Women of the Wall:
Whose Wall Is It Anyway?

27/12/2012

What do women and walls have in common? A lot it would seem, judging recent news reports. Israeli women, or women in Israel to be more precise, have been making a lot of media noise these past few months while attempting to pray at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, one of Israel’s holiest sites. They are, it would seem, turning up in prayer shawls and looking to lead services in a manner not in keeping with traditional Jewish Orthodox standards. Western Wall regulations forbid women wearing prayer shawls, leading services and doing whatever else that might be more common practice in non-Orthodox settings.

‘Women of the Wall’ as they are known, have made several attempts to contravene these regulations which results in an initial warning, usually ignored, and followed immediately by an arrest. Anat Hoffman, chairwoman of the Women of the Wall group has been arrested on more than one occasion. Elyse Frishman, a leader within the Reform movement in the United States was a more recent high profile arrest, sparking outrage many American Jews. In response, Alon Tal, a professor at Ben Gurion University wrote a scathing article in Haaretz, in which he argued that the Western Wall has “degenerated a triumphant symbol of national regeneration to an oppressive ultra-orthodox synagogue.

Contrary to Tal’s assertion, the Western Wall is much more than a mere symbol of national regeneration. It is, as no doubt he is aware, a remnant of the ancient wall that surrounded the Jewish Temples courtyard, and is arguably the most sacred site recognised by the Jewish faith outside of the Temple Mount itself. Isn’t that after all why it is important for the ‘Women of the Wall’ to pray there? Which then begs the question: why point the finger of blame at those who want to maintain the traditions that are as old as the Wall itself? If whatever prayers took place behind that Wall were never egalitarian for all the years prior, why insist that it allow for such prayers now?

Tal insists that “an egalitarian area by the wall should be established so that all Jews can pray according to their conscience.” If we’re leaving it to individual conscience, why limit it to just egalitarian services? Why not encourage use of microphones on the Shabbat as is common practice in reform synagogues or introduce a reconstructionist service that doesn’t necessarily require men to wear yarmulkes?

Leslie Sachs, who is executive director of ‘Women of the Wall,’ was another of the women recently arrested for attempting to wear a prayer shawl at the holy site. She said after her release, I feel upset because the Kotel has been taken over by such a group of ultra orthodox fanatics.” Taken over? Wasnt the Temple essentially always run like an Orthodox synagogue?

So what is at the core of this movement? Is it just about women seeking religious expression or is there something more afoot? Tal insists that were this an isolated issue rather than part of a wider breach of Jewish women’s human rights which he maintains is endemic in Israel, he might be prepared to tolerate it. I’d be inclined to accept what he says and even be sympathetic to his cause if not for his totally unrelated addendum: “The orthodox monopoly on marriage and conversion needs to be cancelled.” In other words this is about a lot more than women at a wall. This is about seeking to breach the traditional, historical Jewish standards that are still the mainstream in Israel policy.

One reform activist in the UK brazenly posted that lest the orthodox accommodate the reform they are guilty of sinat chinam – baseless hatred. Just who is being divisive? Those that are looking to maintain the very traditions that have been upheld by the Wall since its inception for more than two thousand years, or those looking to implement change which contravenes those time-hallowed traditions? Inasmuch as everyone is entitled to practice religion in their own way, when there is a matter that affects the totality of Judaism then it is the highest common denominator acceptable to all that has to be sought. If the Wall is sought after as the one place Jews around the world come to pray, then this same principle must apply. Only in this way can communal harmony and Jewish unity be properly preserved.

Will those who veer away and look to impose change thus causing such divisiveness reconsider their stance? Alas, for all the arguments in the world, I suspect it’s like talking to the wall.

HO! HO! OY!

17/12/2012

December 25th is just around the corner and, as every year, kids up and down the country will be visiting Santa at shopping malls. Only some of them have a secret. Theyre Jewish.

Brent Cross is one such shopping mall in the heart of North-West London which has the highest concentration of Jews in the UK (approximately 54,000 or 20% of British Jewry according to a recent census). The mall is invariably frequented by many Jews and even boasts a kosher restaurant to accommodate its more Orthodox clientele. Its also something of a tourist trap during the winter sales with many Israelis coming for their must-have high quality British bargains - even as most of the products are made in China. In the centre of the mall is Santas grotto. To my toddler it was always little more than an elaborate playground. But at four-years-old shes asking about the man in the funny red suit and the many kids lining up to sit on his lap. She wants to know if she could have a turn.

