Religion & Beliefs

POST A COMMENT

• 
  By mikewinddale 10/14/09 at 8:17 p.m. UTC

  > Mike, you have not argued how Lilit has a point and her ability to bring her prayers
  > to the Almighty are blunted in any way.  By contrast, the community of Jews by
  > far the most active at that site will be unable to pray there if the Jewish Left has its
  > way–and this is the design and purpose of their protest. 
  >
  > David Friedman

  She never claimed her prayers were "blunted". Rather, she is offended by the fact that men are given a preferable position. Now, the Orthodox can give whatever justifications for the sexual disparity, and maybe even the Orthodox are entirely correct, and the non-Orthodox incorrect. (Being Orthodox myself, I’d lean somewhere in this direction.) But is it really so difficult for us (meaning the Orthodox) to put ourselves in the shoes of a non-Orthodox Jew, and imagine how we’d feel?

  This is what the Orthodox must realize: the non-Orthodox are not demons, even if they are named Lilit. :P

  The entire first letter of Rabbi S. R. Hirsch’s Nineteen Letters is a reiteration of the grievances the non-Orthodox had against Orthodoxy. Ever since the days of Rabbi Saadia Gaon’s rebuttal of Hiwi al-Balkhi, the Orthodox replied to the non-Orthodox, but Rabbi Hirsch, in a stunning move, took it upon himself to first provide a cogent basis for their criticisms. The literary quality of Rabbi Hirsch’s German was well known, and many Reform authors of his time, even as they disagreed with everything he said, couldn’t help but marvel in amazement how nevertheless, everything he said was just so beautifully put. I have a Jewish friend from Salonika who speaks German, and since he’s a Greek Sephardi, Rabbi Hirsch doesn’t "do it" for him, but he as well has told me that regardless of what Rabbi Hirsch says, he just loves the way Rabbi Hirsch says it (in the original German). So when Rabbi Hirsch took it upon himself to reiterate the grievances the non-Orthodox youth of his time had against Orthodoxy, I think that this only strengthened the non-Orthodox, by enlisting his beautiful literary German in aid of their cause.

  So why on earth did Rav Hirsch reiterate their grievances? Because Rabbi Hirsch had a heart and knew that the non-Orthodox were sincere and honest in their endeavors! Read Nineteen Letters closely; you’ll see that Rabbi Hirsch criticizes the Orthodox far more harshly than the does the Reformers. And his Horeb is dedicated to the "thinking young men and women of Israel". Interestingly, he not only includes women, but he excludes any mention of Orthodoxy in that dedication.

  I am presently writing an essay explaining my third-section proposal, and furthermore, explaining the sociological and theological reasons why it is in Orthodoxy’s own best interest to compromise on this and other matters. I am hoping it will be published somewhere, but if it is not, I will make it available on Scribd.
• 
  By mikewinddale 7/23/09 at 7:34 a.m. UTC

  Lilit said,
  "Unity" should not mean "all Jews of all denominations just going along with whatever the Orthodox want or else be accused of disloyalty."

  I agree.

  Now, I personally believe that Orthodoxy – taken in the simple sense of being faithful to Jewish tradition and law – has a greater claim to authenticity and legitimacy than other Jewish denominations. But there are a few caveats:

  (1) This argument, while it may be true (in my opinion), is of little avail in today’s environment. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, and even today in Israel, everyone considered Orthodoxy the most authentic form of Judaism, even if they weren’t observant themselves. But today, most American Jews do not think this way, and so, even if Orthodox is more authentic, this won’t help Orthodoxy win adherents. Being self-righteous is of no avail if one’s goal is not merely to be correct, but is rather to actually convince others of one’s being correct.

  (2) Not all forms of Orthodoxy are created equal. Professor Menachem Friedman, a renowned expert in Haredi sociology and history at Bar Ilan University, notes, "In my opinion the Eastern European, Ashkenazi character of haredi Jewry remains questionable to this day."

