Every time I read about the ongoing Women of the Wall saga, I am filled with sorrow. As I picture Jew fighting Jew, a woman being roughhoused by police, fingerprinted like a common criminal, my heart is heavy. Their fight is reminiscent of that of Rosa Parks. All these women want is the same treatment as men. How could one group be allowed to monopolize a national holy site?
These are the emotions that fill my heart. When I think about it, though, I ultimately disagree with what the Women of the Wall are trying to accomplish.
I can see things from both sides because I’ve been in both worlds. I was raised as Conservative Jew, and was outraged the first time I saw the mechitza at the Western Wall, during a family trip to Israel when I was almost 14. I had basically no real understanding of Orthodox Judaism at that point, but the message of the mechitza was clear to me: You women don’t have the same rights and privileges as men.
A couple years after that first encounter with a mechitza — many years into an existential crisis that began in childhood — I decided to give Orthodox Judaism a try to see if it might answer some of life’s biggest questions. I was taken in by the beauty of the learning, the lifestyle and of the people who truly embodied Torah values. (Unfortunately, not all people who call themselves “Orthodox” live up to these high standards.)
I also saw began to see the mechitza and a woman’s role in traditional Jewish life very differently. The fact that I, and many other Orthodox Jewish women I know, are happy with the way things are regarding traditional prayer, unfortunately is irrelevant to the Women of the Wall. Some have had different experiences than we have had; others have come to different conclusions. Ideas can be discussed and debated all day long, but at the end of the day, a practical decision needs to be made about the happenings at that Wall — and that’s where things start to get complicated.
As the mother of three children — two of arguing age — I know that sometimes both sides can have valid points. The question of whose turn is it to get the toy is not always solved with the best answer, but sometimes with the least worst. And leaving the prayer-style the most traditionally oriented, in my view, is the least worst answer.
Why is that? Because of the proverbial slippery slope. Jewish people have been praying at the Wall in a particular (traditional) way for 2,000 years. Once we start to make changes to that way of doing things, wherever the bar is set for a time, there will always be someone who wants to move it further.
For instance, one of my friends has become more observant in the last few years, approaching Orthodoxy. One of her relatives is a Reform Jew and has argued with my friend about many of the choices she’s made in living what she sees as a more traditionally halachic life. But this Reform relative recently expressed outrage to my friend when her temple was visited by a group of Secular Humanist Jews, who explained that instead of reciting the Shema as “Hear oh Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One,” they said, “Hear oh Israel, the Lord is Man, the Lord is One.”
“That’s human worship!” this relative informed my friend. “How could they take things so far?” When my friend heard this, she thought about how this relative finally understood what had motivated her to return to a more traditional Jewish lifestyle.
A group of women reading Torah, wearing tallisim, yarmulkes, and tefillin on the women’s side, though not against any technical Jewish law, is the first break from keeping things the way they’ve been since prayer was first established, after the destruction of the Second Temple. What if a group wanted to put up an image or an idol when they prayed at the Wall? What if this group explained that it helped them better to focus on their prayers if they had a god in front of them to visualize as they prayed?
I’m not saying this in order to conflate egalitarian prayer with idolatry, but rather to demonstrate the slipperiness of the slope. Such a scenario seems outrageous, but only because we’ve never seen it before.
If the Women of the Wall were being challenged solely because they were women, in an effort to oppress them, squelch them, lower them, then I would say, “Fight on, sisters!” But I don’t believe that that is the case. I believe the fight that is being fought is in order to uphold halacha and tradition, a system that Orthodox Jews trust in and live by.
That being said, I think the opposition to what Women of the Wall are trying to accomplish should be done with as much sensitivity as possible. Jews fighting Jews is a horrible thing. Why, just yards away from the contested Wall lie the ruins of a Temple that our tradition says was destroyed due to senseless hatred between fellow Jews.
