Newsweek's top 50 rabbis… but the Rabba is #36?
Newsweek is back for the fourth year with their highly specious “50 Most Influential Rabbis.” The Forward’s Sisterhood blog points out, “This year, as last, few women have made the cut and all but one are in the bottom half of the list.”
The first woman to appear — Rabbi Ellen Weinberg Dreyfus, the president of the Reform movement’s Central Conference of American Rabbis — comes in at position number 17. Still, it’s one higher than her ranking on last year’s list, when she was also the highest-placed member of the female rabbinate.
In all, six female rabbis were included this year. With one more than last year, at least there’s an upward trend, even if it is slow.
[…] Rabba Sara Hurwitz only makes the list at position 36, odd since her ordination and title were ground-breaking, revolutionary and led to what was perhaps the biggest religious imbroglio in Orthodoxy over the past year.
Yeah. So there’s some Chabad guy in #1 spot and Sara Hurwitz, the most headline-making rabbi/a of the year is #36? That’s just silly.
And how does Newsweek decide this stuff?
Are they known nationally/internationally? (20 points.) Do they have political/social influence? (20 points.) Do they have a media presence? (10 points.) Are they leaders within their communities? (10 points.) Are they considered leaders in Judaism or their movements? (10 points. ) How big are their constituencies? (10 points.) Have they made an impact on Judaism in their career? (10 points.) Have they made a greater impact beyond the Jewish community and their rabbinical training? (10 points.)
Seriously? “Some Chabad guy”? While I don’t know that R’ Krinsky should necessarily be at number one on the list, and I’m definitely surprised that R’ Hurwitz falls so low on the list, I definitely wouldn’t refer to someone like R’ Krinsky as “some Chabad guy.” He’s probably the most influential person in what is arguably the most far-reaching group of Jews around.
@Yaakov – Chabad’s influence is overstated and has been since the 30s when they convinced FDR that their rebbe was like a “Jewish Pope” in order to grease the wheels to get him out of Europe. Even if Chabad is as an entity the most influential Jewish organization, it is riven by divisions about you-know-what. I don’t dispute that the leader of Chabad is influential, but #1? That’s just absurd.
This kind of list is meant to trigger discussion and buzz, but if you step out of the Orthodox or poseur-Orthodox world for a minute, you’d realize 90% of American Jews are from liberal denominations, Yoffie’s is the biggest one, and his rabbis listen to him, and their congregations listen to those rabbis, at least on some things.
I would put Krinksy in the top 20. No higher. You can reframe my comments about Hurwitz. Newsworthy, yes. Influential? Maybe to a few women who think Conservative shuls are treyf and want to be orthodox and feminist (which I always say ??? to) then yeah. But to me, I say, shrug, you belong in a Conservative shul. Why must you have it both ways? So, interesting yes, but influential? I dunno.
The point is that this doesn’t have much credibility.
David, did you read the article? It’s not Newsweek, it’s two guys in LA having fun over a few drinks. And its reflected in their choices, like — Yehuda Berg is the “world’s leading authority on the Kabbalah movement”?
I mean, really, who cares. If you run after TV cameras sometimes you get noticed. Fifty years from now 90% of these people will be unknown. But we will still be reading Jacob Neusner and Daniel Boyarin’s work (both rabbis)neither of whom are on the list. Krinsky may be a footnote somewhere. Boteach? Please. This isn’t serious.
#1 – Prof Chomsky
#2 – Jon Stewart
Too Old, hence my assertion that the whole thing is silly.
Nahman, well said.
And Oren, I wish!
Boyarin is not a Rabbi, though he is brilliant, and did spend time at JTS. At the same time, not once have I ever heard him mentioned (OK, one time, actually) in four years of conversation here in LA.
And the person who thinks Chabad isn’t the most influential organization, or very near the top, is delusional. And I say this as someone who very much doesn’t like that fact.
In terms of people who will be studied in the next 50 years, I would includes Ravs Lamm, Weiss (if wishing made it so), Lookstein, Artson, and Dorff. And that’s just off the top of my head, and with my modern Orthodox bias.
But if we were talking about who we would be reading in 50 years, even for the shmoes who wrote the list, it would be a very different one.