  Professor Marc Shapiro, in "The Moroccan Rabbinic Conferences" (hXXXttp://www.jewishideas.org/articles/moroccan-rabbinic-conferences) writes, "It is a truism that with the Emancipation and the rise of Reform and, later, Conservative Judaism, options for halakhic flexibility became much more limited. In the midst of a battle against the non-Orthodox movements, traditional Judaism retreated into a conservative mold both as a means of distinguishing itself from the non-Orthodox and out of a fear that in an era of halakhic crisis, any liberality in halakhic decision-making could encourage non-Orthodox trends. This latter sentiment was always on the minds of halakhists, even those who did not adopt lock, stock, and barrel R. Moses Sofer’s famous bon mot, "Anything new is forbidden by the Torah." The above description is accurate, however, only with regard to the Ashkenazic world. The Sephardic world never had to contend with non-Orthodox religious movements, and thus it was able to develop in a much more natural-one might say organic-fashion. In particular, this was the case in Morocco, a community that had a very old halakhic tradition and whose scholars produced numerous works of responsa."

  In like wise, Professor Daniel J. Elazar writes in "Can Sephardic Judaism be Reconstructed" (hXXXttp://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles3/sephardic.htm), "[A]s modernization engulfed them, the Jewish religious leadership in Central and Eastern Europe became either more radical or more conservative in their approach to tradition, either seeing antinomian radical reform or refusing to continence any new departures, even in interpretation. The religious leadership of the Sephardic world, on the other hand, particularly in North Africa and the Balkans, developed a whole pattern of halakhic interpretation that moved far in the direction to reconciling halakhah with modern technology and life down through the nineteenth century."

  In contrast to Ashkenazi stricture, Elazar notes (ibid.) that "One of the greatest, if not the greatest, contribution of Sephardic Jewry was…to offer a balanced theory and practice, not given to excess, seriously Jewish, yet worldly and cosmopolitan. Classic Sephardic Judaism was designed by men who lived in the larger world and were active in its affairs, most of whom wanted a Judaism no less rigorous than their Ashkenazi brethren in its essentials, but flexible in its interpretations and applications. … The basic element of the Sephardic religious outlook embodied in the halakhic decision-making of its religious leadership w[a]s that halakhah should facilitate Jewish living in the world in which Jews found themselves, not seek to separate the Jewish people from the external world per se. … Their Judaism would play an isolating function only where critically necessary and not prevent Jews from playing their role in what had been in Spain prior to 1391 a multi-religious society." Similarly, he notes ("The Special Character of Sephardi Tolerance, hXXXttp://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles2/sephtol.htm), "Sephardim are noted for and pride themselves on being less fanatic than Ashkenazim in virtually all matters, especially religion. They certainly are not among the militant, black garbed Jews who throw stones at vehicles on the Sabbath and refuse to serve in the army. Sephardim are often bewildered by the Ashkenazic pursuit of humrot (new and more difficult halakhic refinements), because they have traditionally sought to balance the requirements of observance with those of living in order to achieve a form of religious expression that takes into consideration the whole human being, to encourage and cultivate the range of human attributes. It is difficult for Sephardim to understand the isolationist trend that is dominant among so many Orthodox Ashkenazim, who see the salvation of Judaism only in separating it from those who do not meet current religious standards, which seem to be always moving to the right. Sephardim see no hope or virtue in isolation; to them, the result is a warping of Jews and a distortion of Judaism. Sephardim always have sought to balance their lives both as Jews and as a part of a larger human society. Isolation is not and was not a Sephardic goal — that would have been a violation of their sense of proportion and balance. Rather, they seek to accept involvement with the larger world and its challenges. Historically, in the world in which most Sephardim lived, there was little occupation and segregation between Jews and non-Jews and often little residential segregation. Living and working together prevented the development of an isolationist spirit."

  In the traditional Sephardic community, everyone – observant or not – was accomodated by the Orthodox authorities. Similarly, Professor Menachem Friedman notes that whereas today we have "voluntary communities", in which the members are only those people whom the community admits, traditionally, the community was constituted by an entire political or geographic locale. Everyone – observant or not – within a certain area was the community. The rabbis had no choice but accomodate the non-observant, because they were already part of one community; everyone – observant or not – was among the rabbis’ constituents, and he had no choice but to seek to accomodate them.

