room and sat down to bask in the glory of the moment. Rav Shach began his conversation with the rosh yeshiva with the usual small talk and then launched into an intense Torah discussion. As the rebbetzin and the talmid sat there observing, the two Torah giants reveled in a long, wide-ranging Talmudic discussion. Finally, with the hour getting late, Rav Shach told his host that he had to return to Bnei Brak. He bid him farewell and returned to the car for the ride back.

The talmid, bewildered, turned to Rav Shach. “Rebbi,” he said, “I thought you came to discuss your displeasure with the rosh yeshiva. Instead, you just sat there for an hour speaking in learning. What happened? Why did you change your mind?”

Rav Shach didn’t respond.

For the next couple of days, Rav Shach was still upset, wondering how that rosh yeshiva could have acted in a way that he thought was incorrect. Finally, he called his talmid and said that he couldn’t calm down and that he must go meet that rosh yeshiva again.

Rav Shach and his talmid got into the car, and the aged gadol hador and his young talmid headed towards Yerushalayim. Once again, upon arriving at the home of the rosh yeshiva, the rebbetzin greeted them at the door. She was again so honored by the visit of the prestigious guest that she joined the two venerable roshei yeshivos in the dining room and sat at the table to watch them speak.

Just like during the previous visit, Rav Shach launched into a deep Talmudic discussion with the rosh yeshiva. Once again, they had a long conversation, plumbing the depths of Torah. Finally, Rav Shach told his host that it was time to return to Bnei Brak. He left with the aid of his talmid and got back into the car.

Now it was the talmid who was beside himself. With the greatest derech eretz, he said something along the lines of, “Rebbi, this was the second time we came here. You were so upset, you couldn’t be calmed down, so we returned here. But once again, the rosh yeshiva didn’t bring up the topic that so concerned you. Once again, you sat there for an hour speaking in learning. Please explain to me why.”

Rav Shach, worn out from the expedition, turned to him and said, “Men tor nit mevazeh zein a mann far zein froi - One may not embarrass a husband in front of his wife. I could not say anything to him in the presence of his wife.”

Here was the gadol hador, old and weak, having taken a trip two times to have a conversation with someone about a topic he felt was of utmost importance, yet he preferred to leave the issue alone, rather than perhaps cause the wife, after several decades of marriage, to look askance at her husband over a specific issue. “Men tor nit mevazeh zein a mann far zein froi.”

There are so many lessons to be learned in this story. Sometimes we are so convinced that we are right about our opinions that we don’t care how many people we embarrass in order to make our point. In the pursuit of justice, we consider ourselves justified to humiliate and publicly berate people who we think have acted improperly.

With the tension of preparing for Yom Tov virtually palpable, we get caught up in the heat of the moment and can possibly act improperly toward our spouses, children, co-workers, chavrusos and friends.

It is said that Rav Levi Yitzchok of Berditchov would wonder how it could be that Moshiach doesn’t come after Jews invest so much time, energy and recourses into preparing to observe the mitzvos and yom tov of Pesach.

He concluded that the accompanying tension that overtakes people as they prepare for the chag prevents the zechusim of so many mitzvos and so much tircha from bringing the arrival of Moshiach.

As we go about our Yom Tov preparations and we feel the pressure mounting, let us remember this story as we deal with the people around us. Remaining calm and not acting rashly will not only help you and everyone around you, it can even help bring Moshiach.

Who Is the Real Rabbi Joshua Maroof?

by Rabbi Pinchos Lipschutz

Painful as it is, we feel compelled to shine a spotlight on a small, but potentially very significant, controversy that has been brewing over the past few weeks regarding the views of a prospective candidate for the pulpit in an important West Coast congregation. The candidate, Rabbi Joshua Maroof, who most recently served as rabbi of Cong. Magen David of Rockville, MD, is no stranger to the readers of the Yated.

Before re-introducing Rabbi Maroof, a few explanatory paragraphs are in order.