CLARIFICATION: By “praying traditionally,” I did not mean to suggest that there was a mechitza at the Kotel for the last 2,000 years, as Jews haven’t had control of the Wall for much of that time, and mechitzas weren’t widespread until some time in the late Middle Ages, according to the sources I’ve seen. What I meant was that when Jews were able to pray at the Western Wall, they did so largely in accordance with Jewish law and mesorah (historical precedent), which includes men and women praying separately during formal prayer, and only men reading from the Torah, wearing a tallis, and putting on tefillin. Also, while it’s true that there was no permanent mechitza installed at the Wall until 1967, that’s not necessarily because Jews didn’t want it; it’s largely because non-Jewish authorities did not allow for it. (January 10, 2010, 10:41 a.m.)
Allison Josephs is the creator of JewintheCity.com, which features her original online videos and blog posts that challenge the public perception of traditional Judaism.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
When Hank Greenberg Met Jackie Robinson
Columbia Seeks To End 'Whites Only' Fellowship
Reconsider Decision on Rabbis and Intermarriage
Ultra-Orthodox Men Ditch All-Black Attire as Fashion Trumps Tradition
Israel's Shas, Right-Wing Kingmaker Party, Takes Sharp Turn to Left
You've successfully signed up!
Does Ms. Josephs really think that Jews have been praying at the Western Wall as they do now for 2000 years?
It is true that we like to persuade ourselves that our beloved practices have been going on since "forever," but if Ms.Joseph would like to look for historical precedent, she will be surprised to find images of men and women praying together at the kotel many generations back. The creation of kotel plaza as if it were an Orthodox synagogue is a practice that in no older than 1967. Again, that may FEEL like ancient history, but I assure Ms. Joseph, it is not.
V. L. Ochs
There may be a thoughtful, soundly-based, perhaps some sort of conservative feminist response to the women at the wall and what they represent -- but this is surely not even close to being such.
I'd like to second Vanessa Ochs. The current set up at the kotel is not traditional at all and has only been in place since 1967 -the mechitza itself is in fact the slippery slope.
Aside from that, I personally have no real interest in wearing a tallis or yarmulka but it is impossible to compare doing so, which is NOT against any Jewish law (the "technically" is cheating, sorry) with idolatry which violates the biggest mitzva there is. No slippery slope about it.
You obviously feel strongly about it, but there is no logical basis to your opinion, bringing us back to your strong feeling versus the strong feelings of the women of the wall. Still Jew against Jew.
I don't believe there is a slippery slope. As you said, "A group of women reading Torah, wearing tallisim, yarmulkes, and tefillin on the women’s side, though not against any technical Jewish law," That is the reason why they believe it is acceptable, whereas going down a slippery slope and doing other things such as eating bacon is clearly forbidden and there is a big difference.
Turning the wearing of a tallit into a crime is terrible. If I were to go to any Orthodox synagogue outside of Israel and (I am a women) wear a Tallit it would be a matter for the Orthodox synagogue and the Rabbi would speak to me about it, it would not be turned into a crime that would involve the police in America, England or any other country. I would not be given a criminal record and treated like a criminal. It is purely a religous matter for the rabbis to deal with and not a criminal activity that should involve the police.
Very disappointing post. Not worth space on the Sisterhood. Weakly formulated thoughts based on irrational, anti-women superficial sentimentality. The Forward can do much better than this.
Separation of the sexes for prayer, except for the Simhat Beit HaShoeva, was not widespread in Judaism until centuries after the destruction of the temple, probably after the publication of the Tosefet Nida. Thus, you will find women listed as "head of the synagogue" in ancient inscriptions, and no archaeological evidence of mechizot despite numerous synagogues from antiquity. The issue is not one of changing how things are done, but of the Haredization of Jerusalem.
We have seen the slippery slope, but leaning the opposite way. Due to their inability to cope with the modern world, many branches of the so called Orthodoxy have resorted to more and more stringencies in halacha, more and more raising of dumb custom to the status of law, more and more blackmail on the survival of Judaism. It is time to restore Judaism to the Jewish people - that is all Jewish people - and out of the hands of the self appointed righteous.
