The Kotel Law

I did not vote for Eretz HaKodesh in the WZO election. I voted for Mizrachi. But it’s hard to argue with the position taken by Eretz HaKodesh’s Rabbi Nechemiah Malinowitz. YWN reports of his impassioned plea before the Knesset Constitution Committee in favor of the proposed ‘Kotel Law’. Which would give exclusive jurisdiction over the Kotel to the Chief Rabbinate.

That law is strongly objected to by heterodox rabbis demanding equal jurisdiction and are pushing very hard against it. Claiming Israel will lose the support of Diaspora Jewry if they don’t get their way.

If this is about changing the character of the Kotel as it has stood since its recapture in 1967, then I disagree with heterodox designs. If these rabbis want to implement egalitarian rule over the Kotel, I would agree with Rabbi Malinowitz in opposing that effort.

Even though the Kotel is technically not a Beis HaKnesses — a shul — which is the only place that requires a separation of the sexes for purposes of communal prayer, since shuls have in essence been established there since that time, those areas now qualify as shuls and therefore require gender separation.

Emes Ve-Emunah is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Heterodoxy long ago abandoned that requirement in favor of the modern cultural value of egalitarianism, which does not recognize traditional gender distinctions. But that does not change what the Jewish people observed for centuries until the 19^th century, when the relatively ‘new’ Reform movement decided to abandon it — an abandonment that became widespread in early 20th-century America.

In Israel, however, this was not the case. Heterodoxy was practically non-existent. The vast majority of even non-observant secular Israelis understood that the Judaism they did NOT observe was Orthodox Judaism. Although heterodoxy has made some inroads into Israeli society, those numbers are still relatively small compared to what the rest of the country sees as authentic Judaism. Heterodoxy, of course, wants to change all that.

That said, for the sake of peaceful relations, combined with the fact that a shul was never established in the portion of the Kotel designated for mixed-gender use (a location known as Robinson’s Arch, which was already agreed to by the religious parties in the Knesset) I would not oppose their using that location as they see fit...

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.