  Thus, Elazar notes ("Can Sephardi Judaism be Reconstructed?), "Sephardic Judaism as it developed in Spain was not like the "post-Reformation" Judaism of modern Europe and the United States divided into Reform, Conservative or Orthodox. First of all, it did not involve the kind of rupture with tradition that characterized Reform. Nor did it turn tradition into something frozen, or worse, reshaped by a deliberate ideology of rigidity, as did ultra-Orthodoxy. Nor did it allow the kind of institutional divisions that ultimately led to more deep-seated ruptures as with Conservatism. In part this was because medieval conditions were different from modern ones and in part because the culture of the Mediterranean world is different from that of northern Europe. … [T]he fact of Sephardic Jewry being Mediterranean played a very important role. Thus we see today that in the Mediterranean countries the Protestant approach to religion with its search for consistency between belief and action continues to do poorly. As a rule, Mediterranean peoples believe that they must formally be faithful to the traditions of their fathers although reserving to themselves the right to determine how they individually will maintain those traditions. In contemporary times, this has become the way in which many Sephardim conduct their lives. Today there are more than a few Sephardim who eat every kind of halakhic abomination while providing support for the most ultra-Orthodox Sephardic yeshivot (rather than more "modern" institutions) and who regularly visit (with checkbook in hand) wonder-working rabbis of the old school to obtain their blessings."

  Elazar (ibid.) offers one example: whereas Ashkenazim build synagogues based on ideology, "Contrast this with a typical Sephardic congregation. It will be composed of people of all levels of observance, from black-hatted yeshiva students to people who think of themselves as secular but enjoy attending services from time to time. In the congregation all are equal. No one is asked how much or how little he observes. Sephardim assume that all people want to be traditional, only some people need greater degrees of help. That Sephardic attitude, which is typically Mediterranean, runs against the grain of the Ashkenazi pattern where people have to declare their religious ideology and form of religious behavior to fit into one community or another within Orthodoxy as well as between Orthodox and non-Orthodox."

  Professor Friedman, in several of his essays, cites a case in which an Orthodox Eastern European rabbi chose to be lenient for the sake of Jewish unity. A few Jewish villages in the area, while nominally observant, were not completely punctilious in the observance of kashrut. The rabbi chose, however, to overlook their laxity, trusting that they were generally observant, and chose not to penalize them for their spotty observance. (It should be emphasized, however, that they were generally observant of kashrut. The issue was that their method of slaughtering cattle, while mostly conforming to Jewish laws of shekhita, left a bit to be desired in a few technical areas.) Why? Because, he said, it is more important for every Jew to be able to eat as one at one table, than it is to be completely punctiliously observant of the ritual laws. Professor Friedman concludes, based on this, that "Preventing animosity is a religious obligation that transcends even the suspicion of eating non-kosher meat." Realize that Friedman’s conclusion is based solely on Orthodox sources.

  Elazar concludes (ibid.), "[I]t [is] possible to attract non-Sephardim, who are seeking a Judaism of that kind, to the Sephardic way. Can it be done? Only if there is a major effort to revive Sephardic halakhic interpretation, train Sephardic rabbinical leadership, and present the Sephardic way as an equally valid expression of Judaism, one that avoids Reformation-style schismatics and speaks on behalf of an organic Judaism through which Jews as a group are linked to a common tradition, while as individuals they make their own choices as to how to relate to and express that tradition. … The revival of a living organic Judaism of this kind is the need of the hour in Jewish life."

  —————————

  Therefore, based on all the foregoing – that Orthodoxy has historical legitimacy, but that this is helpful only when the non-Orthodox realize it; and that different kinds of Orthodoxy have different levels of legitimacy (Haredism is illegitimate, Sephardism is extremely legitimate); and that traditional Judaism sought to encompass all the Jewish people – observant and not – and compromise for the sake of unity – therefore, I agree with Lilit that "’Unity’ should not mean ‘all Jews of all denominations just going along with whatever the Orthodox want or else be accused of disloyalty.’"
• 
  By mikewinddale 7/21/09 at 4:30 p.m. UTC

  Lilit,

  I’ll wager you didn’t pull "predilection" out of a trashy TV show. ;)

  Be that as it may…

  I’ll try to avoid a debate as to whether the mechitzah is actually required by halakhah - let’s just, for now, assume it is - and I’ll just say the following:

