Ten days ago, on Rosh Chodesh Sivan (Friday, May 10), there was an angry, hostile and even somewhat violent confrontation at the Kotel (Western Wall). Unfortunately, such incidents have taken place from time to time in the past, usually prompted by Moslems rioting on the Temple Mount above the Kotel. But this was different. This time, tragically, the hostility and violence was between Jews and their fellow Jews.
The impetus for the disturbances was a Rosh Chodesh prayer service conducted by a group called the Women of the Wall. The service itself, while non-traditional (the women wear tallitot and tefillin and sometimes read from a Torah scroll), was hardly unusual; the group has been doing pretty much the same thing at the Kotel every single Rosh Chodesh for approximately 25 years. However, even a few days in advance, everyone knew that this month was going to be different.
Routinely, when the Women of the Wall would come to pray on Rosh Chodesh with their tallitot and Torah, they would be met and confronted in the Kotel plaza by a small group of haredi Jews who are offended by what they view as an extreme violation of Jewish law and an affront to their sensibilities. In response to this and with the backing of legislation and court decisions, the police had been restricting the activities of the Women of the Wall, allowing them to pray as a group but only if they were wearing “female-style” (colorful) tallitot. Women found wearing traditional “male-style” black-and-white tallitot would be detained by police. However, in a dramatic ruling several weeks ago, the Jerusalem District Court overturned previous decisions and declared that the women were to be allowed to pray as the wanted, without any police interference.
The Women of the Wall announced that they would return on Rosh Chodesh Sivan to pray according to their beliefs, and the police confirmed that they would respect the court decision and allow the service to proceed unencumbered. In response, a new organization called “Women FOR the Wall” was formed to create a counter-presence of traditional women at the Kotel. Backed by a number of rabbis, the new group issued a call for busloads of women and girls to arrive at the Kotel early in the morning that day, in order to pray in a traditional manner.
Many thousands showed up, so that the women’s section of the Kotel was completely filled when the Women of the Wall arrived and they needed to conduct their service in the plaza behind the prayer area. Although most of the traditional and haredi Jews at the Kotel refrained from direct confrontation, a small number verbally and physically assaulted the women, and the police struggled to maintain order. People who were present described the scene as exceedingly chaotic and disturbing.
This incident seems to be part of a larger battle that may be emerging between the religious and secular camps in Israel. Just last week we heard of a court decision preventing mikveh attendants from enforcing the halachic ban on single women immersing, read about a large haredi demonstration that turned violent, and were informed that Justice Minister Tzipi Livni is planning to introduce legislation banning many haredi practices of gender-seperation. And then yesterday’s paper announced that Finance Minister Yair Lapid is hoping to legalize non-halachic and gay marriage in Israel.
Assumedly, the reason this is all coming to a head now is because of the recent change of power in the government – for the first time in many years we have no haredi parties in the coalition. The secularists thus sense an opportunity to make changes, and the haredim are feeling attacked and defensive: a recipe for an explosive environment. We saw the potentially devastating results of this tension on Rosh Chodesh, and I fear that if we don’t take steps to control the situation, it can become much worse.
What can we do about this disturbing reality?
There are a number of different aspects to this complex question. [One issue raised by the Women of the Wall that I will not discuss now is a halachic question: how much room does Jewish law allow for diversity and egalitarianism? I will not discuss that point in this post, but have done so in the past. If you are interested, you can follow these links to listen to a talk I gave last year evaluating (and disagreeing with) the strict rules of tzniyut (modesty) that are currently standard in haredi communities in Israel, read an article I wrote a number of years ago regarding “Orthodox egalitarian minyanim“, and/or listen to my discussion of “Women and Halacha: Tradition and Innovation“.] For now, I would like to discuss the practical side of the current situation, and to briefly address three points:
1. What happened that day at the Kotel (Jews fighting with Jews at the foot of the Temple Mount) was a huge Chillul Hashem – a desecration of God’s Name. And the timing was particularly bad, coming as it did just a few days before Shavuot, the anniversary of the great Assembly at Mount Sinai, where we stood “as one man with one heart” (Mechilta, Rashi, Shmot 19:2). This past Rosh Chodesh, we seemed particularly far from that exalted reality.
