Latest update: July 2nd, 2013
Agrees With Freund On WOW
Michael Freund’s May 17 column, “Unholy Hypocrisy at the Western Wall” was right on the money. Women of the Wall (WOW) is a group that thrives on confrontation and seems to take an unseemly delight in aggravating the feelings and sensibilities of Orthodox and traditional Jews.
While I understand the motives of those who organize counterprotests, I agree with Mr. Freund that such actions only serve to raise WOW’s profile while providing the very small group an unbelievable publicity bonanza.
Indeed, as a result of the mass counterprotest at the Kotel, WOW received more international media attention than it ever had in the past, and invariably the Orthodox counterprotesters were portrayed as unreasonable zealots while WOW members were depicted as pious women whose only wish is to pray at the Wall.
Disagrees With Freund On WOW
Michael Freund’s diatribe had no place in the distinguished Jewish Press in the year 2013. It would, though, have fit well in the newspapers of Selma, Alabama of the early 1960s.
According to Freund, the correct approach for the Women of the Wall would be “a separate section… in order to defuse the tensions… without causing strife and confrontation.” Quite right and exactly as advocated by Sheriff Jim Clark of Selma (and many others) as a means of avoiding “strife and confrontation” with uppity African Americans and their demand for equal, not separate, treatment and accommodations.
Separate but equal has never worked and won’t defuse the Kotel tensions except in the short-sighted view of those, like Freund, who support relocation of people who seek equal prayer rights by exploiting seminary girls ordered by “leading rabbis” to block access to a place of prayer and reflection.
It’s a shame Freund wasn’t advising Sheriff Clark back then. We could have avoided the water hoses, cattle prods and clubs by simply ordering seminarians to block the lunch counters thereby avoiding the “unholy” sight of African Americans who sought equal rights.
Dismayed By Column (I)
In his May 17 “The Shmuz” column (“Listen to Your Messages”), Rabbi Ben Tzion Shafier writes that upon hearing of the earthquake in Tokyo in 1923, which killed 100,000 Japanese people, the Chofetz Chaim wept and referred to a saying in the Gemara which implies that tragedies occur only to serve as warnings that Jews should repent. In other words, a non-Jew’s life is only worth something when it serves a purpose for a Jew.
We know there are numerous Torah laws hostile to idolaters, whom many Orthodox Jews conflate with monotheistic Christians and Muslims into one entity. But most Jews are now living in Western democracies where we are treated with dignity. It’s not necessarily a question of loving other people but respecting those who respect us. Moreover, how can we bring assimilated Jews closer to Yiddishkeit when we promote teachings that would shock anyone brought up to value people of all races and nationalities?
Dismayed By Column (II)
The Gemara includes statements from sages that are remarkable for their sympathetic attitude to non-Jews as well as statements from other sages that are, to put it mildly, less tolerant and inclusive. (And keep in mind that the non-Jews the sages were familiar with were for the most part idolaters and pagans). So why rabbis like Ben Tzion Shafier feel the need to emphasize the negative as opposed to the positive is something that has long bothered me.
The statement in the Gemara cited by the Chofetz Chaim – a learned and pious Jew but a fallible human being just the same – and repeated approvingly by Rabbi Shafier is one of hundreds upon hundreds of Talmudic aphorisms, stories and interpretations. The views reflected in those aphorisms, stories and interpretations are quite diverse and inspire intense argument and adamant disagreement among the sages themselves, so why has it become a given in many Orthodox circles that literally every word spoken by our sages, even in a non-halachic context, is Divine Truth on a level of Torah m’Sinai?
And it’s not just Rishonim who are accorded this treatment – I know many frum Jews who think it’s kefirah to question anything stated by any prominent (and not so prominent) rosh yeshiva as well as any rabbi who’s written a sefer, no matter how obscure. I thought we Jews don’t believe in infallible religious leaders.
The Rambam wrote that anyone who takes midrashim literally is a fool and brings shame on our sages. If one is not obligated to accept midrashic stories as literal truth, why then do many of us feel we must accept as infallible every non-halachic pronouncement to be found in the vast corpus of rabbinic literature – even when those pronouncements cast the Torah in a less than positive light?
Israel, Palestine And History
Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld’s fine article (“The Speech Obama Didn’t Make,” op-ed, April 19) needs clarification. He writes that “Palestinian Arabs were granted a state by the United Nations in 1947.” Not so. The passage of the Partition Plan by the UN General Assembly was a recommendation to the Security Council, which never acted due to the Arab rejection and invasion.
He also writes, “It was a crime of the Palestinians to attack it….” No, it was a crime of the Arab nations, as the word “Palestinian” meant “Jew” until long after 1948. Dr. Gerstenfeld uses the word “ Palestinian” to mean the Arabs west of the Jordan River. But present-day Jordan was created in 1946 out of 78 percent of the territory of the Palestine Mandate and Israel was created in 1948 out of part of the remaining 22 percent. Thus all Jordanians are Eastern Palestinians and all Israelis are Western Palestinians.
Dr. Gerstenfeld also states that “In 1967, after Israel conquered the territories west of the river Jordan …” Added to those words should be “after being attacked by the Kingdom of Jordan.” And the statement “then you [the “Palestinians” west of the Jordan River] can help build a second Palestinian state in addition to Jordan” should be corrected to “then you can help build a second Arab Palestinian state in addition to Jordan” (for Israel is also a Palestinian state).
Edward M. Siegel
New York, NY
If Stephen Hawking, as a scientist, wants to be logical in his boycott of anything associated with Israeli technology, including conferences that are being held in that nation (Week in Review, May 17), he should extend his efforts to banning the use of Israeli inventions, technological advances and products.
Unfortunately, such an action would render his ability to communicate nearly negligible as that ability is heavily dependent on computer chips pioneered by Intel which originated in Israel. In addition, Israeli research on ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease), from which he has suffered for years, would no longer be available to him.
Silver Spring, MD
About the Author:
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.