JVO: The Conflict Involving the Women of the Wall

Jewish Values Online (jewishvaluesonline.org) is a website that asks the Jewish view on a variety of issues, some specifically Jewish and some from the world around us -- and then presents answers from each of the dominations of Judaism. Nishmablog's Blogmaster Rabbi Wolpoe and Nishma's Founding Director, Rabbi Hecht, both serve as Orthodox members of their Panel of Scholars.

This post continues this series on the Nishmablog that features responses on JVO by one of our two Nishma Scholars who are on this panel. This week's presentation is to one of the questions to which Rabbi Hecht responded.

* * * * *
Question: Are extremists on both sides (left and right) of the Woman of the Wall ordeal going too far to push their agendas? It seems like most Israelis would prefer peace and unity when it comes to personal praying at the Kotel.

Rabbi Benjamin Hecht's answer

To fully understand the nature of your question, it may be worthwhile to consider it within a different context that would thereby open up to you the full dimension of the issue. As I am presently reading a book on the American Civil War, let us use slavery as this example. There were people on both sides of the issue of slavery who were willing to go to war over this issue. You could ask the same question in that regard: were the extremists on both sides, in that case, going too far to push their agendas? You could also state, in this regard, that there were people– perhaps, even, a majority of the nation at the time -- who preferred peace and unity. How would that realization then affect how you would look at the two sides of the conflict in that case?

As modern individuals who find slavery to be abhorrent, it is difficult for us to comprehend how individuals -- who in other respects would be fully ethical and moral -- could possibly take a stand to go to war to defend the institution of slavery. We can understand, though, how individuals would be willing to undertake such a battle to end it. Even though such a war would shatter the peace and unity of the country, we can understand how individuals could be so bothered by slavery that they would be willing to enter into such a war in order to destroy this oppression. It is this realization of a passion of an issue that we have to also consider in addressing this issue of the Women of the Wall in Israel. The issue is not slavery and, thank God, the concern is not war. What we still have to recognize, though, is that for individuals on both sides of the issue there is much passion in their viewpoints. The question, thus, is how are we to look at these variant passions especially since a third passion for peace and unity may be thereby also challenged. From the example of slavery, though, we do learn that peace and unity may not always be the overriding value in the eyes of all.

To further and properly address this issue in Israel, however, it is also necessary to correctly define what the issue is and, thereby, the source of the differing passions. In this regard, to describe this battle as being over personal praying at the Kotel would be, in my opinion, incorrect. The Kotel is more than a place of personal prayer; it is a significant national landmark. As such, what happens at the Kotel reflects the communal nature of the Jewish People. This is doubly so because the Kotel is also a place of communal prayer. It is a place, a significant place, where we can come together as a Jewish community in prayer. Viewed in this manner, we can begin to understand the basis of the passion of both sides in this conflict. The issue is how we see the very nature of a Jewish community, specifically, in this case, in how we are to come together as a community in prayer. Defining the nature of the Jewish community, indeed, is a matter that could generate much passion.

This is the real nature of the conflict – and viewed in this manner, one can see why both sides have great passion in their position. As an Orthodox Rabbi, it should be clear that I would favour a more traditional view of the nature of Jewish communal prayer and, thus, in regard to this actual issue itself, would lean towards the more traditional stand. That, however, is not really the question here. The question here actually is: given that there are variant views within the Jewish world, how are we to respond? The further complication is that, in accepting any deviation from one’s vision of what should be Jewishness, one is also thereby inherently challenging one’s very vision of what Jewishness is. If I say Jewishness is A and you say Jewishness is B, a resultant compromise of let us say A+B would actually not be Jewishness to either of us. This problem is especially so from the Orthodox perspective. Viewed in this manner, one could see how the passions of the issue could run high.

So let us re-visit your question from this perspective. Whether either side is going too far in pushing its agenda really depends on how you view the significance of the particular agenda. If you think the whole matter is a non-issue in the first place, then your view will be that what these individuals are fighting over is not so significant in the first place, so, of course, the hostility and animosity is clearly not worth it. The average secular Israeli may, actually, feel that way. If, however, you recognize that their battle is, in fact, over a significant issue, then you may perceive the sides, especially the one you favour, to simply be doing what it has to do for the sake of the greater value of Jewishness.

This, however, is where the second part of your inquiry may play an interesting role. Peace and unity as part of Jewishness are also defining Jewish values – and they, as such, have their own roles to play in the very definition of Jewishness. There are cases whereby an argument can be made to even do what may not be technically correct because to do otherwise may cause friction and the pursuit of peace and unity is also a value to be thrown into the mix. This is not to say that everything may become permitted in the name of peace and unity – in fact, this concern for peace and unity has many limitations as a force that would allow any such deviation. Yet concern for peace and unity are not just other external factors that should be considered in cases of disagreement. In this case, as we discuss the Jewish community, peace and unity are actually factors to be applied in shaping the inherent answer to this question.

This does not mean that peace and unity thereby triumphs. It does not mean that it overrides the other issues of Jewishness that more specifically dominate this issue. What it does mean, though, in the determination of communal Jewishness, we do have to consider peace and unity as factors. To use the algebraic analogy above, peace and unity could be a factor in making the answer of A+B more Jewish. It could be the call for A not to confront B or for B to accommodate A. That we consider peace and unity as a value of Jewishness in this battle over the nature of Jewishness could, indeed, result in such a declaration that fanatics on both sides may be going too far. They are fighting for Jewishness – yet Jewishness also includes a disdain for such fighting. This does not, however, mean do not fight – but recognize the inherent problem in having to fight with fellow Jews even in the advent of one’s perception of Jewishness.