Its not even a question of whether or not to tell her Santa Clause isnt real. You cant sell a Jewish kid a story about a fat man with a white beard coming down a chimney when theyve got their own white bearded Elijah the Prophet walking through the front door on Passover eve. For me its simply a question of whether or not to deprive her some apparent harmless fun which is of little or no significance to even most non-Jewish kids.

A quick online search of the New Yorker magazine provides for viewing some of their all-time favourite cartoons. One such cartoon depicts an image of a young yarmulke clad child sitting on a Santas lap in a mall with the caption beneath: First of all, we never had this conversation.

Its not just the kids vying for the lap who are Jewish. Sometimes its Santa himself. A cousin Ilford, Essex - once the largest Jewish community in Europe, was convalescing in hospital several years ago after giving birth, when one Santa, looking to bring cheer to the patients came by her room bellowing Ho, Ho... As she recalls it, he stopped short when seeing the Hebrew prayer-book next to her bed and said simply, Oops. Sorry Bubeleh! Mazal Tov & Happy Chanukah!

Many Jews take a view and see the whole festive season as little more than a commercial holiday with some harmless fun and an opportunity to indulge their kids in presents. Yet despite all this supposed harmless fun there is something particularly assimilating about a Jew celebrating Xmas. Everything about it is of course inextricably linked to Christianity. Whether nativity scenes, angels atop the tree, etc. and of course Santa himself is really Saint Nicholas, suggested to take its origins Saint Nicholas of Myra, a 4th Century Greek Bishop – not a character created by Coca-Cola. Do I really want to expose my Jewish daughter to all that?

Call me naive, but I remember being aghast when some years ago, kids at our synagogue Sunday school, were having a conversation about their seasonal trees, the presents they expect to find beneath and even one or two of their Dads dressing up as Santa. How does that work? Does he say, oy, oy, oy instead of ho, ho, ho? Is all this celebration really “harmless” especially it might convey mixed messages? What’s worse is that many of these Jewish kids will be putting more emphasis on celebrating Xmas, but not necessarily Chanukah. Shouldn’t we be looking to encourage the next Jewish generation to appreciate their own festivals rather than celebrating someone else’s? Won’t kindling a menorah do a lot more to kindle a Jewish spirit than Santa’s lap? Today it might be a simple ‘ho, ho, ho,’ but tomorrow it could well be a not so simple relationship that will be no laughing matter.

My second son was born on December 25th. It was 11PM at night and several nurses with tinsel in their hair were encouraging my wife - to hurry up and give birth before the clock strikes twelve and the calendar turns the page. One senior nurse finally looked at me and remarked: Actually, it doesnt really make a whole lot of difference to you, does it?

No Maam it does not. And this year, when I revisit Brent Cross and my daughter will ask about Santa’s lap, I’ll be sure to explain to her that she’s a Jewish girl and it’s of no relevance to her either.

Silent Tears: In The Wake of Sandy Hook

16/12/2012

Click here to read a blog entry written for The Huffington Post.

No Holds Barred!

10/12/2012

Im going to cut to the chase on this one. Not a week has gone by in the past month we havent read about yet another sex scandal in the Orthodox community. Child abuse in Australia, apparent breach of pastoral trust in London, a therapist accused of molesting his young female charge in New York. Has there been a sudden surge of testosterone levels in the Jewish male hormone? Is it something in the kiddush wine? Perhaps the WHO (World Health Organisation) ought to investigate the vineyards of Carmel or the grapes of Cariñena. Or is it conceivable that these cases of abuse are as commonplace in Judaism as they are in the Church and pretty much every else in society, only it comes with an added shock-factor when it involves Orthodox Jews - the presumed last bastions of upstanding morality in civilisation. Were supposed to be the People of the Book - the trailblazers of morality - a light unto the nations!

Edward Thorndike, president of the American Psychological Association in the early twentieth century, coined a term called “the halo effect.” The theory goes that subject to a person’s image and stature you either do or don’t give them the benefit of the doubt. When we hear about a common man having committed an offence we don’t tend to give him the benefit of the doubt and presume him to be guilty while feeling sorry for the would-be victim. But when it’s someone of stature in the community, we immediately presume that person’s innocence while vilifying those who bring the accusations. As Thorndike put it, we make “a generalisation the perception of one outstanding personality trait to an overly favourable evaluation of the whole personality.”