Hey, Jewschool, you should create that list.
Influence is so subjective. Are congregational rabbis who work directly with countless people throughout the year any less influential than some of these national leaders with high profiles that speak to the same seven people every day? With the exception of Chabad, which I think we can all agree is more influenced today by a dead Rebbe than anyone actually alive, I would like to think that Judaism hasn’t really been a top-down type of hierarchy since…well…rabbinic Judaism started. This list promotes that agenda.
Bravo to Newsweek, which is currently going under anyway. Somehow, I doubt this egregiously disorganized and under-thought list of rabbis is going to help save the publication…
Josh, I think you are wrong. I think Boyarin actually does have semicha.
And as for your list. Huh? Lamm, Weiss? Are you not aware that probably 95% of American Jews have no idea who they even are setting aside if they’ve written anything that will at all be relevant in 50 years. Now it is true that 95% of Jews probably don’t know who Boyarin is either but at least he has a body of work that will last. If you want to go that route Nosson Sherman of ArtScroll has affected more Jews in the past three decades than all of your list combined 10x over. That’s my humble Ex-O opinion
@Josh: It wasn’t a list of the 50 most influential Jewish organizations. If it were, Chabad would be close to the top. But if things were different, they wouldn’t be the same. It’s a list of the 50 most influential *rabbis.*
Krinsky can’t even get the yechi crowd out of his own building. And even if we conflate the two, I guess we misunderstand each other about “influence.” Some groups have powerful lobbies in politics. And maybe Chabad brings you a pizza box of matzah, but in terms of a few people laying tefillin once or twice compared to the sea change with respect to female involvement that’s erupting from Fairfax to the Kotel, I think it’s unquestionably the latter and its champions that are the most influential now.
Stewart? Chomsky?
Do rabbis marry Gentiles or make sure all their kids do?
As I recall most rabbis don’t, but then again I’m not familiar with ‘Reconstructionism’ or whatever.
Stewart? Chomsky?
Do rabbis marry Gentiles or make sure all their kids do?
Is that the only thing that makes Stewart and Chomsky not rabbis?
@Nahman I’ll trust you about Boyarin, it’s been a long time since I last ran into him at shul.
Lamm and Weiss are influential because they influence the entire Modern Orthodox movement, though, as I noted, Weiss was just wishful thinking on my part. Rav Shachter more so, but hey, I guess they skew towards the guys at the very top of an institution.
@Jon It seems that there’s a bit of a disconnect- how can the head of an organization that you acknowledge is influential not himself be influential? Yes, he has internal problems, but that’s like saying Barack Obama isn’t influential because sometimes there are Democratic senators who vote against him- it misses the point. Not to mention that in the first paragraph you call them influential and then in the second you refute yourself (or try to). Which is it?
@BZ Well, it’s sufficient, but not necessary.
Dave,
Moshe Rabbenu married a gentile.
Moshe Rabbenu married a gentile.
And he’s not on the Newsweek list now, is he?
Josh,
If you daven at the Modern Orthodox shul in Berkeley on Shabbaos you’ll likely run into Boyarin there. That’s where he davens. Send him my best.
@nahman. When I lived there, that’s where I mainly went, but that was 4 years ago…
Josh –
A little perspective. 10% of Jews in America identify as Orthodox. A piece of that percentage are “Modern Orthodox.” So someone who has great influence over Modern Orthodox Jews in America but doesn’t make waves beyond that community doesn’t have much influence at all.
Also, Chabad is a much bigger presence in LA than elsewhere in the country. Trust me, in Boston we have no Chabad telethon, no Chabad banners hanging from street lamps, or any of the other highly visible aspects of Chabad’s presence I remember from my years living in Los Angeles.
Well, Dave, I’m just gonna go out on a limb and guess he was kidding when he mentioned Stewart and Chomsky. And to add to Oren’s point, not only did Moses marry a gentile, but so did Joseph and a number of other biblical fellows. Not to mention how many non-Jewish women David was descended from.
@dlevy I hear ya. We can go in circles about influence the MO has, or doesn’t. I personally think its influence it larger than its share, but whatever. The question was who we’d be reading in 50 years, and I think that some of those guys, regardless of being MO, will. I didn’t put someone crazy influential (not a pulpit rabbi, but still) like Rav Genack on there cuz no one will be reading him. Rav Lamm, on the other hand, I think will be.
