But there are other important matters on the table that
deserve our attention too. And frankly, I need a break from the anxiety
generated by these unresolved existential concerns.
One such issue is what has just happened in Tel Aviv. VIN
reports the following:
Recently, the city initiated a “quiet operation” in which dozens of synagogues were asked to sign a document committing to operate according to the principle of equality “regardless of gender or belief.” The associations managing these synagogues fear that signing would allow the municipality or public petitioners to challenge their Orthodox character. Some synagogues have signed, while others have refused and are now facing eviction lawsuits.
The goal is to approach around 130 synagogues and have them sign an allocation agreement stating:
“The synagogue will provide religious services to all neighborhood residents and nearby surroundings in accordance with their nature and character, without discrimination based on age, gender, or belief, and the prayer style will be determined by the managing committee with this in mind. It is clarified that no activity deviating from the stated purpose will be allowed.”
In a city that has been rated as the most gay-friendly in
the world, this kind of requirement is obviously very concerning to traditional
Jews. A city whose values are more progressive than Jewish makes it quite
difficult for traditional values to remain the guiding principle under which a
shul operates.
The fear is that LGBTQ-based guidelines could eventually
replace the traditional values that have guided shuls for centuries.
Substituting those values would directly contradict Halacha and render those shuls invalid.
That being said, no one should be denied the right to pray
in a Shul because of their sexual orientation - provided, of course, that they
do not make an issue of a lifestyle that Halacha prohibits. Just as most
heterosexuals do not make an issue of their lifestyle when they enter a
synagogue, neither should a gay man. Let him pray along with everyone else.
If that is all the requirement is about, I support it. If,
on the other hand, it is about forcing a shul to publicly embrace an openly gay
couple - thereby tacitly legitimizing their lifestyle - I would oppose it and
would join in protesting it.
The same goes for feminist women who – in the name of equity
with men and given the chance - would abolish the Mechitza. They should be allowed to pray in a traditional Shul so long as they do not interfere with the traditional separation of
men and women. They are free to believe what they wish privately. But not to implement their agenda. If, however, accommodating them means removing
the Mechitza, I am against it and would again join in protest.
Bottom line: People should be allowed to pray in
traditional Shuls regardless of their level of observance or political agenda -
as long as they do not try to interfere with or change those shuls to conform
to their own views.
The problem with the new guidelines is their vagueness. For
example, one clause states:
“The prayer style will be determined by the managing committee…”
Although the clause says the synagogue will be managed by its board, the board must adhere to equality principles and the neighborhood’s character, which in most cases is secular…
It is therefore understandable that there is major pushback.
If, for example, a shul board were to decide that a Mechitza is unnecessary,
they could remove it. That would destroy the synagogue’s legitimacy.
It seems to me that tradition should not be uprooted because
of the political agenda of the moment, even if a local majority adheres to that
agenda. Believe what you will as an individual, but don’t overturn centuries of
religious tradition for the sake of advancing your progressive program. Not in
Israel. Not in a Jewish state. Not even in the most secular city in that Jewish
state.
If Israel wants to retain its character as a Jewish state,
following the path of progressive values is the wrong way to do it. Israel can
either be a Jewish state or a progressive state. It cannot be both.
Just my two cents.