  (1) If the male side is exclusively male, and the female side exclusively female, I think that it is difficult to say which side is the one being discriminated against, on these grounds alone. Perhaps the men are the ones being discriminated against! However, we then realize that the women are (as far as I know) not allowed to read from the Torah or sing as loudly as men. This, and precisely this, is where the discrimination lies. Now, in a private synagogue, the congregation can set whatever policies it desires, and women can simply choose not to frequent that establishment, but in a place that is publicly owned by the Jewish people, I see no grounds whatsoever to give preference to men, because the women own it no less than do the men, and the women have as much say as the men do. If the sexes must be separated, so be it, but it should be separate-but-equal; whatever the men are allowed to do, the women should be allowed to do as well, without any limitation whatsoever. If the men are distracted by singing women, they can (a) rely on the Orthodox-Jewish Turkish, Greek, Egyptian, Syrian, and Yemenite permission to listen to women sing; so far as I know, the only Orthodox rabbis who still uphold the prohibition even today to listen to women sing, are Ashkenazim and Haredim; Sephardi and Mizrahi Orthodox non-Haredi rabbis tend to be extremely lenient regarding this. Now, I’ve got ample sources to back up this assertion if anyone calls me on it; (b) the men can wear earplugs; (c) the men can simply go somewhere else.

  (2) Perhaps there should be a third section of the Kotel, a mixed-sex area. That way, everyone could daven according to his or her own preferences. And if mixed-sex davening violates halakhah, then we should realize two things:
  (a) It is the non-Orthodox daveners who will put themselves into this situation, by willingly davening in the mixed area. There is a halakhic principle, "Let the wicked stew in their juices", meaning that if sinners want to hurt themselves by sinning, and no one else, then we let them. So if the non-Orthodox want to daven in the mixed-sex area, the Orthodox have ample halakhic basis to let the non-Orthodox do so without interference. Even if mixed-sex davening is prohibited, there is still a strong basis to permit it here. (I hope you realize that I am being tongue-in-cheek; my classifying non-Orthodox Jews as sinners actually leads to greater tolerance, not less.)
  (b) Perhaps it is worthwhile to permit a relatively minor infraction – viz. mixed-sex davening – if it will lead to greater unity in the Jewish world. Perhaps a small concession like this would go a long way towards mending some of the rifts in the fabric of Jewish peoplehood. I don’t think I need to elaborate on how fantastically self-evident – in the context of historical Judaism – this suggestion of mine is, to be lenient for the sake of Jewish unity.

  I say all this as an Orthodox Jew, and that’s all I have to say about this.
• 
  By joewho 7/19/09 at 5:17 p.m. UTC

  These words are key, "like most mechitzas it places emphasis and preference on the men’s side, which is at least twice the size ot the woman’s side. While kol isha and the seperation of men and women are matters of halacha, it is NOT halacha for the women to have less space. Most of the times that I have been to the Kotel there is ample space for any man, be he a non Jewish tourist or frum Jew, to step up and hug the wall. Whereas  the women’s section is crammed and clausterphobic . It would not be against halacha to move the mechitza over just a tad so that the women aren’t quite so packed in. I disagree with Lilit though that the men’s side is "more than twice the size of the women’s" . It’s actually not that much larger, the temporary rampway to the top of the Mount has taken up a chunk of the women’s section though . The argument that women are not required to doven whereas men are, is not applicable to the Kotel. Jewish men are not required to doven specifically at the Kotel. And a variety of people go there, not just Jews.Giving women a bit more room would break no halacha. It would require only  basic politeness, consideration and empathy for the feelings of women- a radical concept for some. When I go to the Kotel I look up and think about that Mosque that stands where the Temple once stood. I think about the Muslim’s up there, looking down on the Jews, I remember them throwing rocks and spitting.  I see Jews being treated like second class citizens in their own land . Then I look at the women’s section. I see women crammed in and being treated like second class citizens  in the holiest city on earth  and I contemplate Hashem’s JUSTICE.
• 
  By David N. Friedman 7/16/09 at 2:57 p.m. UTC

  Lillit Marcussays although she wanted to connect fully–she had an "uneasy peace" and "could not completely let go"–and these are clearly psychological terms representing a conflict.

  A conflict between two things can be either easy to reconcile or very difficult to reconcile.  Lillit believes she has a very tough thing to reconcile and I would like her to explain or reconsider her feelings.