We have seen the slippery slope, but leaning the opposite way. Due to their inability to cope with the modern world, many branches of the so called Orthodoxy have resorted to more and more stringencies in halacha, more and more raising of dumb custom to the status of law, more and more blackmail on the survival of Judaism. It is time to restore Judaism to the Jewish people - that is all Jewish people - and out of the hands of the self appointed righteous.
Ms. Josephs:
1. Although your authenticity argument is wrong, the reason why the Women of the Wall should be allowed to pray as they wish has nothing to do with authenticity. It has to do with the basic liberal values that were lacking for centuries of Jewish oppression and that now, in many places around the world, allow many Jews to worship as they will. As Lydia says, this sort of religious practice just isn't criminalized in the civilized world.
2. There are many brighter lines to be drawn in the space between egalitarian prayer and idol worship than the line between what [you think] is authentic and everything else. The line that halakha draws is just one of those lines.
3. You write that your personal viewpoint on the segregated prayer "unfortunately is irrelevant to the Women of the Wall." Their chosen practice does not imply that your viewpoint is irrelevant. Even if it did, I'm not sure why that would be unfortunate for you or anyone else.
4. I've never heard of a Jewish Humanist saying “Hear oh Israel, the Lord is Man, the Lord is One.” They might—I really don't know, it's none of my business, and they could say it while sitting on top of the wall for all I care. But it appears that you did not fact-check a story told to you by a friend whose relative heard it from a stranger. Why repeat such an unreliable rumor about antagonistic prayer? That's hardly the right way to start respectful dialogue.
Confirmed through a simple Google search:
The Humanistic Shema is: Hear, O Israel, our people are one,humanity is one. (Source: http://home.teleport.com/~hellman/archive/historyshema.tauber)
This is a positive message of universality and inclusiveness. And I wouldn't have a problem saying it myself at the wall.
Women praying is nothing radical. Not only is it allowed according to Jewish law, but it is in fact required. Women and girls pray individually and together, daily and on shabbat, all over the world, at Jewish schools, or in homes, or at synagogues. Women prayed at the Kotel for thousands of years, during the same years when men were permitted by the presiding government to pray at the Western Wall. However, they did not pray “together” they prayed side by side, because, during the Mandate period, the British government would not allow a mechiza to be put up. During the Ottoman empire, no one prayed there – it was used as a garbage dump! During the Temple times, there was an Ezras Nashim (women’s section) separate from the Ezras Yisrael (men’s section.)
So the issue is not women praying at the Kotel. Then what is the real issue here? The Women of the Wall are using religion to push a political agenda. There is a seismic difference between doing something because you want to connect with God, and doing something to make a political (feminist) statement. I mistrust the sincerity of their religious activities. Pirke Avos says,”Treat God’s will as if it were your own will, so that He will treat your will as if it were His will.” They are doing the opposite.
Thank you, Simone, for the first insightful comment. While Allison's point regarding this being a "slippery slope" is part of the picture, I don't believe it's the whole picture. The Kotel is the holiest place on Earth for Jews to pray at this time-- with the exception of that one place in the tour of the tunnels where you're as close to the Holy of Holies as possible. The problem is not about keeping everything the same, or holding women back, or holding "liberalsm" back. There were holy women in history who put on Tefillin (Rashi's daughters) or wore tzitzis(I know someone whose grandmother was a Hassidish Rebetzen who wore tzitzis). But as Simone pointed out, these are not truly religious statements for the women of the wall. Do they keep other mitzvos? Are they strictly kosher? Do they keep Shabbos fully? Do they observe the mitzvos of modesty and covering their hair after marriage? Are they working every single day to do Hashem's will, to get closer to Him, to improve their character traits? Do they fully keep the laws of family purity? There are so many essential mitzvahs to keep before women start taking on mitzvahs as extra credit; these women aren't adding onto already perfected women's mitzvahs for the purpose of spiritual growth. As Simone pointed out, they're fighting not for holy purposes but for political purposes that are antithetical to Judaism and part of their political statement is to practice their political views religiously at the Kotel. It's not so different than the Gay Pride parades that also focused on the holiest places around the Earth, including the Kotel. That's why this issue is not simply religious freedom-- it's intentional desecration of a Holy site-- and that is an issue of legality. I know most people reading this site will not agree that it's a desecration of the Kotel, but that is your opinion. The reality is that Judaism is what makes the Kotel holy, and Judaism also forbids what these women are doing as it is against Halacha and it is a denial of Hashem's creating them with their own roles as women to fulfill their spiritual purpose with their particular mitzvahs. The same religion that says the Kotel is holy says that what they are doing is wrong; if they disagree with it, then they can go practice their own version of Judaism in their own version of Holy sites. But the Kotel is authentically holy and therefore needs to be treated with authentic consideration for it's Creator: Hashem, Who is the One Who gave us our mitzvahs and our halacha and made this type of behavior forbidden.
