The women's movement has been the catalyst in all Jewish groups for raising difficult questions. Answers are even more difficult. Are we to allow, or even encourage, hitherto unknown practices in order to allow women on the one hand a sense of full "belonging", or on the other hand to develop new directions for uniquely feminine expressions of Judaism? Or perhaps maintain what has always been done, helping all those who feel disenfranchised to understand the framework of tradition, hoping that they will relate to it. Just this past week, a group of distinguished liberal Orthodox rabbis quit the Rabbinical Council of America over this issue. They had encouraged a re-examination of Jewish life based on the classical sources, as well as re-thinking many issues of Jewish life in a way that is different from the "standard". These rabbis saw that they, and their views, were being marginalized, and that their students were being prevented from taking part in organized Orthodoxy. Will they form a new "denomination", or will their protest force everyone to asses anew their policies? it is too soon to tell.
On the other end of the spectrum, more right wing Orthodox rabbis are defending the idea that "what has been done" is also a part of Torah, even if sourceless. AS we have seen in Conservatism, a challenge to a relatively minor practice can lead to a "slippery slope", with consequences no one dreamed of. The concept of "Minhag Yisrael Torah Hi" (A Jewish custon IS Torah" is often quoted, but from where? To my knowledge it is not Talmudic, but did become an accepted principle later. Does it restrict us, or liberate us?
Another factor, which greatly disturbs me (not directly connected to the women's issue), is the "dumbing down" of Judaism for the sake of simplicity. Judaism, including Orthodox Judaism, has had numerous interpretations. If one looks at the classical Torah commentaries of the "Mikraot Gedolot" (published in 1524), many of the commentators have views so divergent that we might think that they represented different religions! Yet, there was room and respect for everyone as long as basic beliefs were upheld .As Judaism came under attack from atheists and heretics, the response of many rabbis was to "circle the wagons". Judaism went on the defensive. Books were written to show how greatly different opinions actually agreed with each other. Every story, every medieval legend, became an article of faith. Like a  house of cards, pull one out, and it will all come crashing down. That was the fear. There were ample examples to be learned from the experiences of the  non-Orthodox camps. Keep it simple, keep it unified, don't confuse the people. Nevertheless, when people begin studying on their own, and see contradictions to this "one size fits all" Orthodoxy, they are often put off by rabbis telling them "it can't mean what it says". The Sea of Torah is so very vast and all encompassing, it seems a shame to me to limit it in this way. It frightens me that books written in the last twenty years are seen as SOURCES rather than opinions. Holding different views, even views based on the teachings of great rabbis, often puts people outside the "consensus". Non-conformity is seen as a danger. It is. but so is conformity.
Still another development with both great promise and great danger is the relatively  recent concept of Daat Torah" (The Torah Mind or Opinion). How it developed, and what it means, will be the topic of my next post.