A rabbi by any other title?

Shortly before the end of this year’s festive season our friend and greatly appreciated commentator Claude Tusk sent Avot Today this devar Torah for Simchat Torah, the celebration of both the conclusion of our Torah readings and their immediate recommencement. This short, timely and well-delivered devar Torah is based on Pirkei Avot, in particular on Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s much-debated contention that it is not the study of Torah which is the main thing, but the performance of its precepts (Avot 1:17).

This devar Torah first cites the opinion of R’ Kalonymus Kalman Shapira that a person who learns Torah but does not implement it is like a bookshelf: he holds much knowledge but is judged to be no more than a piece of wood. R’ Nosson Tzvi Finkel is also quoted: he explains that the value of Torah is inseparable from its active implementation since the role of Torah is to enable one to transform oneself into a different, improved person—and it is only by putting one’s Torah learning into action that one properly internalises it.

Aside from the content of the devar Torah, the issue I want to discuss, one on which I suspect many readers may wish to comment, is that its author, one Rabbi Avi Strausberg, turns out to be a woman.

As a traditional orthodox Jew I am most comfortable with the position that “rabbi” is a title and a status that is conferred upon the male of the species. On the other hand I am happy to attend shiurim given by women; I buy and read works of Jewish scholarship written by women and have greatly benefited from their learning. I respect them both as fellow human beings and as Jewish leaders and scholars in their own right—but for me, on a personal basis, the title “rabbi” refers to a man.

Can I, should I, refer to Avi Strausberg as “Rabbi” in this post? What guidance does Avot give me?

I actually first encountered this issue when I was Registrar of the London Beth Din. I had to write a letter to a (male) minister of a provincial English community who styled himself “rabbi”, even though he did not hold semichah from any recognised authority. I was asked to write to him, with the full authority of the Beth Din, to inform him that he was not recognised as a rabbi and must not refer to himself as such. I asked Dayan Chanoch Ehrentreu, who was Rosh Beth Din at the time and someone whose orthodox credentials were beyond challenge, how I should address the letter and the envelope in which the letter was to be delivered to him.

The Dayan’s answer came instantly and without equivocation. I was to address this person as “Rabbi” both in my letter and on the envelope containing it. He explained: as a matter of kavod, of the respect that any human is required to show to another, one should always give a person the title that he (or she) uses for him- or herself. To do otherwise would be frankly rude and certainly not in keeping with the need to show kavod to others. The source for this is Ben Zoma’s teaching at Avot 4:1: “Who is respected? The person who respects others…”.  I have followed this guidance ever since.

One might add that a letter to someone who calls themselves “Rabbi” which is addressed to “Mr”, “Miss”, “Mrs”, “Ms” or whatever might generate personal embarrassment if that letter is seen and read by others—and embarrassing others in public should also be avoided (see R’ Elazar HaModa’i at Avot 3:15).

For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook, click here.

Are politicians immune from good behaviour?

In "Israel Elections: Why I may not vote this time", a Jerusalem Post opinion piece by Walter Bingham that was penned a few days before last week's General Election, the author cites the imprecation in Avot that one should not embarrass other people in public (Avot 3:15, per Rabbi Elazar HaModa'i) and then contrasts this principle with the behaviour of some of Israel's leading political figures. This itself raises an interesting question: does this principle apply at all to things said by, or about, politicians?

When it comes to rules of law, politicians are both governed and protected to the same extent as anyone else. Thus the laws relating to theft, murder, etc are applied equally to all. However, behavioural standards (middot) are a different matter. Role models such as rabbis and Torah scholars, parents and community leaders are expected to demonstrate a higher level of conduct than others. But what of politicians?

Avot clearly expects little of the politician. People are urged to avoid them because they are motivated by self-interest (Avot 2:3) and not even to make themselves known to them (Avot 1:10). If, like many politicians, they interrupt others and don't give a straight answer to a question, they are deemed to be golems (Avot 5:9).

Do we say that contemporary politicians live in a little bubble in which they are immune to insult and are therefore to dish it out to others, or do we say that politicians' behaviour demonstrates little other than their own unsuitability to hold office on account of their inability to control themselves and to respect others? The latter, I suspect.