nice comments by simone and d. unfortunately, feminism/liberalism has become the latest ism to attempt to supplant judaism. it is the latest "religion" and will fail like its predecessors-socialism,communism,humanism. its adherents have an agenda and its a self serving one,in no way reflecting a desire to fulfill hashems will, only a compulsion to fulfill ones own will-also called selfishness. its proponents form a constituency that is mired in intermarriage,assimilation and a deep seated need to genuflect to the rest of the world and its trends(typically at their fellow jews and israel's expense). their lack of sensitivity and respect for tradition is patently clear. keep up the good work allison.
Leaving aside the question of the exact history of praying at the Wall, in the modern age this is how Jews are praying at the Kotel. Women complained a few years ago and a separate area was provided for those women who want their own prayer service, in a space that is considered just as holy and close to the temple mount. So why are women coming to the worshippers' main area if not to stir up anger and controversy? Don't the women who want to pray traditionally have the right to pray there without disruptions? That was the purpose of the separate section, I thought. I agree with Simone above- are they really acting out of Jewish feeling and a desire to fully engage in prayer? Or are they just trying to create a political fuss? They should protest somewhere else where they won't bother women who really want to pray.
Some other commentators above mention that wearing tefillin and tallis shouldn't be a crime in Israel. I'd like to ask them to take another look at what actually happened at the wall that day. Nofrat Frenkel prayed with a tallis and sang the Hallel service and nothing happened- there was no complaint until she started trying to read the Torah aloud in the women's section. (The article at http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2010/01/08/the-wall-is-wailing/ also discusses the case.)
So what is really the issue under discussion here? Ms. Josephs says "I believe the fight that is being fought is in order to uphold halacha and tradition, a system that Orthodox Jews trust in and live by." If that's what it's about, then maybe it's better to learn why the Orthodox want to uphold the system rather than assuming off the bat that they must be wrong.
Simone says that she does not have a problem with women praying (did anyone ever argue that this was a problem?), but maintains that she does have a problem with these particular women, because she "mistrust[s] the sincerity of their religious activities." But Simone does not cite a single fact about these women to support her suspicions. So Simone, I'll ask you three questions: (1) Why do you think it is okay to act religiously at the wall, but not politically? (2) Is it possible for a person's religious priorities to have political implications? and (3) Why do you say that these people are acting politically rather than religiously?
D, your argument appears to hinge on the contention that because (post-Temple?) Judaism "made" the wall holy, it gets to determine whether and how women can pray there. But the modern state doesn't respect holy places because some institution made the places holy. The state respects holy places because its citizens believe them to be of great personal significance, and such sensitivities deserve protection, regardless of when or why such sensitivities took hold. By your logic, Muslims would never be allowed on the site if they weren't good Muslims by Jewish standards.
Also, your contention that this practice amounts to "intentional desecration of a Holy site" seems too harsh. Maybe you mean that they are knowingly desecrating the site (insofar as they know that some people consider their acts a desecration), but I doubt you feel comfortable asserting that their purpose is to desecrate, rather than to pray in a way that is meaningful to them. If you have persuasive evidence of antagonistic intent, please share it. Otherwise, please respect their sincerity even if you disagree with their strategy.