  It can be said that people hold rational feelings and irrational fears.  If I Jewish woman who believes in the merit of tzunius wants to go to the gym and exercise, any conflict can be resolved if she stays at home or goes to a woman’s only gym.  It is easy to understand how a woman might feel uncomfortable bending over and sweating in front of men not her husband. A woman might feel uncomfortable opening her door to a strange man in the middle of the day when she could have him wait until her husband comes home–a rational concern.  Leftist women do not have these concerns.  Are they entitled to their own?  Sure–as long as they are rational.  Note how the Jewish woman settles the score–by changing her behavior to fix the problem.  But the liberal woman sees a wonderful religious site and seeks to change the site instead of changing her approach to it.  I would suggest this is rather arrogant.  And if there was some rationale for a woman to have her husband next to her while she prays–please explain that rationale. The conflict here is between a wonderful Jewish experience vs. maintaining feminist ideals–without saying what is equally wonderful about the feminist ideals.  What in feminism honors mingling sexes during religious prayer?  Please site the chapter in Betty Friedan’s book or Progrebin’s book that says this is what a "good girl" should do.  But more importabtly–why should a good feminist girl do this?

  Yes, I have had the experience of being in a Yom Kippur service at a Conservative shul trying to do teshuva when a perfumed woman in a short dress suddenly comes to sit in front of me.  It is plain and easy to understand how this experience is very negative.  But the opposite needs to be explained.  How is it bad to have a subtle barrier between men and women at a prayer site?  What is the conflict all about and note that the resolution takes it upon itself to force a resolution on everyone else.  This is the classic method of the liberal program to force its will (which is always of faulty quality) upon everyone else. 
• 
  By David N. Friedman 7/15/09 at 7:18 p.m. UTC

  It makes no difference to my argument if you are man or woman.  I asked if I was correct to see you as a woman–again–I am asking–a clear demonstration of respect.  You have disclosed the hiddeen truth–fine.  Now please speak to the issue.
• 
  By David N. Friedman 7/15/09 at 7:15 p.m. UTC

  My questions are partly rhetorical, sure. They serve to get to the point of the supposed controversy.  Only by asking for clarification can we determine if there is a sincere complaint or is it mere whining or discomfort. 

  There is no explanation regarding why one person’s alleged discomfort requires overturning the traditions of the group.  Some guy chimes in and accuses *me* of making straw man arguments??? BTW– I have a clear memory of a similar debate about the Kotel about 2 years ago and in that debate, one of the liberal women who claimed she hated me chimed in to support my arguments.

  Praying "the way in which one wants to" again demands explantion.  The point of raising the topic to begin with is to highlight a problem so I ask again–what is REALLY the problem?  This is the bottom line sincere question I wish to ask until someone brave enough gives an answer.

  I enjoy davening at home–I can go at my own pace, I feel connected, etc. However, praying as a community is vitally important.  Are there irritating things–sure.  So what?  Can I reasonably expect a public venue to capture all that I need and want about an experience–of course not.  The chazzan goes either too slow or too fast, Ashrei is skipped over lightly whereas I need to read it all carefully and this puts me behind–so I make adjustments.

  What is wrong with the Kotel–well, these two women argue–there is a curtain which segregates the men’s section from the women’s–and I respond–so??  What is the problem?  How is this any different from the liberal Jew who does not keep kosher demanding non-kosher food?  Why is this GOOD for the community–why is that discomfort a valid demand to place on the community?   Why is it wrong to see that this site does a fantastic job of uniting the Jewish people–a people who are perhaps the most prone to argue among all people? This is not the kind of complaint which should be honored since it fails to say that a Jew is being harmed, his/her prayer is being blunted.  Rather, the only disconnect is in the mind of the liberal who sees a conflict between a Jewish ideal and a liberal one.  My suggeston here is that if one wants to be a Jew in any context, one must do it on Jewish terms.  To force liberalism on Judaism is an irrational stand and one that will surely harm Judaism.  BTW–in the genesis of the gay rights movement–we were told that any law regarding gay rights or gay marriage would not apply to religious institutions and that for the good of the Catholics (for example) they would not be forced to subscribe to these homosexual friendly laws.  Therefore, the awareness is clear that while politics and religion can blend wonderfully–a sick brand of politics called liberalism can destroy everything of value and must therefore be kept away from things sacred–at least until everyone is finally willing to throw it all away and become pagans again.