Of course, each side in this confrontation blames the other for causing the terrible desecration. I blame them both, equally.
Those haredim who insulted and assaulted the Women of the Wall committed an unjustifiable sin. There is absolutely no excuse for that type of conduct, regardless of how the women were conducting themselves. And although the overwhelming majority of haredim present that day did not participate, the lack of condemnation from haredi leaders is quite disturbing. Even Rabbi Shmuel Rabinovitch, the rabbi of the Kotel, was able to articulate sharp criticism of the women who came, but somehow couldn’t find any words of rebuke for the reprehensible behavior of those who attacked them. This is unacceptable.
At the same time, the Women of the Wall also deserve strong condemnation for deliberately fanning the flames of controversy in this holy site, and for cynically appropriating rituals of prayer for the sake of feminist protest. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with their demand to be able to pray at the Kotel in the manner they choose, it is reprehensible to come month after month, accompanied by reporters and politicians in a deliberately provocative manner. (Some may believe that all they are trying to do is to pray according to their beliefs, but a brief look at their website makes their activist agenda clear. The main headline on the homepage clearly defines the goal of “fighting for women’s rights”. They also have the offensive audacity to refer to themselves as “liberators” of the Kotel, comparing themselves to the heroic paratroopers who fought there in the Six Day War.) Political protest is of course legitimate – but not at the Kotel.
Regardless of my own opinions on the issue, I can respect people who sincerely believe non-traditional prayer should be allowed at the Kotel, and I can also respect people who are genuinely offended and hurt by such activities. But I cannot respect anyone – on either side – who defiles a holy site for the sake of self-aggrandizement or political protest. It is simply unacceptable, and the entire Jewish people should join in demanding an immediate end to this provocative behavior, from both camps.
2. This, of course, leads directly to the heart of the issue itself – what, in fact, should be allowed at the Kotel? If we want a country that is both Jewish and democratic, we need to ask: what is the proper balance on issues of Jewish law and religious diversity?
This is a very thorny issue, but I believe the key word is “balance”. On the one hand, there are certain matters (like marriage, divorce, conversion and burial) that must be governed by a halachic authority, according to the standards defined by halacha. Failure to do so could split the nation irreconcilably. Furthermore, certain mitzvot (like Shabbat and Kashrut) are very potent Jewish symbols that should be observed in the public sphere – even at the cost of some limitations on personal freedom. These concepts were once part of the consensus in this country, and even many Jews who do not live a halachic lifestyle still recognize and respect them. We should work to restore the consensus and promote it as a national value.
In order to make this happen, though, it is of paramount importance that the religious groups recognize that we are not the majority in the country, and that others see things differently than we do. Asking the secular community to respect halachic regulations of certain matters as well as certain symbols in the public sphere means asking them to compromise on values that are important to them. This is a legitimate request – but only if we can do the same. Unity cannot be bought through coercion.
Sensible and sincere religious leaders have worked for compromise with secular Jews, and there are sincere and reasonable people on that side who are interested in such dialog as well. For example, around six years ago Rabbi Yaakov Medan (now Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Har Etzion) met with Professor Ruth Gavison of Hebrew University and composed a proposal for a “covenant” between the religious and secular communities based on these principles. One need not accept their particular proposals, but something of that nature is essential.
In a few weeks, the country will have a once-in-a-decade opportunity to take positive steps in this direction. A few weeks from now, two new Chief Rabbis will be elected. Anyone who cares about both the religious character of the country and the unity of the Jewish people should support a change in attitude at the Chief Rabbinate. It is essential that the Rabbinate make major changes in policy to reach out to the secular majority, while continuing to steadfastly uphold halacha. This can happen, if Rabbi David Stav is elected to the position of Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi. The keys to that possibility currently seem to lie with Bayit Yehudi chairman Naftali Bennett, so members of the public (particularly those of us who voted for his party) should let him know we support Rabbi Stav’s candidacy.
