Me and the Maharat

Apparently the readers aren't all that busy with Pesach cleaning because several have found time to send me letters demanding clarifications of my position on Maharat Sara Hurwitz, the woman who was recently appointed to the clergy of the (Orthodox) Hebrew Institute of Riverdale.

I think you all need to get lives, and possibly psychological help, but because I'm as bored as you are, my answers follow:

Would you bring Maharat Sarah a question on religious law?
Sure

About any topic?
Sure.

Would you accept her answer as binding?
No.

Is this because you're a racist, sexist, misogynist pig who thinks women belong barefoot and pregnant?
No

Please clarify.
Maharat Sarah isn't my posek. I don't daven in her shul, and I don't affiliate with her sect. I've never met her, heard her speak, or read any of her writings. I don't know if she and I see eye-to-eye about anything. These are my reasons for saying her rulings aren't binding on me. Not her gender.

That sounds sort of reasonable.
Thank you.

Well, would you go to her for rabbinic advice?
Rabbinic advice?

You know, if you were having some kind of spiritual crisis....
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

or you wanted a blessing for success...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

or, if you needed help with a child or a spouse or some kind of pastoral counseling?
For that sort of thing, I'd prefer the help of a professional.

Well what if Maharat Sarah was a professional with training and credentials and everything?
Well, what if my uncle had wheels? Still, I don't think I'd be happy having those kinds of conversations with someone I saw every week in shul.

Would you let her speak from the pulpit on shabbos?
Sure, why not?

Would you let her run a wedding or a funeral?
I'm not really sure what that means. I wouldn't object to her reading the ketubah, or attending a burial and giving the rest of us instructions about where to stand or what to say. I don't know if a woman can be mesader kedushin, though....

Is this because you're a racist, sexist, misogynist pig who thinks women belong barefoot and pregnant?
No, its because I don't know what the law says.

Ok, let me ask you about her hair. You said "Sue me for this if you must, but I'd feel loads better about rest of Orthodoxy accepting this Maharat if she covered her hair according to halacha."
That's true.

Were you saying that Maharat Sarah is ignorant of the law? Do you think you know more about the laws of hair covering than she does?
No, as I immediately clarified on the same spread, I was simply predicting that the other Orthodox sects are likely to reject her, and by association the idea of a Maharat, on the basis of how she covers her hair. I should have said this instead: "Sue me for this, if you must, but I'd feel loads better about rest of Orthodoxy accepting this Maharat if she covered her hair according to MORE STRINGENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE halacha."

Why should she be more stringent?
Strictly for PR reasons. She's the first Maharat. That makes her a symbol. The other Orthodox sects (centristO and RWO) have a more stringent understanding of the hair-covering halacha. Right or wrong, they are going to look at Maharat Sarah and say she isn't properly covering her hair. If that happens - and it will - she has no chance of being accepted by the rest of Orthodoxy and, by association, the Mahrat concept will be hamstrung.

So what?
What's her goal? Does she want LWO to establish itself as a separate and distinct wing of Judaism? Then fine: If that's the point, she doesn't have to make any concessions to the other sects. But if she wants the other sects to become comfortable with the idea of a Mahrat -if she wants the idea of a Maharat to become a mainstream Orthodox thing - she has to demonstrate that LWO is part of Orthodoxy, and not something distinct. Unfortunately, the only way to make that kind of statement is through something superficial like clothing or head covering. If the first Maharat dresses and acts in a way acceptable to the other Orthodox sects, they're likely to be less threatened by the idea of a Mahrat.