  Geminijinx believes she is being shoved in a corner but offers no evidence and I have never heard of such a thing.  One can go to a live webcam of the Kotel 24/7–please let me know when there is a case that the women’s side is no overcrowded that women are being turned away or smushed together like sardines. If this is  a good complaint–I have no doubt something can be done about it.  

  But note the proposed solution to the claimed PROBLEM of the mechitza has already been addressed.  A special place was set aside for Conservative Jews to pray together–the men and the women–the whole thing proved to be a big flop and no one attended past the first couple of tries!  This whole protest is a red herring.

  I8A wants to slam the point that politics and religion blend.  Fine.   It has been my point for about 30 years that liberalism is the religion of the leftist Jews.  So I then must ask–how is is appropriate to bring feminist thinking into a religious context?  What are the ideas of feminism that are exemplary and better for women than the Jewish tradition?  Further, regarding the point  regarding the fact that BECAUSE Jews have lived continuously in the land of Israel for better than 2500 years this amounts to a historic claim and secondly–the fact that this piece of real eastate is part of our inheritance from the Almighty and this is a religious claim—is there something bad about these arguments?  The argument put forward by Arabs is fraud on both counts 1) they try to claim the land without a legitimate claim that they have lived there as a  group of people with a distinct identity and 2) they dispute the Jewish claim based upon the Arab’s notion that the Torah is not true and there was no Temple.  We are entitled to claim the land on both of these counts and dispute their claims since we are correct and they are liars.
• 
  By I8A_4RE 7/15/09 at 3:12 p.m. UTC

  First of all, I am in total agreement with the person who said it isn’t worth arguing with David, so I’m not going to. It’s not worth arguing with him because his arguments are logically invalid. Let’s go over the most egregious examples/ lessons in how not to make a cogent argument, one by one:

  In his first reply to the article, David says:

  But let’s get to the guts of your complaint–it is "gender politics" but this is a matter of politics and not prayer.  As a political person, you seek a political solution to a religious issue and this is inappropriate and I would like you to see it is imperative to keep politics out.

  David is trying to paint Lilit’s argument as invalid because it is, in his opinion, political in nature rather than religious. He provides no evidence to support his distinction. How is it that questioning one’s place in a religion is not a religious matter? Why is it that an issue that crosses over into the "political" isn’t also valid in a religious context? And who ever said politics and religion are mutually exlcusive? Aren’t there laws in Israel that are informed by religious doctrine? When segments of Israeli society/government say they refuse to give parts of the West Bank to the Palestinians because in the Bible it all belongs to Israel, where is the distinction in that argument?

   In his second reply, David makes so many invalid arguments it makes my head spin:

   "Mary, your rights are respected.  No one is stopping you from praying at the Kotel." This argument ignores the point: she doesn’t feel respected because she can’t pray the way she wants to. 

   "Why the discomfort?  That is the question.  I submit it is a wanting for something different and this impulse is simply out of place." Here David answers his own question. I think this is a perfect example of the kind of "dialogue" David is best at.

   "Comfort" is the most vague kind of standard to base a complaint and it is something that begs for a further clarification. 

  This is what is known as a "straw man" argument. Straw man arguments are called that because the person making it ignores the actual argument, then makes a flimsy one that he/she attributes to his adversary which he/she can then easily strike down. David is ignoring the fact that Mary and Lilit have given ample clarification on why they are uncomfortable. But David is trying to discredit them by saying they haven’t been clear. Also, "comfort" is David’s word. Neither used that word in their posts, and neither made such a flimsy case as he tries to assert.

  When you say, that you want to pray with your husband–what does this mean? 

  Hmm…I am going to go out on a limb and say it means exactly what it says. 

   If the answer is merely that it is a habit–this is not an argument that can overturn a couple thousand years of Jewish tradition.  Again–in any other context–you and all the rest of the left *Quickly* and without any complaint conform to the prevailing custom of the situtation. But there is just something about conforming to Jewish tradition which bothers you–right?  

   This is just more straw man stuff. David gives what he imagines are the flimsy answers to the questions he asks and then tears them up, and ends by making an ad hominem attack. This is elementary school level arguing. You can find more just like it on WSJ’s editorial page.

