38 MAGAZINE March 22, 2013 OPINION ‘Be strong and zaye gezunt to all of you,”
said Anat Hoffman, head of the Israel Religious Action Center, in her letter to
a number of former paratroopers who joined the most recent Women of the Wall act
of remonstrance. The analogy is quite simple: those who took part in the
near-mythical act of liberating the Temple Mount are once again called to arms;
this time, for the “2013 liberation of the Wall struggle.” The illustration
leaves no room for imagination, and the connotation is clear. This time,
Orthodox Judaism is the occupier.
Women of the Wall (WoW) has been
operating for over 20 years in the legal and media spheres for the allowance of
worship at the Western Wall according to the procedures of the Reform Movement.
Shortly after its petition to the Supreme Court, the Religious Affairs Ministry
decreed Regulation 2 (a) of the protection regulations of holy places, which
provides that “in holy places, it is forbidden to conduct religious ceremonies
that are not according to local custom, offending the feelings of the
worshipers”; by “local custom,” the meaning here is of course the Orthodox
custom.
Versus the arguments of Orthodoxy on this issue, it is important
to note that under Halacha, or Jewish Law, women are required to pray, just as
men are (BT Brachot). The Mishna indeed states that women are exempt from
positive, commandments, but the Talmud explains that prayer is not included
among these. Also, according to Maimonides, prayer is not a commandment which is
limited to a certain time (Mishne Torah, Laws of Prayer), which women are exempt
from.
But the main problem, in my opinion, is not “cosmetic” halachic
adjustments. Contemporary deliberation focuses on the Kotel, but of course is
not limited to it. According to the logic guiding WoW’s actions, it is clear
that Judaism as a whole must undergo a revolutionary revision, in the spirit of
the Reform Movement, so it can become a “truly” liberal and tolerant religion.
Perhaps this is so. But to use the courts – an extra-halachic institution – to
force Jewish religious law to change is the wrong way to do it.
Of
course, the Reform Movement is not the only one to blame; haredim themselves
have turned to the Supreme Court, when political conditions seemed to fit.
Still, such attempts to deal with issues via the courts resulted in the Orthodox
public (not necessarily the ultra-Orthodox) choosing the way of
self-differentiation and compartmentalization in place of dealing with the
inescapable need for comprehensive revision. This change is a must, so that
Halacha can provide appropriate solutions to questions of culture, women,
technological developments, etc., in a Jewish and democratic
state.
Moreover, the majority of Orthodox Jews are living in a completely
modern world, and the tension that exists between the religious dimensions of
their life and the others is obvious. Still, this dissonance cannot be resolved
by cogent legislation of any kind, and one cannot solve emotional and religious
dissensions using ordinances, let alone at the site most sacred to Jews. As the
late philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz noted, while Israel has religious
institutions and laws, these are not necessarily of any validity when it comes
to establishing what Jewish law is.
This is the mistake the Reform
Movement makes.
It’s crucial to note that the Reform Movement does not
want to base the changes needed on the values of Judaism and Halacha itself:
they appeal to “universal” values (making an arbitrary and convenient
compilation of these), as these are in its view paramount; the values of Judaism
as developed in a tradition of 3,000 years have no meaning whatsoever, other
than being a kind of pesky surplus. Universal values are thus to be forced on
Halacha, instead of having Halacha adapt by using its own liberal
tradition.
This Jewish tradition that evolved over thousands of years
probably has something to teach us, and few are the nations (if any) whose
ancestors bequeathed them so many cultural treasures. But beyond the abandonment
of these, as often required by contemporary Reform practice, instead of calling
for the establishment of a modern Sanhedrin, one reflecting all streams of
Judaism and benefiting the entire Jewish nation, the Reform Movement is knocking
at the doors of the Supreme Court, thinking the benefits of this approach could
outweigh the risks. This mind-set causes alienation where there could have been
dialogue, and contains no less calamitous elements than the halachic stagnation
of the Orthodoxy.
This is nothing new. All religions have their own
conflicts with modernity. Some types of Christianity embraced modernity to such
a degree that, for all intents and purposes, they have given up their
beliefs.
Europe is no longer Christian, but atheistic. Islam, for this
among other reasons, strongly opposes any sort of modernization. Judaism, with
its rich tradition of meeting modern demands together with preserving religious
customs need not follow either path, especially since it does have, unlike Islam
for example, a strong liberal tradition, that of “Beit Hillel.”
THE POINT
of the last paragraph deserves a more detailed exposition. The risk of forcing
change on religion can be seen in the fate of American
religions.
According to the Handbook of Denominations in the United
States (Mead, 1961), there were at the time hundreds of denominations, mostly
but certainly not exclusively Christian, in the US. To pick one random liberal
denomination, there was the American Ethical Union, which saw the purpose of
life as “creating a more humane society.” A worthy goal but, while the AEU still
exists, it is in effect one small society headquartered in New York. Similar
liberal denominations, both Christian (e.g., Episcopalians) and Jewish (e.g.,
Reconstructionists) also suffered a decline in membership and influence. On the
other hand, conservative and even fundamentalist movements are
flourishing.
One need not, of course, consider religious reform only or
even mainly due to its possible effect on membership.
Just because
something is popular doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do. However, the
lesson is that one should be careful. Religion is religion, not social activism
or the mere following of general ethical principles. Catholic dogma might seem
absurd to the non-Catholic, but it is a religious dogma that distinguishes the
believer from all other religions. But what makes an Episcopalian different from
a member of the Church of England or a liberal German Lutheran, or for that
matter from a Jewish Reconstructionist, if all talk of God, salvation, heaven or
hell is treated almost as a fable, and all emphasis is placed on expected good
behavior – the golden rule, in effect – which is the same sort of behavior
expected of any decent person, religious or not? The risk Jewish Reform and
Reconstructionist movements run is that, by minimizing the importance of dogma
and Halacha or even jettisoning them altogether, they will cease in any
important respect to be Jewish at all. The momentary popularity gained by
ignoring Halacha in the short run is, history shows, likely to end with leaving
Judaism altogether – because Halacha continued to be ignored in the long run.
For this reason, as said, changes should be made within Halacha, gradually, and
in a moderate way. It is quite possible to reform Judaism while keeping the
Halacha and the Jewish dogma which makes Judaism a religion – as opposed to a
mere social group – in the first place. But to do this, the change must come
from within, and not be forced from without. ■
The writer is a jurist and
conducts research in Business Law at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya. He
writes about law, culture and history.
Uzan.elad@post.idc.ac.il •
|