Isn’t that why Jimmy Saville got away with what he did for so long? I’ve spoken to several people who were in the music industry or involved in Top of the Pops that now claim with hindsight that Jimmy Saville was “obviously up to no good.” Only at the time they didn’t see it. Like them, the hundreds who have clamoured to the support of a rabbi in London and the thousands who have done the same for one of their own in New York all suffer the halo effect. After all who are you more likely to believe - a skimpy clad, rebellious teenage girl or a long frock coated, black-bearded therapist; a leading Rabbi or a desperate divorcee; a troubled student or a popular star-studded teacher? I’m not suggesting anyone’s guilt – both cases are still under investigation or in trial. But others shouldn’t run to hastily assume their innocence either. Not when there’s so much evidence staring them in the face.

Im reminded of a story retold the early 1940s of an American protesting the war in Europe brought up before a judge for disturbing the peace. Defending himself in the courtroom he cried out: Your Honour, how can I stay silent when millions are being massacred across the pond? The judge replied: I cant believe you. The incredulous activist became even more vocal: How can you not believe the stories coming out Europe, the systematic annihilation of Jews, the violations against innocent women and children? The judge retorted: I didnt say I dont believe you.’ I said, I cant believe you.

To be sure, sometimes in the face of rumour, the hierarchical bodies whom alleged perpetrators are answerable to may step in to “have a word.” Firstly, in the event that a crime is suspected to have been committed it is hardly their business to be dealing with it. I doubt they would dare contemplate dealing with a murder. To treat sexual abuse any different is to undermine the enormity of the crime and the gravity of the damage caused to victims.

Even when there is no crime, merely a breech of trust and the office that one holds, “having a word” is still hardly enough. What these people fail to grasp is that sexual abuse or manipulation stems mental instability. Preying on the young or the vulnerable who cant or dont know how to defend themselves, suggests a toxic mix of narcissism, addiction and passive aggression. Theres a reason why those convicted have to register on a sex-offenders list. Its because they always run the risk of repeating the offence. Jail time might punish them but it doesnt cure them. And when senior rabbis reprimand one of their own - he might feel truly chastised and will most likely feel guilty but hell also be just as likely to repeat the offence.

When the Church abuse scandals were first exposed at the early part of this century it emerged that such abuse was endemic even as the Holy See might have been painfully slow to deal with what was going on right under their altars. It is becoming increasingly apparent that certain rabbinic figureheads or bodies have also become adept at turning a blind eye to abuses going on under the halos hovering in their institutions. Not to deal with it forthright is to share in the guilt. It brings all of Judaism into ill-repute, risks alienating many people the Book and dims the very light that they pride themselves in upholding.

Who Cares?

3/12/2012

Officer Lawrence DePrimo has become a household name. On a cold November night, just a few weeks ago, the NY City police officer, on counterterrorism duty in Time Square, encountered an older, barefooted homeless man. Taking in the man’s plight, the officer disappeared for a few moments into a nearby Sketchers Store, then returned with a new pair of $100 boots, and knelt to help the man put them on.

The moment was captured on camera by Jennifer Foster, a tourist visiting Arizona. Her picture, posted on Facebook, went viral. With more than half a million ‘likes’ and several million views, the officer became a headline in the press and the topic of conversation on talk shows, including New York’s Mayor Bloomberg mentioning it on his own radio programme.

There is so much about this story that tells a story of its own. While the act was unquestionably magnanimous, what made this story particularly sensational? Was it the act per se, or the imagery – a police officer in uniform kneeling beside the homeless man? It is true that most of us would more likely ignore the poor man, if not a few coins in his cup. Giving him $100 is something few people would consider, and fewer still would dare dress his bare blistered feet. But I wonder had it been an ordinary citizen doing the same, would any of us have paid the same attention? Indeed would Foster have still taken the picture? One woman claimed in the New York Times that she had bought the same man a pair of shoes a year earlier. Who knew? Who saw? Who cared?

So what is it that makes this picture generate a fuzzy feel-good factor in some and maybe a twinge of conscience prodding in others? I’m sure there are many people who no doubt give far more charity and maybe offer a lot more help than this one random act. But what speaks to us most about this picture is that it involves a man reaching beyond his comfort zone. Seeing a police officer, for whom this single act of kindness might be considered beyond his call of duty, makes us all consider whether we would go out of our way for the sake of someone we might otherwise believe beneath our dignity to help.