3. Finally, as a follow-up to the above points, I would like to just say that it is important that everyone be reasonable. Returning to the particular issue of prayer at the Kotel, there is a very reasonable compromise that has been suggested by Natan Sharansky: to create a third section at the Kotel for egalitarian and non-traditional prayer, in the area of Robinson’s Arch. The truth is that the proposal is not completely new – in fact egalitarian services have already been taking place in that spot for several years – but Sharansky’s proposal addresses some of the limitations in the current arrangement. For example, since the area is currently an archeological park, egalitarian worshippers need to coordinate their visits in advance and pay an entrance fee. Sharansky’s plan would change that and provide 24/7 free access to the area, just as exists in the current men’s and women’s sections.
This is an excellent proposal which has been accepted by many secular groups and also (amazingly) by Rabbi Rabinovitch and the haredi establishment. However, Sharansky’s plan is meeting with strong opposition from an unexpected source: the scientific community. This is because his current proposal involves building a huge elevated deck over the entire area, which would obscure and possibly damage exceedingly important archeological remains. Therefore leading archeologists such as Eilat Mazar and even the director of the Israel Antiquities Authority have vigorously opposed the plans.
They scientists are absolutely right. The Robinson’s Arch area is one of the most important archeological sites in the world, and it would be a terrible mistake to damage it. These concerns, however, can reasonably be met by making some fairly modest modifications to Sharansky’s proposal: making the proposed deck significantly smaller and/or allowing free open access to the lower street area where the excavations are. An additional benefit of these modifications would be that this somewhat more modest proposal could be implemented much more quickly than Sharansky’s current plan.
The main opponents to those modifications, though, are the Women of the Wall and their supporters. Insisting on complete and total equality, they demand that the new egalitarian area be equal in size to the current men’s and women’s sections, even though the actual needs of the public do not by any means require that (on Rosh Chodesh Sivan, for example, the Women of the Wall and their supporters numbered approximately 300. Estimates say there were about 10,000 traditional worshippers in the women’s section at the same time). They also insist on an elevated platform at the same physical height as the other two sections, which would require building the huge platform over the archeological remains. Neither of these demands is reasonable, and therefore they should be opposed and rejected.
Compromise on essential ideological principles is a very difficult thing for anyone to do, particularly when dealing with matters of religious faith. Understanding this requires a major paradigm shift, where both sides realize that if either one “wins”, we all lose. This paradigm shift must happen, however, because the alternative is unthinkable. Those who wonder what this means need only look at what happened on Rosh Chodesh to see an ominous harbinger of where the tensions could lead.
Although this may be a very uncomfortable thought for some, it could be that this combination is ultimately impossible. It may very well be the case that the country cannot be both completely Jewish and completely democratic, because these two concepts may in fact be somewhat mutually exclusive. If so, then at times one of the two values will need to yield to the other. We will then need to decide what we want – a Jewish state with many democratic aspects, or a democracy with some Jewish symbols. But that is for a different blog post!
Rabbi Haber, thank you for this essay. I have read many essays on this topic, and really appreciate your honesty and lack of exaggeration that is lacking in all of the others that I’ve read.
Eloquent as always. But….. If an Orthodox Shul (the only Shul we recognize as Kadosh) were to invite a reform minyan to hold services in their social hall, you, me and many others would stop Davening there. It is a hard pill to swallow but the Torah – Our Torah; the Divine word – is sectarian. It is racist and sexist. Not mysoginistic or bigoted. It just notices and acknowledges differences. Yahadut HaTorah is limited in that we cannot acknowledge sacred significance in anything but Orthodoxy. Your thoughts?
Avi, thanks for your comment.
Although I generally describe this in somewhat different terms than you did, I certainly agree that the Torah differentiates between men and women. However, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.
If you are asking what I think about egalitarian services and whether they can be justified halachically, this is complex and depends on the situation. I dealt with that in the audio lecture on “Tradition and Innovation” referenced above.
As for the topic of this blog post, however, I was making a different point: even if people are acting in ways that (as you correctly put it) we cannot acknowledge as being sacredly significant, we have to think carefully about how we communicate that point. Certainly the verbal and physical violence is unacceptable and should be condemned. Beyond that, we have to think very carefully before pushing for legislation that would attempt to enforce too many halachic strictures. Too much such legislation simply cannot be successful, and is doomed to backfire. Therefore, I believe we have to adopt a somewhat more tolerant stance, even though this may at times mean allowing practices that go against our halachic beliefs. I recognize the difficulty in making such a statement, but we as I wrote, we have no other choice.
