Haviva Ner-David Thinks She Got Semicha
I got a voicemail from R’ Aryeh Strikovsky this week wanting to follow-up on our conversation last week about Haviva Ner-David’s certification [1,2]. Maybe he’ll have something vastly different to say this time around, but it was pretty surprising to receive this letter from Ner-David this morning:
Subject: Thanks a lot!!!
Body:
Steve, I don’t know what your agenda is, but I smell something fishy. Why did you want to prove on your blog that what I got from Rav Aryeh Strikovsky is not smicha? You asked me to forward you the smicha document, and yet, you did not put it in on your blog, at least not that I could see. Is that because it would show that it is indeed smicha? What are you trying to prove? Are you some right-wing reactionary? Do you have something against the idea of women rabbis? I’m trying to understand what makes you tick. I am not sure what Rabbi Strikovsky actually told you, but I am sure you must have misquoted him or misunderstood him. Either that, or you scared him away from saying the truth. He signed the document I sent you. His only reservation was about giving me the title of Rav because he felt the Orthodox world was not ready for that yet. But the more people like you hound him, the more he will feel threatened and scared and reluctant to admit the truth.
So what is your agenda exactly? Why didn’t you include the document or at least quote from it?
I know I learned one thing from this, which his not to trust people who pose as reporters, I should have checked your credentials before being helpful.
I try to live by the ideal of dan lekaf zechut, but it is getting harder and harder these days.
Haviva Ner-David
My response:
Haviva -
I did post the document, and I quoted R’ Strikovsky precisely on what he told me — and it was he who called me, gave me the quotes, and ended the conversation; I’m not being selective. He did leave a message on my answering machine asking to do some follow-up, which I will do.
I have no agenda as to whether or not you’ve been given semicha; I don’t know you and don’t know much about you (though your letter certainly reveals a tendency toward paranoia, overstatement and hyperactivity). I was simply seeking the truth, and the quotes I got from Strikovsky are not only real and complete — they echo his statements to the Jerusalem Post that what he gave you was not semicha. Indeed, I find it pretty curious that you’d be so angry at what the rabbi said; this would seem to indicate the two of you are not exactly on the same page.
I certainly did not “hound him.” I left a message for him, he called me back, and I quoted him on what he said. It’s not my job to put your words in his mouth, just to quote him accurately.
As to my credentials, I don’t know what you checked up on, but here’s my standard bio:
Steven I. Weiss is an award-winning religion journalist in New York City who has written for such publications as New York Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, and Radar. He is currently the New York correspondent for the London Jewish Chronicle, and is a former staff writer at the Forward.keep it good,
Steven I. Weiss
I guess we’ll see if Strikovsky misspoke or entirely adjusted his thinking.
May 17th, 2006 at 8:57 am
Ner-David may be feigning shock and outrage. Both Strikovsky and Ner-David should expect to get clobbered, as I said on May 8:
Will the Gynophobic Rabbis Attack? Of Course!
On one level, I was overjoyed to read in the Jerusalem Post report (May 4) that a Jerusalem Orthodox rabbi Aryeh Strikovsky has ordained his woman student Aviva Ner-David as a rabbi saying that her “knowledge and mastery of Jewish law are remarkable.”
This was a breakthrough that I awaited, but frankly never expected to see in my lifetime. I thought, as I read the news, that this marks the end to the male monopoly on the Orthodox rabbinate. The Reform movement had torn down this wall in the 70s. The Conservative movement had started routinely ordaining women in the 80s. And now, the Orthodox will be ordaining women.
In theory, I want to see this is a good development in the history of Judaism. With women rabbis, more talent can be unleashed into the ranks of religious leadership. With double the talent there can be double the learning and twice as much new theological insight, imagination and energy.
In theory, since the Orthodox rabbi is not a sacerdotal position, a woman should be able to fill it regardless of the patriarchal roots of the system. A woman can become an expert in Jewish law and practice and act in all capacities as a rabbi just like men have been doing for centuries.
But we don’t live in a theoretical world. A real reading of the nature of contemporary Orthodoxy will lead one to conclude that it is a system run by men whose political and social power in society at large is marginalized. And yet these men do see themselves as guardians of a particularly important male-dominated world order of their own.
How do those who live by the worldview of the Orthodox rabbinate react to the ordination of an Orthodox woman?
These are ten of the most likely responses.
They see the growth of women’s civil and familial rights as a threat to the historical male prerogatives.
They use male bonding as the basis of rabbinic public organization against the action.
They see women’s ordination as a feminization, a making womanly of the rabbinic estate.
They experience the end of the all-male public body of the rabbinate as an admission of the vulnerability and perhaps of the impotence of the collective organization.
But they extend the threat to more than just a challenge to the masculinity of the rabbi and flag bearer. They characterized it as a threat to the core beliefs of Judaism.
They feel this woman’s ordination is a humiliation to the Orthodox rabbinic system.
They perceive the notion that a woman can be a rabbi as a foreign threat, imported first from Western feminist culture and most recently from heretical Conservative Judaism.
They argue that this weakness of boundaries must be healed - the rabbis cannot allow penetration from the outside or the permeability of the borders of rabbinic life.