In terms of Chabad, I think the story is more complicated than you tell. In LA, Chabad is king (shudder). But, in Boston as well: sure, I’ll give you that Brookline doesn’t have a huge chabad presence, but, they have 12 centers (really more) in the greater boston area, including one just down the road from my grandpa in a 90% irish catholic neighborhood, when all the other shuls in the area are fleeing. By LA standard, its not a big deal, but I don’t think that’s the standard I was implying.
It was Aaron who was the High Priest (not rabbi, but close), not Moses. And as to Solomon, etc, not rabbis either.
@Josh: Daniel Boyarin was my first teacher for Halacha at the Jewish Theological Seminary. He was ordained at JTS in the seventies but had not yet completed his doctorate.
One more note about Boyarin. While he was studying at JTS he was also attending shiurim at Freifeld’s yeshiva in far Rockaway.
Also, I can’t even say names like Boyarin and Neusner in the same breath of Boteach.
‘Also I can’t even say names like Boyarin and Neusner in the same breath of Boteach’
Because you like A.K.’s? Because you don’t like Mizrahim? Because you’re nostalgic for a time when the JTS didn’t need to advertise on The Backward?
Dave, let me make sure I understand you–Rabbis cannot marry non-Jews, but other Jewish leaders can. I’m just trying to understand. And as far as Moses or Aaron being closer to being rabbis, I’d peg Moses for that. Wasn’t he supposed to have been the first Jewish legal sage?
Dave,
(1) My mother is an A.K. so I do have an inclination to like them.
(2)I have no problem with Mizrahim that I know of (I studied in a Mizrhi yeshiva in Jerusalem for almost 4 years)
(3)I have NO nostalgia for JTS or, as they used to call it in my day, “Schechter’s yeshiva.”
(4) The reason is simple. Boyarin and Neusner et al actually have something to say. Boteach is a camera chaser with, as far as I can tell, little to say but you can tell he loves to saying it again and again and again.
But why listen to me, I am 238 year old man from Uman?
@DAM Wilensky
yes, technically, in the Rabbinic tradition, smicha is passed down through Moses. the first rabbi was intermarried. win one for the Reform, I guess?
If we’re being technical about it, no, zimri, because the Reform Movement doesn’t ordain individuals in interfaith relationships.
Within the context of the “logic” of the list, it seems fairly clear that the six women were not selected on an ad hominem basis, if that’s not too much of a contradiction in terms, so much as for the positions they hold and/or exemplify. (Note that Naomi Levy was a new name to me, so my comment is based on the other five.) Head of her rabbinic association; rabbi of a large GLBT congregation; highly visible rabbi of a highly visible indie minyan; head of a prominent social justice organization; and, of course, the one who made the most noise by becoming and unbecoming a woman rabbi in the Orthodox community.
But I must say that I am more distressed by some of the comments on this list than by the list itself, especially the totally extraneous remarks about non-Jewish spouses.
Within the context of the “logic” of the list, it seems fairly clear that the six women were not selected on an ad hominem basis, if that’s not too much of a contradiction in terms, so much as for the positions they hold and/or exemplify.
This seems to be the case for many of the men as well: have the rabbis of Central Synagogue and Washington Hebrew Congregation done anything notable other than that their congregations are huge and in major cities?
BZ and Larry, agreed. But if the list is about influence, then I suppose that makes sense.
“Rabba Sara Hurwitz?”
If she’s the Rabba/Rabbi, what do you call her husband? (Is she even married?)
I guess naming her husband “Rebetzin” shouldn’t be out of the question, since we now have gender equality in orthodox Judaism… Isn’t this what this Rabba business is all about? So if she’s a Rabbi, let him play the Rebetzin part. I only hope the new Rebetzin knows how to prepare a big pot of Chulent for the Kiddush!
I know the critics will pounce on me and claim that she doesn’t call herself Rabbi only Rabba. Ok, Ok, so we’ll call him Rabatzin instead…
In Yiddish there’s a saying which is usually used at pathetic situations such as these: Nishtu Ver S’zol Lachen!