Reichman: In this fight, who is acting at "their fellow jews and israel's expense"? It would be an uphill battle indeed to demonstrate that these women are actually hurting other Jews or the State of Israel by attempting to pray at the Kotel. They might be hurting the feelings of other Jews, but that is not what you said. Also, I'm not sure how you link the original post to a "lack of sensitivity and respect for tradition." The post had nothing to do with that, and its author would likely disagree with your assessment.
Tehilla: Again, why doubt their sincerity? Also, you write that "maybe it's better to learn why the Orthodox want to uphold the system rather than assuming off the bat that they must be wrong." Why is it the burden of those who have not gotten their way to empathize with those who have? And could you explain it?
In reading both the editorial by Allison and the many comments, I think a few points have been missed. If you read another Forward blog (http://blogs.forward.com/sisterhood-blog/119148/) you can read an honest account of the entire incident. From that, I gleaned the following:
1) The Women of the Wall were aware of the specific legal parameters of their services and knowingly violated them. 2) The arrest was made by police acting on a decision by a secular court, not by rabbis acting as a beit-din.
The group also deliberately ignored the sensibilities of the other women around them (whom they characterize as "charedi" but who could just have easily been any mixture of orthodoxy. This marginalizes anyone who wants to follow halacha as "ultra-orthodox.) Instead of seeing their actions as some sort of resistance against persecution of women, realize that the Women of the Wall acted in a provoking manner that disregarded the prayer wishes of the other women around them.
For those who have issues with the mechitza and are saying that the Temple was not a synagogue: The Temple had separate areas for men and women to pray (as well as separate areas for Cohanim and Leviim). There were restrictions on the Temple Mount as well, which prohibited certain people from various areas. [The prayer services of today do originate in the Temple service. The Anshei Ma'amad were Israelites who, twice a year, would travel with the Cohanim and Leviim from their hometowns to participate in services at the Temple.] Restrictions and divisions are a deeply embedded part of Judaism and one of its basic moral tenets (think of the Havdalah prayer).
To summarize: although this incident took place at a holy site and involves a dispute about religious matters, this was a violation of a secular ruling and carried out by secular authorities. Secondly, this was not an innocent error, but a willful trespass. Thirdly, other women also have legitimate prayer needs that must be respected (men, too). Fourthly, the separation of sexes during prayer derives directly from the Temple observances. Lastly, separations of various sorts are a basic feature of Judaism.
I realize it's tangential, but I must insist--and this is not a controversial point, the Talmud states as much--that men and women were not separated in the Temple. The so-called Ezrat Nashim in the Temple was not a womens' section, but rather was mixed, and sometimes (though not usually), women brought sacrifices and did not go to or through the Ezrat Nashim at all. Moreover, prayer in Synagogues was not separated (at least not by any physical barrier), in the land of Israel or elsewhere, and women held leading roles in synagogues, for hundreds of years after the destruction of the Temple. This is not to suggest that a mechitza is not required by halacha--it is. It just was not always so, and it really grates on me when people say, without any evidence, that separation of the sexes for prayer is required or justified based upon Temple practice or that this has always been the case. Prayer has been separate for just over one thousand years and that should be enough without revising history.
Danny - what the actual words of the Humanist Shema say are not really relavent to the author's point. The point she was trying to make is that everyone has a limit to what they find acceptable both towards the right and towards the left.
Michael - can I ask you what your sources are to say that there was mixed prayer in the pre-mechitzah times? If there were no mechitzahs before the Middle Ages, it's because women didn't attend services, or if they did, men and women prayed in different rooms. Just because women were presidents of their synagogues doesn't mean that women were praying side by side with men. (In fact, many contemporary modern Orthodox synagogues have female presidents and board members, and mechitzahs too!)
AS: The author writes that she is interested in respectful dialogue ("As I picture Jew fighting Jew . . . my heart is heavy. . . . I can see things from both sides because I've been in both worlds. . . . Jews fighting Jews is a horrible thing."), indeed declares on her website that her goal is to correct "misconceptions and stereotypes about religious Jewish people and their lifestyles" but then calls Jewish Humanists idolaters on the basis of a false, unchecked anecdote that essentially amounts to triple hearsay. So I'd say it's ABSOLUTELY relevant to her point what the Jewish Humanist Shema actually is. Less relevant than her choice to use such needlessly incendiary language in the first place, but whatever.
