An article is circulating about the legacy of Sarah Schnierer who started the Beis Yaakov movement. The purpose of the article is to debunk the myth that she received rabbinic approval before starting the movement. In fact with one exception, the approval only came AFTER the movement was successful.
The author concludes as follows:
Why have Orthodox biographers rewritten the story of Sarah Schenirer and the founding of Bais Yaakov in recent years? Every society remembers its history in a way that promotes and fits in with its contemporary values. In today’s Yeshivish community, there is a stress on the importance of consulting gedolim, and great trepidation towards change, particularly with any issues related to women. Therefore, Sarah Schenirer, a woman who started a revolutionary innovation for women, albeit for traditional reasons, could be viewed as an incredibly threatening figure. Framing the founding of Bais Yaakov as having taken place with mass rabbinic pre-approval, removes the tension and fits the story squarely into contemporary Yeshivish values.
It is important to stress that there is no evidence to suggest that Sarah Schenirer was trying to sidestep rabbis. In fact there is evidence to support that idea that Schenirer considered rabbinic support very important, especially when establishing schools in new locations. However, she simply did not speak to all the gedolim these narratives list besides the Belzer Rebbe, before starting Bais Yaakov. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that she thought it necessary at that time.
This historical disconnect has consequences for today. Advocates for change, particularly related to women, are often challenged with the criticism that they are abandoning the example of Sarah Schenirer, because these critics claim Schenirer refrained from any action until she had consulted with the Hafetz Hayyim and the other rabbinic leaders. The desire to seek the approval of multiple gedolim before suggesting or implementing even the smallest change or starting any kind of community organization or initiative is a valid approach. However, Sarah Schenirer is not representative of this approach. To claim Schenirer personifies this approach or to use her to criticize or undercut the efforts of those who are truly following her approach to innovation and positive change, is simply wrong. Instead, it effectively squelches new, positive calls for improvement and innovation.
Before the founding of Bais Yaakov, Orthodox leaders and newspapers discussed and debated the issue of girls’ education. The community was waiting for a change to come from above, from the leadership. Schenirer was not the first to suggest starting schools for girls, but instead of talking or waiting, Schenirer took action. She started on a grassroots level, from the ground up. Schenirer approached the rabbi with whom she had a connection for guidance, and she went about the work that she knew at her very core needed to be done to save the women of Klal Yisrael. And that is why history remembers her name, while so many of the leaders and detractors have fallen into obscurity.
The true legacy of Sarah Schenirer is that one person can make an incredibly positive change. Her legacy is the power of grassroots efforts. It is persisting in the face of apathy, ignorance and opposition. It is the belief that if one’s work is truly for the benefit of the community, it will be successful. As Schenirer herself wrote, reflecting back on the movement’s inception, “if the intent is sincere and the aim is proper, my goal will certainly be achieved.”
So basically, the author is claiming that the authors [whom she quotes by name in the article] were lying in order to fit history neatly together with our contemporary values and norms.
I hesitate to accuse religious, G-d fearing Jews of knowingly lying in order to promote an agenda [or for any other reason]. It is not that Jews don't lie - sometimes they do. I just don't want to go there first. So I will advance another theory: The authors she mentioned are not professional historians and they just got their dates mixed up, assuming that the approval of the gedolim predated the movement. Maybe they were just repeating what other people said and the mistake became entrenched and eternalized [not a word but in Hebrew they say להנציח] in print. As the gemara says - שבשתא, כיון דעל על! Once a mistake is made - it remains.
Maybe. Or maybe they lied in order to advance their agenda. But I would MUCH RATHER judge favorably. Am I wrong? We could ask them. They are alive. [The author could have spoken to them and when presented with the evidence then maybe they would have retracted?]
It is also dangerous to use Sarah S. as a precedent when so many people today are trying to make changes that endanger the Jewish people and will not save us. She saved countless girls from being מחללי שבת and in her merit they built beautiful Torah homes. Not every modern idea for "innovation" will have the same impact [or even seeks to have such an impact. It is often about "empowerment". Sarah Schneirer never spoke about "empowerment" and never intended to rebel against the establishment. She taught the girls to RESPECT rabbinic authority. וד"ל].
As she said “if the intent is sincere and the aim is proper, my goal will certainly be achieved.”
זכותה תגן עלינו!!!