“Certainly the verbal and physical violence is unacceptable and should be condemned. ” – But of course!
“Beyond that, we have to think very carefully before pushing for legislation that would attempt to enforce too many halachic strictures. Too much such legislation simply cannot be successful, and is doomed to backfire.” – Ad Bias Goel Tzedek….until then Am Yisrael B’Eretz Yisrael is forced to live not completely Al Pi Torat Yisrael……shame….it is a system doomed to failure.
I think that a far better approach would have been to have kiruv professionals meet these women at the Kotel and reach out to them. If they sincerely want to connect to Hashem, then the kiruv people could have helped them do it. And if their agenda was nothing more than a battle for so-called “feminism,” then that would have come out without the Chillul Hashem. Rabbi Haber, what do you think?
Certainly it would have been better to do anything other than assault and attack them. I’m not sure that meeting them there and trying to reason with them right in the middle of things would do the trick either, though. There’s a time and a place for everything.
As I wrote, I think that the long-term solution is a version of Sharansky’s plan (with the modifications I spoke about), and to work on increasing tolerance and dialog. In an atmosphere like that, I hope that many more Jews will in fact be drawn towards Torah observance of one type or another.
In the meantime, though, I think the best policy is to make our positions clear respectfully, and avoid friction as much as possible.
Thanks for the comment!
I just want to make it clear that those who caused the awful chillul Hashem were not affiliated with Women For the Wall. In fact, the founder of Women For the Wall, Ronit Peskin, condemned their actions. Her goal was for women to daven peacefully at the Kotel, and she gave specific instruction to not be violent or confrontational in any way. See here, a response written by Ronit herself: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/massive-prayer-rally-at-the-kotel-today-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis. Here are some points by way of reaction.
(1) In the Halachic hierarchy, Chillul Hashem is a super-mitzvah, exemplified that its violation carries no clear form of Teshuva. The famous Ramban in Parashat Kedoshim describes a “naval birshut haTorah”. Violent behavior against other Jews, be they men or women, adults or children would most certainly fit into such a contsruct. As such, the verbally and physically violent reactions of the Kanaim is an abomination.
(2) On the other hand, those non-Orthodox groups who support the right of the Women of the Wall are engaging in an activity designed to push the envelope and provoke. This would certainly not be consistent with “Tikkun Olam”. Why should they endorse sensitivity towards those persecuted in Third World countries and members of the animal kingdom but at the same time ignore sensitivity towards fellow Jews? If I found myself in a gathering of Reform Jews and clergy, while I would not endorse their views, I would address them with respect and certainly not do anything that might offend them.
(3) That brings us to the Kotel. Is it a shul, a place of meditation, a place of life cycle events and military ceremonies? Is it segmented into a mega-shul or synagogue-plex, and plaza. It is sort of all of the above. So, what is its Halachic status? Much is probably contingent on precedent. It would seem to me that the existing men’s and women’s sections would be considered a Beit Knesset, despite the fact that the minyanim are mostly ad hoc, given the fact that they are kavua. This combined with #2 above should set the bar of sensitivity to the lowest common denominator.
(4) Now for the apparel. I would say that as long as the WoW maintain gender segregation and do not create a scene, I’d be willing to look the other way. Tallitot are Tashmishei Mitzvah and that would not cross-the-line of my Halachic barometer as much as Tefillin which are Tashmishei Kedusha. But, then again, I am a male. So, what would be important would be to use the women regulars as the sensitivity metric. If the women regulars are offended by those items, I would think that in the spirit of bein adam l’chaveiro, they might move to a different area or assemble in a building if they feel that is an essential component of their religious expression. Using egalitarianism as a value that is equal to that of, or an exemption for bein adam l’chaveiro, is simply misplaced.
I essentially agree with your analysis. Certainly, if we can institute a spirit of good will and mutual cooperation, this entire thing can be solved. But sadly, as you correctly note, there are people on both sides who are intentionally fanning the flames of controversy instead of working for tolerance and understanding. Nevertheless, I think if enough of us make clear that we support those things and oppose provocations, maybe we can make a difference.
Thanks for the comments!
Pingback: A Nation Like None Other | Rabbi Alan Haber