For a number years, the Yated has been warning of the danger to Orthodoxy and halachic Judaism presented by the ideology of so-called “Open Orthodoxy,” as termed by its founder and proponent, Rabbi Avi Weiss. Whether it is Open Orthodoxy, Yeshiva Chovevei Torah (YCT), or the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale (HIR), where Rabbi Weiss serves as rabbi and Sarah Hurwitz serves as “Rabbah,” the Yated in previous essays has exposed Open Orthodoxy as a clever tactic to institute Conservative and Reform practice under the guise of Orthodoxy. Indeed, we have previously questioned whether such practices can even be called Orthodox.

One of the most prominent aberrations was to introduce the rabbinic ordination of women, something prohibited by millennia of halacha and mesorah. Several years ago, the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale ordained Ms. Sarah Hurwitz as a “Maharat,” a term that was later changed to “Rabbah.”

Rabbi Weiss, in an effort to confer a guise of rabbinic legitimacy to this clear breach of Orthodox and halachic practice, had three rabbis write ostensibly halachic “teshuvos” explaining why such a practice would be permitted.

One of these responses was written by Rabbi Maroof, who also professed to be a mentor and teacher/tutor of Ms. Hurwitz. It should be noted that other than subscribe to the ordination of women, Rabbi Maroof has indicated on many occasions that he does not subscribe to the ideals of Open Orthodoxy.

Rabbi Maroof, however, made a special trip from Baltimore to be present at the “ordination” of his student, Ms. Hurwitz, and addressed the congregation at the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale. More on what he said in that address shortly.

The Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), the rabbinical body of rabbis associated with Modern Orthodoxy, came out with a statement whose defining line was: “…We cannot accept either the ordination of women or the recognition of women as members of the Orthodox rabbinate, regardless of the title…”

Today, Rabbi Maroof seeks a pulpit in a congregation that insists that he be a member of the RCA. Accordingly, he is seeking membership in the RCA, and the vote on his proposed membership is imminent. As such, his unorthodox view regarding the legitimacy of ordaining female rabbis has once again been placed in the spotlight.

RABBI MAROOF’S STATEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE YATED

After the Yated exposed some of his very troubling remarks made publically at the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, Rabbi Maroof corresponded with the Yated and accused this newspaper of taking his statements out of context. At the same time, he, in part, repudiated his remarks.

The Yated printed an edited version of Rabbi Maroof’s letter on which he signed off as an accurate portrayal of his views. We said then that we accept his words at face value.

While we really want to take Rabbi Maroof at his word, his statements are somewhat confusing. Since that time, his remarks have become more bewildering. Rabbi Maroof has made some contradictory statements and comments that may lead some to believe that he is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

The question is really simple: What does Rabbi Maroof truly believe? In other words, are his beliefs outside the pale of Orthodoxy?

Perhaps, the best thing is to present the facts and let them speak for themselves. The following are relevant portions of Rabbi Maroof’s remarks, statements and correspondence, starting with the speech he gave at the “ordination” ceremony of Ms. Hurwitz.

March 22, 2009

From Rabbi Maroof’s address at the conferral ceremony of Sarah Hurwitz as “Maharat”:

“Today, we are making a clear statement of the principle that knowledge of Torah and fear of G-d are the only criteria that matter when it comes to the question of who should serve as a leader in Israel. Today’s success represents a tremendous step forward to a new stage in a mighty struggle. And Sara Hurwitz’s emergence as a spiritual leader of profound wisdom and impeccable character marks the dawn of a new era in negotiating the challenges and obstacles that face us in that struggle.

“I say that we are engaged in a struggle, and that this is only a step, because we all know that the principle Sarah represents is far from being well-established in today’s Orthodox communities. Indeed, there are many among us - not in this room, but within Orthodoxy as a movement - who still cling to outmoded ideas and dogmatic notions about who is or is not qualified for Torah leadership. They are concerned with chromosomes rather than character and value anatomy over ability. They are skeptical of or opposed to what we are proclaiming here, and believe that gender identity is a more fundamental qualification for leadership than either Torah knowledge or observance.”

July 14, 2009

Rabbi Maroof in a letter to the Yated:

“My perspective on women’s issues was misrepresented in your paper and many of my statements were taken out of context. The author of the article implied that I dismissed great Torah luminaries as ‘dogmatic’ or ‘anti-women’ because of their opposition to the notion of women holding positions of communal leadership.”

