| Title: | BAGELS and other things of Jewish interest |
| Notice: | 1.0 policy, 280.0 directory, 32.0 registration |
| Moderator: | SMURF::FENSTER |
| Created: | Mon Feb 03 1986 |
| Last Modified: | Thu Jun 05 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 1524 |
| Total number of notes: | 18709 |
The attachment is a translation of an article printed in today's
(25-MAY-1988) "Le Monde", a French daily newspaper.
Since I a not familiar with the backgrounds and contexts, I will not
add personal comments. In order to lower my level of ignorance, I would
appreciate if more knowledgeable readers and contributors to this
notesfile could place their comments with regards to the r�le/non r�le
of the Jewish Woman in religious activities, both in Israel and
the US: are there differences?
Chris
RABBINIC MISOGYNY
by Alain Frachon
The Chief Rabbi of Israel can't take any more indignation. And the
religious parties are ready for action: the Supreme Court, for the
first time in the land's history, has just authorised a woman to sit in
one of the 200 religious councils of Israel. The purpose of these
councils, organised on a municipal basis, is to give their advice with
regards to local religious problems: conformity of the slaughterhouses
with the rules of the kasherout, maintenance of cimeteries and
synagogues, donations and charity, etc... Up to now, these councils
were an exclusively male monopoly: in fact, the monopoly of the
bureaucrats of the religious parties. The latter, with the support of
the interpretations of religious texts, argued that women couldn't
possibly have their word to say in such important matters.
On Thursday, May 19th, the Supreme Court has judged otherwise. She was
called two years ago by a young woman, Lea Shakdiel, designated by the
Worker's Party to become member of the religious council of Yehoram, in
the Neguev. The Chief Rabbis immediately opposed this nomination, and
the minister for religious affairs finally cancelled it. It was this
last decision that Lea Shakdiel, who has her diploma in theology, did
present to the Supreme Court.
The Court has judged that the religious councils were public
institutions created by the Knesset, and not subject to the restrictive
interpretation of the religious laws, which belongs to the Chief
Rabbinate. This decision, which made the title pages in the press,
is important for more than one reason. The Jerusalem Post states:
�Whenever it can, the rabbinic establishment strived to relegate
women to second zone citizens.� More generally, the Shakdiel Case
represents a victory of the State over the Chief Rabbinate and the
religious parties, who were continuously strengthening their grip
on the civil society.
But the battle of Yehoram is not finished. The Chief Rabbi of Israel
prepares a counter-attack. The representatives of the religious
parties in the government, without wishing to provoque a ministerial
crisis, yet, will submit a new legislation to the Knesset. Finally,
the president of the religious council of Yehoram and his colleagues
have announced that they prefer to resign altogether rather than
�sit with a woman�.
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 468.1 | Conflict betw. Synagogue and State. | TAVIS::JUAN | Wed May 25 1988 11:29 | 61 | |
In the following few lines I'll try to give my opinion to the
previous note.
Of course, those are only my opinions and don't have any further
representativity than that.
The article in the previous note is a little bit partisan and not
fully objective, although it deals with some facts: The present
conflict has much more to do with the relations between the Synagogue
and the State than with the role of women in Judaism.
According to the Law of the State, as sanctioned by the Knesset (Parlament),
there are certain areas of life here in Israel, that are to be
ruled according to religious laws, includding marriage, sepulture,
etc. The law provides for Rabinical tribunals were to judge cases
covered by religious law, as well as Moslem tribunals to judge
according to the Sharia (sp), the Moslem religious law. It is also
provided that in every town, besides its ruling Mo'atsa (legislative
body), there will also be a religious Mo'atsa, elected in free elections,
that will take care of Kashrut in public places, supervise cemeteries,
etc.
The Religious Mo'atsot are an elective body, elected by citizens
in free elections. According to the law, the civil law, there cannot
be any discriminations based on sex, race, color or religion, to
participate and be elected. Mrs. Shakdiel was elected to the religious
Mo'atsa and since the Mo'atsa would not accept her nomination it
was necessary for the Supreme Court to ratify and enforce her -and her
constituents- rights.
As for the religious role of women, the traditional orthodox view
-as far as I know, not being an orthodox Jew myself- is that there
are roles that fit women better than other roles: since women used
to tend the household, they were dispensed from certain observancies,
such as dayly prayer in a minian (10 men), Tefilin, etc. Those
traditions went into oral law by the 1st century CE, not without
criticism which found its way into the Talmud - at least as I see
it: Bruria, the beautiful and wise wife of Rabbi Meir was addressed
by a scholar who asked in a somewhat lengthy way about some directions
and she replayed sharply: "You could have asked 'Where Jerusalem'
and so you would not 'extend in talking with women'..."
Traditionally women were guarded against predators and enemies from
without and also put in a secondary position from within. However,
the orthodox tradition does not have the means or possibilities
to change the Law, the oral Law or the traditions ... until Elijah
the profet will come with the Messiah.
The question then is: is it possible to reconciliate millenary
traditions and secular rule? My personal opinion is that it is not
possible. I believe that the Israel Supreme court should not interfere
with religious affairs, as the religious rulings should only be
applied to the those true followers that willingly submit to them
- and not to the rest of the population. The very ultrareligious
people here, in my view, so strongly repress their wishes, desires and
personal rights that they will hardly feel or understand what is
this all fuzz about; non-believers or not-so-strong-believers should
not interfere with the religious way of life, or let them interfere
with the secular way of living.
Juan-Carlos Kiel
| |||||
| 468.2 | It's political, not religious | CSCMA::SEIDMAN | Aaron Seidman | Wed May 25 1988 19:15 | 3 |
Historically, we have often cloaked our political conflicts in religious garb, and this is just the latest round. The argument is not as much about women as about who gets to set the rules for participation. | |||||