Danny- You have really misunderstood me! The first story I told about my friend's Reform relative was the conclusion that SHE came to, not I. SHE - a very liberal, progressive Jew - was the one who came up with the term "human worship." The "incendiary language" was merely me repeating it back as I was told by a reliable source. (Would you rather that I changed the facts of the account?)
Based on that, it seemed to me that everyone has a limit as to what they deem "acceptable." In keeping with that thought I came up with my own example of idol worshipping Jews at the Kotel and how many Jews would feel uncomfortable with such a practice.
Allison dear,
Judaism is NOT Shintoism, it is NOT a religion of ancestor worship. Judaism's Torah covenant is with God, NOT with the good old ways of the good old days where everything was run by the good old boys.
Just because something was done for even 1000s of years does not make it right: e.g., slavery, which under certain conditions is permitted by Jewish law - unlike polygamy, which is OK according to the Bible and Talmud but was annuled, for Ashkenazis, by Rabbenu Gershom ca. 1000.
The mechitzah is a MEDIEVAL practice, first attested to - i.e., INVENTED - by the Tosaphists. On this general supject see Alan Yuter's excellent article in JUDAISM (1979).
The final word on ancestor worship: the prophet Jeremiah (Lam. 5:7): "our ancestors sinned and are no more; and we bear their iniquities."
Im not going to claim to understand everything that was written here, but I just want to share one thing that I learned recently.
A mechitza is there for a very good reason- G-d created the world in a way that genders gravitate towards each other. Nature's impulse is that in the presence of a woman/girl and a siddur, the man's attention with be on the beautiful girl. These kind of thoughts distract from davening. So the mechitza is really a beautiful thing, not to just keep the women out.
Hi Allison,
A few things.
First, it doesn't matter whose conclusion it was originally. Your article repeats the story about Jewish Humanist prayer as if it is true. Your article then announces unquestioningly the conclusion that Jewish Humanists who so pray are idolaters. Should you get a pass because your article's primary purpose was not to put down Jewish Humanists? Should you get a pass if it wasn't even a conscious purpose of yours? Of course not.
Consider how you would feel if I, while arguing on behalf of the Women of the Wall, repeated without fact-checking a false and incendiary story about some group of Orthodox. I might say, for instance, that I had heard from a formerly frum friend that some Orthodox Jews pronounce the spiritual inferiority of the contemporary non-Orthodox in their prayers (they do not, so far as I know), and that the even the formerly frum friend who told me so was aghast at hearing the story, because it confirmed her worst fears about the centrality of sectarianism and antipathy towards outsiders in Orthodoxy. That (false) story and (third party's) conclusion also "demonstrate" the point that many people insist on a baseline of respect for religious persons or religious space, but it also spreads an incendiary lie about another group's worship.
Second, changing the (false) facts of the original account wouldn't have been a bad start, but it would not have been ideal. The most respectful approach would have been to simply use a different example that didn't involve another group's prayer or an incendiary conclusion about another group.
ES, I belong to an Orthodox synagogue but have been to a reform synagogue service (for friend's barmitzvas etc) and have to say that every time I have been to an Orthodox synagogue the women spend a lot of time speaking to each other and get very distracted by each other whereas in the Reform synagogue, I hardley saw any talking. There will always be some kind of distraction in synagogue and it is up to the people there to be strong and mature enough enough to resist it.
AS: There is ample archaeological evidence of synagogues where women clearly participated, without separate rooms, with no mechitsa. Regarding the Temple, the Talmud discusses the takana that was required to separate men and women (only) during simchat beit hashoeva (building a platform above the ezrat nashim)--sorry don't have the citation in front of me. There are other sources that discuss women entering further into the Temple through the Nazirite gate to bring required sacrifices (make no mistake, however, most of the Temple ritual involved only men). For general knowledge of the history of the Synagogue, I suggest Prof. Lee (Yisrael) Levine's "The Ancient Synagogue" (Yale UP 2005). Finally, it may help you to think historically about these practices, rather than halachically. I am not arguing with the halacha, simply trying to place it in its historical context. You may find that the beauty of our tradition increases if you can see how it arose rather than assuming that it always was.