March 22, 2009

From Rabbi Maroof’s address at the conferral ceremony of Sarah Hurwitz as “Maharat”:

“In fact, I firmly believe that our struggle cannot be deemed truly successful until the little girl attending a gan in New York, and the young woman studying in a seminary in Yerushalayim, and the housewife living in Bnei Brak all know that the potential for Torah leadership is within their grasp. But even that is not enough. No, we still won’t be finished. Our task will not be completed and our mission will not be accomplished, until the little boy in cheder in Bnei Brak, and every rabbinical student in New York, and every man learning in kollel in Yerushalayim recognizes that his gender does not grant him a monopoly on our G-d’s Torah…”

July 14, 2009

Rabbi Maroof in a letter to the Yated:

“The only area in which I have promoted the cause of women in particular has been the area of Torah study, and the only public pronouncements I have made about this subject are the ones referenced in your article. I have neither adopted nor espoused any radical or controversial halakhic positions on this or any related topic.”

March 22, 2009

From Rabbi Maroof’s address at the conferral ceremony of Sarah Hurwitz as “Maharat”:

“Our message today is loud and clear: There is a place for women in the world of Torah leadership, and our absolute commitment to halacha leaves no place for power politics in the house of G-d.”

July 14, 2009

Rabbi Maroof in a letter to the Yated:

“I exclusively identify myself with the center-right/yeshivish segment of Orthodox Judaism… All of my comments regarding expanding the range of leadership opportunities for women were made exclusively with reference to the study and teaching of Torah, and had nothing to do with women’s ordination or their employment in synagogues.”

March 22, 2009

From Rabbi Maroof’s address at the conferral ceremony of Sarah Hurwitz as “Maharat”:

“Empowering women in this manner is fully legitimate from the standpoint of Jewish law.”

July 14, 2009

Rabbi Maroof in a letter to the Yated:

“Anyone who examines my words carefully will see that my premises, arguments and conclusions are fully consistent with the rulings of Rav Moshe Feinstein z”l, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik z”l, and other gedolei Torah….

“Contrary to the accusations of [the Yated’s] Mr. Lichter, I did not intend to cast aspersions - chas veshalom - on individuals whose reservations and objections are firmly rooted in halakha and based purely on Shas and Shulchan Aruch, such as the great poskim of the past and present.

March 3, 2009

Rabbi Maroof in an interview with the JTA:

“Most Orthodox rabbis are aware that there’s no prohibition on woman rabbis. I think there are many Orthodox rabbis who think this would be a great thing, and they’re hoping that somebody else would have the courage to do it, as long as it’s not them.”

July 15, 2009

Rabbi Maroof in a second letter to the Yated:

“JTA asked me about the issue of women rabbis, as you correctly noted. I responded that insofar as a rabbi is essentially a teacher/instructor in Torah law, there is nothing in the role that is technically halakhically prohibited to a woman. I said that the sources of halakha indicate that a woman can study and teach Torah to students who seek her guidance. However, I qualified my statement - as is also indicated in the JTA piece - by stating that my remarks were limited to the role of teacher/instructor, and not prayer officiant, congregational leader or anything else. What you see in the article is the product of the author’s ‘processing’ of my comments, which is essentially accurate but emphasizes what was perceived as controversial in my words rather than giving a balanced portrayal of my position…

“If you have any further questions about my opinions, views or actions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly…

“Meanwhile, remember that it is bein hametzarim, and why the second Bais Hamikdosh was destroyed. Perhaps some restraint is in order here.”

July 15, 2009

The Yated Editor’s correspondence with Rabbi Maroof:

“Own up to what you have done and pledge to drop this crusade and then we can talk. You cannot stand by the side of Avi Weiss, publicly advocate woman rabbis, deviate from our mesorah, and then tell me that it’s because of people like me that the Bais Hamikdosh was destroyed.

“Chazor boch.”

July 16, 2009

Letter from Rabbi Maroof responding to above criticism from the Yated Editor:

“I am against the conferral of semikha to women because of the halakhic violations involved.

