 |
| A 2017 egalitarian service at the Kotel (NIF) |
Heterodox movements either reject the mandatory nature of Halacha (Reform) or have perverted it (Conservative) to the point that it includes permitting driving to Shul on Shabbos - a clear violation of one of our most fundamental Halachos.
I have no issue with their stated mission to preserve and perpetuate Judaism in the modern era (especially in the United States). But we all know where good intentions can lead you. Which in the case of Conservative and Reform Judaism is down the proverbial drain - as Pew Research has so dramatically shown us. This is what happens when you have assimilation combined with the replacement of Halacha with the cultural ethos of the day. Heterodoxy’s goal of preserving and perpetuating Judaism has thereby failed miserably in its mission for the vast majority of Jews in our day.
This brings me to the Kotel compromise - which in essence would give heterodox movements their own egalitarian space at the Kotel.
‘One Kotel’ is an online petition by Am Echad asking Orthodox Jews to sign on and say ‘No!’ to that compromise. I have not signed it.
Not that I disagree with their goal of denying official recognition to Conservative and Reform Judaism. I agree with the about that. I did not sign it because there was a compromise that originally was reluctantly agreed to by Orthodox factions in the Keneset. But they changed their minds when they realized that the agreement was more about giving them official recognition and legitimacy than it was about giving them an egalitarian space. (Not sure of the details but this is the information I got at the time from one of the Orthodox negotiators - who wishes to remain anonymous.)
That reluctant agreement quickly became strident opposition to the entire project. The petition makes no mention of any compromise. Insisting that the entire project be canceled as an affront to very essence of Judaism.
The obvious question is, If it is the ‘non starter’ that they are now saying it as, why did they agree to it in the first place – even reluctantly? The answer, I think, is right there in the petition itself in the form of a question:
Wouldn’t a separate prayer area put an end to the strife at the Kotel?
Ending strife was, I believe, the reason that the compromise was agreed to. Heterodox rabbis have been pressuring the Israeli government for egalitarian prayer to the Kotel - and a constant monthly effort by Reform leader Anat Hoffman via her group Women of the Wall (WOW) to use the Kotel Plaza for non traditional prayer services.
WOW has been a disruptive enterprise that has devolved in clashes between WOW and their supporters on the one hand - and Charedi protestors on the other. Sometimes rising to the level of violent clashes. Whether WOW actually violates Halacha is unclear. But they certainly violate tradition in ways that generate a monthly conflict. Recently a Reform Keneset member violated the an agreement to not bring or use a Sefer Torah to WOW services - causing even more controversy
The Kotel compromise was agreed upon to end that kind of thing by allowing them to do whatever they wanted at another Kotel location.
The petition rightly suggests that the Kotel compromise is heterodoxy’s way of getting their foot in the door of legitimization - adding:
Certain organizations currently fighting against the status quo at the Kotel Plaza have rejected the Kotel Compromise and declared that will continue to demand that the courts allow them to hold ceremonies that are against halachah anywhere in the Kotel Plaza.
Obviously that is something to which I too am opposed. But I am not opposed to compromise. If conflict can by eliminated by compromise - that should be our goal. That would require restructuring the compromise so that it satisfies both sides. Not sure that is even doable - but it should to be our official position. The best result would be to avoid conflict by offering them that space in some way so that will allow everyone to get something but not everything. That is not stated anywhere in the petition. It instead suggests complete rejection of any compromise at all. Which is why I won’t sign it.