Shouldn't the Women of the Wall be concentrating on more important progressive initiatives like desegregating the mikvah, transfat-free matzah or circumcision for all?
What saddens me in all of this is that we are losing perspective. We no longer are interested in respecting our fellow Jew. I don't proclaim to understand every detail mentioned. If there are women at the kotel who don't feel comfortable with women leading the davening aloud or reading from the torah, why should they have to? Why is it that these other women can force them to accept their opinion? When you daven you should be able to focus and that's all they want. It's unfair to ask someone to accept something they feel is less religious or traditional, this is after all a religious site isn't it? The women who want to take on these new roles could easily manage to daven the more, dare I say, traditional way and express their independence in another way. Would these same women assert themselves at the Vatican or at any other religious site if they disagreed with their policies? Would they refuse to take off their shoes at a Japanese temple? Are they so egocentric that their agenda takes priority over other's feelings? I would never suggest or agree with disrespecting those who feel different. We should be there to elevate ourselves and bring each other up not dilute our practices to appease a few.
Lydia, you clearly missed the point I was trying to make. I am not denying the fact that there is talking going on in shul, but that has nothing to do with anything. I was simply trying to bring a reason for the beauty of the mechitza and what it represents. The talking in shul does not make the answer I brought untrue.
I come from outside the circle so I know little of what has been happening at the Western Wall, but I can see exactly what Allison is trying to say. This kind of thing is like a snowball that gets perpetually larger as time goes by. Before you know it, things do not in the least resemble what it was in the beginning.
I think her heart is in the right place.
superyid dear, how did u get your name? are u a superyid? according to your arguments, we should dismiss all the "good old boys" since judaisms inception since they failed to institutionalize gender equality. also, maybe leviim and israelites should demand equality with cohanim in all religious acts. your feminist agenda is self serving,not g-d serving.
Michael, I'm sorry but there is no such thing as "archaeological evidence of synagogues" that could show that women "clearly participated" in a mixed prayer. There could be archaeological evidence that shows no mechitzah or separate rooms (and other evidence that women occasionally had leadership roles akin to the president of a synagogue) and I know there is, but archeology can't speak to whether or not women and men were praying side by side in the same room.
I would first like to say that I enjoyed the perspective of this problem in our Jewish community put forth by Ms. Josephs. In addition, in my opinion, Simone Shapiro's and Leah's comments were on point and very cogent arguments that happened to support Ms. Josephs' thesis. I would like to add to this argument that Hashem (G-d) asks His children to do certain mitzvahs (obey commandments which He set forth). What He asks of us is more precious to Him when we follow His orders than what extra mitzvahs we take upon ourselves to add to our "marching orders" from our Creator Who gave us our very life and sustains us on a minute-by-minute basis. In other words, G-d has asked men to do certain mitzvahs and women to do other certain mitzvahs and when women, who are not obligated to do time-bound mitzvahs, because G-d, our Creator, knows how He created us and knows that women need to tend to their children when they are hungry or sick in a way than fathers often cannot, they CANNOT be obligated to time-bound mitzvahs. Think of how you take care of your own children and you ask them to follow your rules and they disobey or "do their own thing". Are you happy when you brought them into this world and sustain their every need for many years and then they repay you with disobedience? Or consider a young child and a puppy...the child loves the dog a great deal but in his zealousness of his childish love for this puppy, he can smother the poor little thing with his "selfish" love. Likewise, are we approaching Hashem to "get close to Him" as He has commanded us to do or are we trying to connect on our own selfish terms? I contend that these "women of the wall" are trying to "connect" on their own selfish terms...disregarding what Hashem has asked of them and, in addition, disregarding how they are interfering with others' ability to connect with their Creator...on His terms.