“If you go ahead and attribute the opposite of these opinions to me, then you are indeed deliberately engaged in motzi shem ra…

“I am not on a crusade to ordain women rabbis; in fact, I have no interest whatsoever in such a project. I would be opposed to it on the grounds of the prohibition of serara and my remarks in this connection have been regrettably misunderstood. My comments were specifically addressing the learning/teaching element of the rabbinical role, nothing more…”

April 27, 2010

Rabbi Maroof posting on Facebook following the RCA statement saying that we cannot accept either the ordination of women or the recognition of women as members of the Orthodox rabbinate, regardless of the title:

“Down with the rabbis who canonize the arbitrary and rabbis who condemn advancement.”

April 2011

Rabbi Maroof’s explanatory statement to the RCA Executive Committee as a prelude to his admission into the RCA:

“I spoke at the ceremony conferring the Maharat title upon Sara Hurwitz because I am an avid supporter of advanced learning opportunities for women in general and because I served as Sara Hurwitz’s halakha teacher for one year and I admire her accomplishments in particular. I knew in advance that she would be given a special degree or title at that ceremony, but I did not believe there was anything halakhically objectionable about her being granted a special title such that I would be forbidden to deliver a speech at the gathering.

“…Regarding the ordination of women, while I have stated openly and I still maintain that it is not halakhically prohibited in theory, I nonetheless accept the RCA’s 2010 policy statement on this issue for all practical purposes.”

• • • • •

In conclusion we ask: Who is the real Rabbi Joshua Maroof? What are his real views? Does he advocate the “mighty struggle for… Sara Hurwitz… as a spiritual leader of profound wisdom and impeccable character, mark(ing) the dawn of a new era in negotiating the challenges and obstacles that face us in that struggle…?”

Regarding the ordination of women, he says that he still maintains “that it is not halakhically prohibited in theory,” yet he states that the “only area in which I have promoted the cause of women in particular has been the area of Torah study…”

He also says that he is “not on a crusade to ordain women rabbis; in fact, I have no interest whatsoever in such a project, I would be opposed to it on the grounds of the prohibition of serara…”

Is Rabbi Maroof advocating Torah study for women?

“I expressed my wish that scholarly women - again, both Modern Orthodox and Charedi - who excel in the study of Torah be granted the opportunity to teach and inspire other Jews.”

Or is he advocating Torah leadership for women?

“Today’s success represents a tremendous step forward to a new stage in a mighty struggle. And Sara Hurwitz’s emergence as a spiritual leader of profound wisdom and impeccable character marks the dawn of a new era…

Is Rabbi Maroof advocating “teaching” or “leading” congregations?

Rabbi Maroof to the Yated: “I am against the conferral of semikha to women because of the halakhic violations involved.”

Rabbi Maroof to the JTA: “Most Orthodox rabbis are aware that there’s no prohibition on woman rabbis. I think there are many Orthodox rabbis who think this would be a great thing, and they’re hoping that somebody else would have the courage to do it, as long as it’s not them.”

Is Rabbi Maroof against semicha for women or is he for it? Is women getting semicha “a struggle” or is it something to be “against”?

IN SUMMATION

We wish no ill on Rabbi Maroof. Nevertheless, when someone places himself in the public eye, making pronouncements and taking public action that can have far-reaching effects on the very core of whom we are as Torah-observant Jews, we cannot afford to keep quiet.

What is especially troubling is the fact that, from his multiple correspondences, Rabbi Maroof seems to state what is most convenient at the moment, notwithstanding his contradictory stances on some of the most important issues affecting Torah-observant Jews. The time for truth has arrived. Who, indeed, is the real Rabbi Joshua Maroof?

What statement will the RCA be making if it accepts his application for membership in its body, knowing that the membership is a prerequisite for the assumption to the pulpit of the West Coast synagogue?

What statement is the RCA making by continuing to confer membership upon Rabbi Avi Weiss?

We look to them to come clean on this issue which bears long-term ramifications for Orthodoxy.

Who Is the Real Rabbi Joshua Maroof?