   Now, I’m off to the beach in Malibu before the traffic on U.S. 1 gets worse. Brandon and Dylan are waiting for me with some babes who LOVE the New Pornographers. 

   
• 
  By jer 7/15/09 at 2:17 p.m. UTC

  Except going to the Kotel isn’t a religious obligation. Two thousand years ago it was, but you may have noticed that laws regarding the temple have gone into abeyance for the last little while. The Kotel is a tourist site. A tourist site with religious significance, but a tourist site nonetheless. It’s like the Parthenon in that regard; no one, even the staunchest pagan, demands that people follow whatever rules were in place in ancient times for visiting a temple of Athena. Because it’s not anymore. When the temple gets rebuilt, then you’ll have an argument.
• 
  By geminijinx 7/15/09 at 10:24 a.m. UTC

  I’m sorry – we have access as a ‘courtesy’? How lovely that you give us, little sisters who have ‘needs’ to have access to the Kotel as a courtesy.

   In case you can’t read that, it’s sarcasm.

  Religion is not about privaledge and giving the Other access as a courtesy. Men AND women have the right to pray. To me, going to the Kotel is not a sightseeing attraction, it’s an obligation and therefore I don’t think giving me a little corner to pray as a courtesy is inclusive at all.

  I’ve been there, I’ve prayed there. I’m not a radical feminist and I’m not demanding they change everything at all. But I was keenly aware of the inequality and the feeling that the women are kept aside and placated.

  But what do I know? I’m just another she-devil with ‘needs’
• 
  By jer 7/15/09 at 12:12 a.m. UTC

  At least you don’t listen to the Barenaked Ladies as well; imagine the places you’d be forbidden from visiting then!

   

  Don’t try arguing with David N. Friedman… you’ll all just ended up frustrated.
• 
  By schlaffa 7/14/09 at 11:30 p.m. UTC

  Mr Friedman,

  The most significant issue that I have with organised religion as a Jew is the restrictions that it places on the individual to define their own spirituality. Your argument seems to highlight this nicely, particularly when you mention that "wanting the reality to change fails to give you the power to change it since a minority lacks that kind of power". I mean how dare you possibly think you have control over your own spirituality …

  Why the insistance on standardisation? Are we not all individuals with different thoughts and opinions? Did the sages never debate over interpretations of the Torah? Obviously this is not required in this case because "The religious authorities at the Kotel set the rules consistent with their standards and every Jew can be comfortable there if they would only choose to be". And if they don’t feel comfortable then that is their fault for not fitting into the cookie cutter Jew mould? Using similar logic, harassment in the workplace, racial discrimination and bigotry is only offensive because the victim chooses to be offended …

  For someone who wanted to take the politics out of the religion, it’s striking that your logic of ‘everyone can be happy as long as you follow our rules’ would not appear out of place in some of the most infamous dictatorships of the world.

  OK, so if only people just took the time to master the prayers. Obviously you wouldn’t want them to master them too well if they are women since they may make too much noise and disturb the men. You suggest that comfort is a vague standard but I think that the gender inequalities are crystal clear in this regard.

  How does this differ from your JCC example? You claim that 99% of people insist on the status quo but what option has been offered to them? Would all 99% be unhappy if there was a third section in place, furtherst from the male section, where men and women could pray together if they wish and women could make as much noise as their individual spirituality requires? Why are some Jews allowed to take offence when others observe different customs (at the kotel) and yet others are accussed of being divisive? (at the JCC)
• 
  By David N. Friedman 7/14/09 at 10:05 p.m. UTC

  Mary, your rights are respected.  No one is stopping you from praying at the Kotel.  Again–what is this about?

  Here is a large part of the problem.  Jewish prayer is standardized–although prayer at the wall is mostly free-form, there is an organized chaos at work.  Jews come to pray Shacharit in the morning, Mincha in the afternoon and Maariv in the evening.  Even with everyone coming and going–I sense some Jews are not comfortable praying in a prescribed manner.   I submit this is their own problem and if all Jews could take it upon themselves to master the prayers–the experience would be enhanced for all Jews.  I have spoken with many women who do not know the prayers and yet they read psalms, read from a prayer book in English or simply prayed in their own way–all of this is fine and the experiences are almost entirely excellent.  For Ms. Marcus and yourself–  Why the discomfort?  That is the question.  I submit it is a wanting for something different and this impulse is simply out of place.