And Danny dear...get a life. You're beating a dead horse already. Give it a rest!!!
The multi-coloured shawl they wear under a coat could be mistaken for a scarf anyway
The Forward article http://www.forward.com/articles/122754/ says "But the Women of the Wall claim to have accommodated themselves to the ruling; instead of donning the black-and-white tallit, traditional for men, they each wear a smaller, multi-colored shawl like a scarf around the neck and under a coat, so as not to offend the strict sensibilities of other men and women at the Wall.". Some people believe that the women of the wall pray at the wall because they are politically motivated but if the sentence above says their tallit was hidden under a coat and they did not copy the men by wearing the black and white tallit. This shows they did not intend to offend.
for James (Third?)Reichman:
Your use of the term "g-d-serving" is
1. pagan, if you meant the lower case "g";
or 2. if you meant capital "G" it is completely INCORRECT.
As ill-informed in Judaic matters as you seem to be, you are probably unawarethat Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, z'l, was the definitive decisor for (American) Orthodox Jewry in the 20th century. If anything, his rulings learn toward the more stringent. He has paskened (ruled) that except when quoting texts verbatim from scripture or liturgy which contain the Tetragrammaton, the proper HALACHIC usage is the plenary rendering 'God.' Please note this for the future. Heaven knows, there is already far too much superstition and faux piety circulating these days masquerading as religosity; there is no need to add to it through the promiscuous and supererogatory usage of 'G-d' for the Divine. Also, note that in English, it is the 'dirty/curse words' that are spelled defectively in print - e.g., s--t, f--k, etc.; since when is 'God' to be considered a dirty word?
So, you, I do, indeed, humbly live up to my name: SuperYid!
MBRJ:
Note what I instructed Reichman on, concerning the halachically proper usage: it is God, NOT G-d. Or are you so arrogant (and disrespectfull of the gdolim) as to think you can overrule Rabbi Feinstein?
Wow. I never expected this to turn into a very productive discussion, but it's clearly taken a bad turn. I doubt any of these comments convinced anyone of anything, but it would be nice if we toned down the rhetoric a little bit.
If people can't ask honest questions expecting honest answers, this forum is a waste of everyone's time.
I converted under Conservative Judaism. I saw the ladies wearing their Tallits and I could not wait to wear one as a Jewish woman. Well, I received a beautiful Tallit from my dearest friend. I have never put it on. It is still in my closet in its bag. Why? After some time, I began to desire that women and men be apart in shul. I spoke to the Rabbi about this and he said that all I had to do was sit away from the men. I was beginning to want some of the beauty, the majesty, the holiness of Judaism to permeate my life and soul in a deeper way.
After some years, I have finally left my Conservative shul and moved over to a Chabad shul. For this moment, I have found what I was thirsty for after spending some years in the Conservative shul. I am seeking an Orthodox conversion but I am not rushing it. I can see Ms. Joseph's point about this issue. I wish I could afford to even see the Wall and Israel. I would be so joyful to stand in the Women's Section and just cry my prayers. I don't need a Tallit to do that. I am unmarried but I wish I could wear a headcovering like a married woman. Let the men have their Talits, etc. Give me the home and its life. Be careful what you wish for. It may come back to bite you in the bum. Ms. Joseph's, I agree with you. Be strong!
One last comment about separation of gender during prayer. This both predates the Temple and existed during Temple times. Off the top of my head I can think of two: In Genesis 25:21 we read: כא וַיֶּעְתַּר יִצְחָק לַה לְנֹכַח אִשְׁתּוֹ "And Isaac prayed to G-d 'lenochach' his wife." Rashi explains that each prayed in their own corner of the room. Similarly, we read in Taanit 23 that when the Sanhedrin asked Abba Chilkiya to pray for rain, he and his wife did so, and the rain came "from *her* corner first." If people don't like the mechitza and separation, that's their right, but they can't make this about 'a move to the right' or 'orthodox control of the wall.' Whoever wants to change the status quo has the burden of proof (i.e. halachic proof) not the other way around.