Intense controversies that divide the Jewish people

A moment after we have marked 50 years of Jerusalem unification, it strikes me as important that we remember that there is no unified opinion among us.

July 3, 2017 21:35
4 minute read.
bar mitzvah old city

People release balloons as they celebrate a Bar Mitzva as the Western Wall and the Dome of the Rock are seen in the background, in Jerusalem's Old City. (photo credit: REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun)


Dear Reader,
As you can imagine, more people are reading The Jerusalem Post than ever before. Nevertheless, traditional business models are no longer sustainable and high-quality publications, like ours, are being forced to look for new ways to keep going. Unlike many other news organizations, we have not put up a paywall. We want to keep our journalism open and accessible and be able to keep providing you with news and analysis from the frontlines of Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World.

As one of our loyal readers, we ask you to be our partner.

For $5 a month you will receive access to the following:

  • A user experience almost completely free of ads
  • Access to our Premium Section
  • Content from the award-winning Jerusalem Report and our monthly magazine to learn Hebrew - Ivrit
  • A brand new ePaper featuring the daily newspaper as it appears in print in Israel

Help us grow and continue telling Israel’s story to the world.

Thank you,

Ronit Hasin-Hochman, CEO, Jerusalem Post Group
Yaakov Katz, Editor-in-Chief


The events of the past week have left me speechless. I am reminded of the ascension of Hananiah ben Hezekiah ben Garon 2,000 years ago. In his day, there were a series of disagreements between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel that went unresolved, until one day Beit Shammai prevailed in many of them.

According to the Jerusalem Talmud, Shammai prevailed by using swords and spears [without proper protocol allowing minority opinions to be heard]. Once Shammai had assured a majority, he passed 18 laws that were particularly controversial. It is written in the Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 17a) that on this day: “They thrust a sword into the Beit Midrash... Whoever entered entered, and those who wished to leave could not leave. On that same day Hillel was stooped – sitting before Shammai as if he was one of his students. It was as disastrous a day for the Jewish People as the day the golden calf was made.”

Why, according to the Talmud, was that day a disaster? Was it because of the decisions that were made and the laws that were passed? Probably not. The truth is that most of these rulings still hold today. The day was disastrous because of the overturning of legal process, because of a refusal to allow all opinions to be heard, because of the use of power and secrecy in order to decide on rulings.

I mention this story because one of most fascinating and frightening things about the Western Wall decision this past Sunday is that it isn’t really clear what happened in the government meeting. We know that the topics of the Wall and conversion were not on the day’s schedule. We know Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz and Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman voted to maintain the compromise. We know that Diaspora Affairs Minister Naftali Bennett wasn’t present, and apparently neither were many other ministers.

The Western Wall and conversion laws deal with intense controversies that divide the Jewish People. Surveys, including one conducted by the Schechter Institute last month, say that most Jews in Israel are in favor of enabling everyone – women, men, Orthodox, Conservative and Reform – to pray equally at the Western Wall, without separation and without barriers. Thus, even if there are different stances within the government, they must debate these issues in the light of day and not in secret. They must debate this issue not only when the dominant ultra-Orthodox voices are present, but also when those opposing Western Wall restrictions are present.

The agreement that was canceled on Sunday was already a compromise. The Reform and Conservative movements had already ceded the right to pray in our egalitarian tradition at the main Western Wall plaza, the holiest site of the Jewish People. We agreed that if we were to pray there we would respect the separation between men and women, which is not our custom. We agreed because we understood that we are not alone in our desire to pray there. In exchange, we received a site (Robinson’s Arch) that is also a remnant of the Temple Mount remains, where we can pray according to our beliefs. It was promised that the site would be renovated, marked and made accessible so that anyone who prays at the Wall would be able to choose where he or she wanted to pray – understanding that some people might choose both.

What was important in this compromise was its regard for all voices and opinions, and it tried to find a solution that worked for most of them. It honored every man and woman connected to this issue. It gave voice to the minority and made sure there was no exploitation. It sought, in accord with the commands of Genesis, to achieve unity and respect for all Israel.

My hope is that the prime minister and the Diaspora affairs minister will convene an orderly discussion on the matter in which every minister’s voice will be heard, where the ministers will listen to the chair of the Jewish Agency and the various representatives of each side. My hope is that what was agreed to after years of negotiations will not be summarily dismissed. Democracy is the rule of the majority but it also must give rights to the minority. An essential right of everyone is to have their voice heard, to be seen, accepted and recognized with the basic dignity that every person merits. The way in which the government made the decision on Sunday is alienating and undignified. It is incumbent upon the government to make amends.

Perhaps we can learn from Shammai and Hillel who, in spite of their continual disagreements, still managed to compromise, as is written in Mishnah Yevamot: “Even though one would allow and one would forbid what the other would allow and one would allow what the other would forbid, followers of Hillel would still marry followers of Shammai and vice versa.” That is to say, that even though the disagreements between Hillel and Shammai had implications for personal status, Shammai and Hillel still founds ways to build lives with one another.

A moment after we have marked 50 years of Jerusalem unification, it strikes me as important that we remember that there is no unified opinion among us. We have serious disagreements, and in spite of this, or perhaps because of it, we should still treat each other with dignity and respect.

The author is a rabbi and the dean of the Schechter Rabbinical Seminary.

Join Jerusalem Post Premium Plus now for just $5 and upgrade your experience with an ads-free website and exclusive content. Click here>>

Related Content

People wave European union flags
July 20, 2019
Facing realism in Europe


Cookie Settings