They say that their religion must be purified of all feminization and alien contamination.
Logically it follows that they will act with a vehemence or even violence to attack and defeat the forces antagonistic to their way of life.
This leads me to predict that figurative “blood” will be shed as the Orthodox male leaders battle this startling challenge to their hegemony.
To the existing Orthodox establishment this daring ordination stands out as a symptom of the disordered sexuality of the evil modern world where women try to take the roles that belong to men. The rabbis will invoke this danger and then will likely associate this act of ordination with other disorderly sexual confusions such as gay marriage. They may feel free then to predict that if they allow women to serve as rabbis that will open the door to next allow gays to follow suit.
Yet after all is said and done, Rabbis who preach the perfection of Kosher sex roles and condemn the perversion of treif disorder are speaking sense only to those colleagues in their boys’ club who live by their concepts of the world.
So let’s expect the onslaught of attacks by the rabbis against the new Orthodox woman rabbi. They will say that she is bad. The rabbi that ordained her is bad. The idea is bad. How low have people sunk? And so on and so on.
Lo and behold, the rabbis will declare, Judaism has withstood another crisis of faith and onslaught of challenge.
May 17th, 2006 at 10:40 am
Unbelievable!!! A lot of people were willing to accept that a woman was ordained with a full fledged semicha, even if they disagreed with the concept… but not after this. Ner-David just singlehandedly undid her own facade. I’m stunned that she’d grind her axe so publically, to a reporter no less.
You hit gold here Steven. This is the kind of reporting that’s needed to take apart vague and misinformed journalism–like that in the Jpost article.
May 17th, 2006 at 10:41 am
“Steve, I don’t know what your agenda is, but I smell something fishy. ”
Her letter is a perfect example of the women stereotype. Typical overreacting, emotionally driven, illogical whining.
Jackie Robinson wasn’t chosen to be the first black player in the majors because he was the best baseball player, in fact there were better black payers at the time. He was chosen because he was very calm, intelligent, diplomatic and courageous. If he behaved poorly or strongly reacted to the insults, it could have set back black players for many years.
Based on her letter, this haviva seems to have the exact opposite persona of Jackie Robinson, and is ill suited for the role of trailblazer.
Why is she so surprised and paranoid that a reporter is looking into a big jewish story? Did she not expect any questions or criticism? she will most likely set the womens movement back many years if she continues to behave like this.
May 17th, 2006 at 10:49 am
What has she done in her email that is making people nervous? Asking questions? Being too pushy? She’s being confronted with a lot of attack and criticism and has every right to question people’s motives. And the previous poster who calls her the “perfect example of the women stereotype. Typical overreacting, emotionally driven, illogical whining” has one thing right- he articulates the male chauvinist perspective beautifully.
She’s asking questions and she’s entitled to question.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:02 am
“What has she done in her email that is making people nervous? ”
well, i dont think anyone is nervous other than haviva. The subject line and first sentence set the tone for the rest of the letter:
“Subject: Thanks a lot!!!
Body:
Steve, I don’t know what your agenda is, but I smell something fishy.”
From the get go she comes off as very defensive, unprofessional and paranoid. She also writes:
“Are you some right-wing reactionary? Do you have something against the idea of women rabbis?”
How much more unprofessional can she get. Attacking steven, a reporter, for reporting on a story. It also sounds like she doesnt have too thick a skin, which wont do her well in this position.
and she finishes with this gem:
“I know I learned one thing from this, which his not to trust people who pose as reporters”
May 17th, 2006 at 11:21 am
This is just stunning. The email is childish and unreflective. I can’t believe the two of them weren’t on the same page on the press this would get.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:44 am
You write: “I was simply seeking the truth, and the quotes I got from Strikovsky are not only real and complete — they echo his statements to the Jerusalem Post that what he gave you was not semicha.”
They may vaguely have echoed the last sentiment, although what was actually reported in the Post article was that “the ordination that he [Strikovsky] gave to Ner-David is NOT THE SAME as the more common ordination given to men.” Furthermore, the general content of the comments you posted above does not in fact reflect the same content as Strikovsky’s original statements to the Post (please see below). It wold have been better reporting to note the discrepancy and then offer some educated theories about why that discrepancy might exist.
It also would have been better to refrain from attacking a source (”your letter certainly reveals a tendency toward paranoia, overstatement and hyperactivity”), no matter what that source says to you. It’s just unprofessional, and reinforces an aura of reporter-centered blogging.
From the original Jerusalem Post article:
Strikovsky notes that the ordination that he gave to Ner-David is not the same as the more common ordination given to men.
“It is more of an official recognition of her achievements in her studies, that covered exactly the tractates and the issues men have to master in order to get an ordination,” he explains.
“Practically, it is the same, since there is no objection to Ner-David providing answers and religious rulings to women who would come to ask her halachic questions, but in the Orthodox world and society it is not acceptable yet to ordain a woman.”
Strikovsky acknowledges that the ordination was not granted in a particular ceremony. Yet he also says that Ner-David’s knowledge and mastery of Jewish law are remarkable.