Will more of us who viewed this picture be moved to doing more in helping those less fortunate than ourselves, even it might not come naturally to us? I certainly hope so. But in doing so, think about this as well: It’s not just about the stranger in the street or the orphan in a third world country. Sometimes it’s about someone a lot closer to home. What prompted my thinking about all this is the fact that I’ve had to walk with a rather ostentatious sling on my hand this past week following shoulder surgery. It tends to draw sympathy. Cars and busses will stop enabling me to cross the road. People politely sidestep, allowing me to pass. And there are always those who kindly inquire as to my well-being. But what of those who don’t wear the badge of their pain on their sleeve? There are many who may be hurting on the inside one cannot readily recognise the depth of their wound. When we see someone acting out of character do we pause long enough to consider that perhaps they may be undergoing some emotional difficulty, whether pressure at work, at home, or suffering some other form of personal distress? Asking after someone else’s welfare may not always come natural. But it requires far less effort and costs far less money than putting a pair of boots on a homeless man’s feet. And it could often go just as far in bringing them some relief.

A manager working at the Sketchers store told the press: “We were just kind of shocked. Most of us are New Yorkers and we just kind of pass by that kind of thing.” One act of random kindness has thrust Officer DePrimo into the limelight across the world. If more of us stopped passing that kind of thing – whether on the street or on the home-front - maybe we would be less shocked the next time we encounter it. And think how much more light we could generate across our world.

I Won’t Say “I Told You So”

26/11/2012

It’s been a while since I’ve blogged. What better way to resume than to revisit something discussed here many months ago – the appointment process of the next Chief Rabbi to the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.

It takes a great man to admit when he’s wrong. It takes an even greater man to keep his mouth shut when he’s right. So I won’t say “I told you so,” but those who followed me on this blog or in the press will know how I was highly critical of the current ion process for the next Chief Rabbi. The very idea of, what I previously described as a self-ed ‘band of merry men,’ taking upon themselves to determine who will lead Anglo-Jewry into the next phase of the twenty-first century, was doomed to failure. Not just because the process is wholly undemocratic, but mostly because these men and women do not necessarily represent the views of the constituents whom they claim to represent. They merely represent their own viewpoint and the direction, in which they would each, individually, like to see the United Synagogue heading.

We were promised a wider consultation with the community. We were assured of broader discussions with the Rabbinate. To date that has consisted of little more than a piece of paper distributed to members of interested parties who were advised to rate 1-10 what they define as key characteristics for a Chief Rabbi as well as what his role should be. Two Jews, three opinions and the end result is that, as someone put it to me, the job description is now one that no previous Chief Rabbi would ever qualify for, let alone a new one.

We were also assured that by the end of 2012 the appointment would be made to enable the candidate to take a leave of absence and ready himself for the overwhelming task that lies ahead. Considering Chief Rabbi Sack’s pending retirement in November 2013 that moment is now. Recently we were presented with some back-peddling and told that “we wait for however long it takes.”

So in lays the problem? Rumour has it that all candidates bar one have been eliminated. The one remaining candidate is someone who has the respect of the collective Rabbinate, has previous experience as a Chief Rabbi and is spoken of highly by the wider United Synagogue membership. The only problem is that the “ion committee” is deeply split. While there is strong consensus in his favour there is at least one vociferous voice on the committee (you know who you are, and so do I) who has his own idea of how he sees the future of the United Synagogue and what sort of man he would like to see at its spiritual helm. He in turn is pushing the “however long it takes” agenda. Is this view representative of the wider membership? Does it reflect the opinion of the Rabbinate? Can the majority of this committee not override him?

Considering the great publicity this whole process has attracted, if the committee doesn’t make an imminent appointment then this will weaken the very position of the future Chief Rabbinate. Indeed, should a present candidate get ed at a later point, it will also, by default, weaken his position.

For many months now we’ve heard the mantra “we are very much on track,” and been given assurances of the number of “highly impressive candidates that have applied all over,” Well, if a new Chief Rabbi is not announced sometime very soon, then this ion committee is no longer credible. If they don’t in fact implode – a real possibility - then one democratic body that is the elected United Synagogue council should clamour for the dissolution of this committee. I’m not sure I see a way forward after that. What I am sure of however is that I will then be able to say, “I told you so.”

© Copyright 2012 Rabbi YY Schochet - All Rights Reserved