  You say you have a need to pray with your husband but this is not permitted under the laws in place for the entire community.  I have been perplexed by this kind of stand all my life. I was born and raised a Reform Jew–some Reform Jews would protest kosher food at the JCC.  I was perplexed–if all the food was kosher–everyone could eat–case closed–what is the problem?  Insisting on the non-kosher only created a division that was completely unnecessary and yet people fought furiously over the food.  At the wall–99% of the participants insist on normative standards–your insistence makes 1-2% comfortable at the expense of the 99%–why might you push this when ALL can participate?

  Men need to know the prayers so they can feel they are equal and women need to drop this protest since it is baseless. The religious authorities at the Kotel set the rules consistent with their standards and every Jew can be comfortable there if they would only choose to be.  "Comfort" is the most vague kind of standard to base a complaint and it is something that begs for a further clarification.

  I am pleased to allow the leftist protesters to go down this road and be more specific. When you say, that you want to pray with your husband–what does this mean?  If the answer is merely that it is a habit–this is not an argument that can overturn a couple thousand years of Jewish tradition.  Again–in any other context–you and all the rest of the left *Quickly* and without any complaint conform to the prevailing custom of the situtation. But there is just something about conforming to Jewish tradition which bothers you–right?  So please state what bothers you since it surely seems that the argument here goes way beyond a vague need to pray next to your husband–am I right?  You want a different reality entirely, right?  But wanting the reality to change fails to give you the power to change it since a minority lacks that kind of power.

  Note I am here to ask for clarification and ask questions–giving dignity to the individual.  
• 
  By mary.menville 7/14/09 at 7:51 p.m. UTC

  Mr. Friedman I respect your opinion that Jewish prayer at the wall is a male activity, but I disagree completely.  I understand that for some Jews praying in mixed company does not meet their needs and I respect that.  For me, being allowed to pray but not allowed to pray with my husband and not allowed to pray out loud does not meet my needs.  Isn’t there some way that we could work together to try to find a way to meet everyone’s needs, instead of spending so much time with Jew fighting Jew? 

   I also have to admit that I am troubled that you would attack Ms. Marcus on the items in her bio that you find objectionable.  Why would her attachment to porn or trashy novels have anything to do with whether or not she should pray? I don’t see anyone checking the background of everyone praying at the wall to make sure that they are porn-free, why should Ms. Marcus be subject to this level of scrutiny?

   I really do respect your right to have your needs met at prayer Mr. Friedman, but I do wish you would respect mine as well.
• 
  By David N. Friedman 7/14/09 at 6:35 p.m. UTC

  OK, Ms. Marcus–I can’t follow your argument here.  The Kotel is a prayer site and Jewish prayer is a male requirement.  There is a place at the wall for women to pray and the proportions more than suffice to fit the needs of the participants.  The mechitiza is a moveable, temporary  barrier and not at all a "wall" as alleged.  But let’s get to the guts of your complaint–it is "gender politics" but this is a matter of politics and not prayer.  As a political person, you seek a political solution to a religious issue and this is inappropriate and I would like you to see it is imperative to keep politics out.  Sadly, additional  complaints also come from other religions where Christians claim to be mistreated and Muslims as well.  I simply cannot fathom such complaints, perhaps you can help me out.  This is a Jewish prayer site.  It exists for Jews to pray at.  Men have the obligation to pray and therefore men dominate the proportion of the people who pray so please tell me: what is the problem?  Women who wish to pray are accomodated.

  You are correct to observe that there is but one Kotel–therefore the rules which are in effect are designed to respect the holiness of the site– which ties back into Jewish law.  I have little doubt that you are like most people, including myself, when we slow down a bit in front of a police station while driving–or offer extra respect to an elderly person–or stop talking when the national anthem is being sung–etc. People are routinely asked to show respect in specific situations.  Why, therefore, should we turn the Kotel into a place to air political grievances?

  Lastly, it is probably a good idea when you are making a protest concerning the supposed second class standing of women at a holy site to cleanse your bio of references to "trashy novels" and "pornographic" things.

   

   

Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!