Western Wall and Disengagement
6 b Menahem-Av, Thursday
Below two topics: a very short one, and a very long one.
Haaretz Magazine Friday 29 b Tamuz (Aug.5) had a 4 –page feature on the Lakewood yeshiva world titled “Only in America”. Given Haaretz’s often anti-religious stance, this was an unusual piece. I wonder if others read it and thought it was fair and accurate.
The call for gathering at the Western Wall to pray for the abrogation of the disengagement from Gaza brought unheard of crowds to the Wall Wednesday night. (Army radio first reported 50,000, then upped it to 70,000, and now the papers say 100,000 amassed there). In Cross-currents there has been discussion of the haredi attitudes (emphasis on plural attitudes) towards disengagement. What was notable last night was that almost all the segments of the haredi sector (Shas led by R. Ovadia Yosef, hassidim from many courts and yeshivot, Chabad) stood together with the national religious. (Leaders of the Lithuanian-Litvishe yeshiva world were the exception; they did not officially attend, though there was massive unofficial presence). There were no speeches, only the Shema, El Adon Haslichot, Shma kolenu and other prayers.
The disengagement crisis has made me, and others, more acutely aware of the commonalities between the haredi and national-religious sectors. Over a decade ago Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, Rosh Yeshiva Har Etzion, made this point in a talk to modern Orthodox rabbis, now reprinted in “By His Lights” (adapted by R. Reuven Ziegler, Ktav, 224-6).
“When all is said and done, we should recognize and realize that what we share with the Rightist community, far, far outweighs whatever divides us – I sometimes have the feeling that, with regard to perceiving that community, we are often somewhat remiss.”
He then quotes a quip of the late Hebrew University Ernst Simon that “the people you can talk to, you can’t daven with, and the people with whom you can daven, you can’t talk.”
Rav Aharon continues,
“For benei Torah… the shared universe of Talmudic discourse, of havayot de-Abbaye ve-Rava, serves as a great cementing force. But even amongst benei Torah, many in our camp no doubt find it easier to talk, perhaps even to work, with an intelligent secular colleague than with a Karliner chassid, forgetting that the pleasantries attendant upon passing the time of day cannot compare with a shared vision of eternity. Surely we need to recognize…that our basic affinity is with those – past, present, or future – to whom tzelem E-lokim, malkhut Shamayim and avodat Hashem (the Divine image, Divine sovereignty, and the service of G-d) are the basic categories of human existence.”
He then discusses the areas of difference between the two sectors.
For a few hours, though, those differences melted at the Wall Wednesday night.
The Jerusalem Post took the trouble to denounce the proposed gathering in its lead editorial a few days ago titled “Inauspicious Plans ” .
The Post wrote that:
the Western Wall plaza, the unifying symbol of Jewish rootedness, is never the right place to hold demonstrations. But it would be hard to imagine a more dangerous time to exploit the holy site than in the coming days.
It is funny that when the issue suits them, the Post does see the Western Wall as an appropriate place for a demonstration. An example is the 15-year struggle of the Women of the Wall to try to bring problematic innovations to the women’s section of the Wall. I wrote about the last attempt by the Women of the Wall to barge into the women’s section in my op ed in the Jerusalem Post July 25, “When custom takes precedence”
Recently, in the Hebrew new month of Tamuz the status quo was challenged and intentionally broken by the Women of the Wall, a group that turned to the High Court of Justice in 1989 in order to obtain legal approval for deviating from accepted Jewish practice with respect to the four Ts- tallitot, tefillin, Torah reading, tunes sung in loud voices.
A founder of Women of the Wall, Bonna Haberman, justified her actions in a J. Post op ed “Sacred Access for the secular” July 12
In my rejoinder to her I wrote:
Bonna Haberman reveals her proactive purpose in her essay titled “Drama in Jerusalem” in the compendium Women of the Wall (edited by P. Chesler and R. Haut). She writes in 2002 that ‘I am inclined toward a strategy of revolution, of creating new facts on the ground. Many times I have donned my tallit at the Kotel and encouraged others to do so too.’ To this end, she continues, ‘we were ready to conduct an act of civil disobedience, defying the Court order to desist from our prayer practices in the Kotel.’
I think that the issues of feminism that Women of the Wall represent are more problematic and threatening in the long run to the Jewish people, than even the thorny political/physical problems presented by our Muslim neighbors in general and the Disengagement from them in particular.