He further says that he would be “more than happy to see more and more women entering the world of Torah and Talmud. The only difference between Ner-David and any Orthodox rabbi is that it is not acceptable. But in all issues related to her learning and abilities, I see no difference.” [snip]
Concerned that his words might be considered as a qualification of her achievements, Strikovsky then adds, “In all other aspects - her piety, her knowledge and her dedication to Jewish law - I am not stepping back. I would especially like to point out her very deep and impressive knowledge of all the issues [Halachot] that are the crucial ones for men to be ordained.”
May 17th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
My problem with Haviva Ner-David and her husband is the fact that they protected child molester Mordecai Gafni and the pain they have caused as a result. Whether she has or doesn’t have smicha is irrelevant to me. She and her husband are unfit due to their actions from holding ANY public position or having ANY public role in the Jewish community.
May she study and produce many scholarly books, but her public role should be over.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
RR - I don’t see a significant contrast between his comments to me and his comments to the JPost; the only difference is in relatively small details and tone. But the overall gist of his comments to both myself and the JPost is that it’s not ordination, and not meant to be taken as ordination. Your notation of the “not the same” is the editorial voice of the reporter, who, as I noted before, took a very odd approach to this story in general. There is no point in the JPost story in which Strikovsky says something that contradicts what he told me.
As to my response to Ner-David, I’d say it’s far more even in tone and fact than her initial letter to me. I don’t think most people would take accusations that they, to paraphrase, “posed as a reporter to manipulate evidence and sources while hiding other information to prove a fishy right-wing agenda” as well as I did.
Your opennes to conspiracy-theorizing in your comment on the Jewschool thread suggests you’re not taking the most level-headed or fact-based approach here.
May 17th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Time for her to sue her mentor for non-support? Or maybe time for her to reflect on the differences between her approach and Judaism? Or maybe time for us as onlookers to this tragedy to move on?
May 17th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Unfortunately, part of the problem in this discussion is that there has no clarity of what smicha is, what are the different types of smicha, who can give it, what it means or any of its history.
The fact is that smicha today (unless you follow the new Sanhedrin) really isn’t smicha its just something we’ve set up in place of the real thing.
May 17th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
JWB - Granted. But without any outside discussion, it’s clear that based on Strikovsky’s standards alone, she has not been granted semicha or the title of rabbi.
May 17th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
You’re correct and considering that Ner-David says “His only reservation was about giving me the title of Rav because he felt the Orthodox world was not ready for that yet.”, I can’t understand why she’s claiming to have smicha. Or maybe she has some understanding of what smicha is that I’m just not catching.
This is why we need to go back and define what smicha is.
May 17th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Umm, did Haviva actually give you permission to publish her email online? THat’s a pretty serious ethical breach if she didn’t.
May 17th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Tircha - Actually, when you send something to a reporter, it’s assumed to be for publication, unless stated otherwise (and even then, the request must be reasonable). Off-the-record status is something that must be negotiated and agreed to by both parties before the journalist is bound to it.
May 17th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Phony semichas abound in the UO world. That is why a YU Semicha is worth a great deal. A “private semicha” is always suspect and a lot less utile than a semicha from a known institution.
May 18th, 2006 at 9:44 am
Steven, I agree in principle that “when you send something to a reporter, it’s assumed to be for publication, unless stated otherwise.” But I do think it’s a stretch to say that this would include personal data such as a residential address, private telephone number or e-mail address.
May 18th, 2006 at 9:51 am
Rahel - Generally speaking, you’re correct, though there are of course exceptions.
May 24th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
What is commonly called semicha today (as opposed to the original semicha from Moshe Rabbeinu until the Romans uprooted it ~1600 years ago) merely means that you have permission from your rebbi to posken shaylos even though he is in town (andunder the laws of kavod larav you should have otherwise referred the shaylah to him).
This semicha does not confer any power or authority.
You do not need semicha to lead communal prayers or to read the Torah for the community. To do those things, you need to be obligated in the mitzvah of communal prayer and kriat haTorah. A woman is not so commanded and therefore can not fulfill those functions.
You do not need a rabbi to perform a wedding. You need two kosher witnesses. A woman is not a kosher witness.
In practice a get will not be accepted wthout a qualified mesader gittin, but the main thing in the get is the witnesses, and again a woman can not be a witness.
You do not need a rabbi to be a shochet. A woman can shecht.
It is questionable whether a woman can be a mohel.
The function of a rabbi in poskenning a shayla is not a magic or mystical function, it is a knowledge function.
a woman can shecht the korban as can a noncohen, but even a woman cohen (i.e.daughter of a cohen) can not collect or sprinkle the blood.
She can not be a dayan, not for punishement, monetary issues or chalitza.
She can not get real semicha to sit on the Sanhedrin.
She can not daven in the men’s section in shul, and if she does, the men must leave.
So what does it mean that she is rabbi? That if her teacher really gave her permission to posken shaylos, either all or some kinds, then the laws of kibud rav do not restrict her from poskening those shaylos. On the other hand, it remains to be seen whether her rebbe or she is actually qualified to posken shaylos.