(Which translates loosely into: There’s no one available to laugh, since it’s so pitiful, distasteful and pathetic).
Jerry writes:
If she’s the Rabba/Rabbi, what do you call her husband?
Speaking as a (second-generation) rabbi’s husband, I get asked this question several times a month, and without exception, the person asking it asks with a tone that suggests that this creative and original insight makes them the cleverest fucking individual in the history of the universe. So, far be it from me to burst your bubble, Jerry. We could try to answer your question, but any such attempts from us mere mortals would be an insult following so closely on your sparkling wit. Instead, all we can do is bask in the aura of your great comedic brilliance. Har har har, is she even married, indeed! WHAT MAN WOULD WANT HER, LOL
A second Generation Rabbis husband? Tell me please, Does you Rabbi wife approve of your use of the “F” word as long as you only use it when replying on a blog?
Talking about believing in ones self as the “cleverest f—ing individual in the history of the universe”, you obviously have a good handle on “clever” yourself when veering off topic and attacking cynically as to avoid the need of answering directly.
On a lighter note: My comment was not directed for people of your kind, since you’re obviously Reform (“second-generation rabbi’s husband”), whereas the Rabbi in question claims to be Orthodox, (a first for us.) I would never direct that humorous question at a reform Jew. Jews who have no problem with intermarriage, probably couldn’t care less about such trivial matters.
My inquiry in whether she is married, was not an attempt to brand her as an outcast within the Orthodox community, someone no man would want (although she probably is seen as such, I’m sure she could easily find her mate amongst the more modern Orthodox), rather as a honest question, since she probably holds herself in extremely high regard as the first Orthodox female Rabbi, on par with the Kohen Gadol or something…
Thank you for complimenting me on my “great comedic brilliance.” I hope I could rely on my funny side should I ever need it in order to make a living…
In the meantime I’ll just, how’dya put it, “bask in the aura.”
Is it true that female Reform (progressive Judaism) rabbis have always gotten paid less than male Reform (progressive Judaism) rabbis overall?
And how can this be?
What do you call the husband of a rabbi? Lucky!
Jerry, you call him a rebetz. I don’t know if they’re actually doing that, but that would be the correct term. He’s a nice guy, by the way. I’ve met him.
And please don’t go about pretending to know what her personality is like. Having learned from her on one occasion, I can tell you that she is humble, smart, a great teacher and more interested in being a teacher and leader in her community than anything else.
—–
Dave, if you think Reform Jews are monolithic and simplistic enough that we all unanimously agree that intermarriage is totally unproblematic, you need to get a clue.
“How can this be?” It can be the same way it is in just about every profession in America. Women lag in pay across the board. Which is not to say that it’s good, but that we’re no exception to general society’s attitudes toward gender.
Do women ‘lag in pay across the board’ even in progressive groups? And if they do why don’t the progressive groups change or stop calling themselves ‘progressive’?
Here’s more of the unanimous uncontested unity (snark) behind Krinsky:
http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2010/07/accusations-mount-at-beit-din-hearing-case-for-control-of-chabad-central-organization-123.html
@David:
Again with the soft bigotry even in defense of Reform. Maybe there are a very few Reform Jews who think it would be just great if we all intermarry and lose all of our Jewish identity. Maybe one or two of those have written that somewhere. But I reject the premise. Reform generally tries to catch the flies of intermarriage with honey instead of vinegar. Nearly full participation by non-Jewish spouses and the full-fledged participation of patrilineal Jews (like, oh, say Gershom ben Moshe) means that the families who are intermarried can feel welcome and participate. This has prevented the loss of Jewish identity of untold thousands of Jews, many of which would give up if they had to get their spouses to sit through a conversion class, or if they were told their kids weren’t Jewish enough.
If you accept the premise that this strategy is simply thinking that “Reform Jews think it’s no problem” then I guess you are just torturing language. But if you think the only people who think intermarriage is not “unproblematic” are those who think the only answers inbreeding or forcing conversion and all other strategies will ultimately permanently result in assimilation, then don’t bother trying to defend Reform. Your consistent internalization of all of the anti-Reform memes makes you wonder.