Israel, Religion

Blogging the Omer, Day 16: Hareidi Hijinks

Week Three, Day two:
Gevurah of Tiferet
According to ynet, a Petach Tikvah rabbinical court, after hiring a woman as secretary, sent her away in tears after humiliating her and threatening to curse her (seriously!) because … well, because she was female.
Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann heard about it and decided to intervene, ordering,

that the worker should be returned to work on Monday, and instructed the director-general of the rabbinical courts, Rabbi Eliyahu Ben-Dahan, to escort the woman during her first day at work in order to make sure she was being greeted appropriately.
Friedmann also sent a harsh letter to the Petah Tikva court’s presiding judge, Rabbi Baruch Shimon Salomon, stressing that the rabbinical court was obligated to follow the laws of the State of Israel, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Law that prohibits discrimination based on gender.
The minister warned that should the court fail to accept the worker, sanctions would be taken against it.

What I want to know is how they hired her without figuring to that she was a woman? Or did they hire her and then decided that women were sin-bearing D6 monsters? What?
Well, but OTOH, the rest of the Hareidi world is working on other important measures. Like banning snacks with pictures of the Israeli flag on them. And boycotting Independence day celebrations because they might lead to mixed dancing. Who wrote this punchline?
Finally, more on the Drukman case: “National Religious Party Chairman MK Zevulun Orlev announced Sunday he plans to propose a bill calling for stripping the rabbinical courts of all authority pertaining to conversions.”

10 thoughts on “Blogging the Omer, Day 16: Hareidi Hijinks

  1. “National Religious Party Chairman MK Zevulun Orlev announced Sunday he plans to propose a bill calling for stripping the rabbinical courts of all authority pertaining to conversions.”
    The plan is working!!! I stand by my statement that the Druckman case is excellent news.

  2. Yeah, it’s probably best for the liberal movements to keep quiet and let the Orthodox movements destroy each other, rather than speak up and give them a common enemy to unite against.

  3. I also believe, by the way, every word of accusation against Druckman (that he signed documents which he wasn’t supposed to, was way to lenient, does not have the time to do this properly). Just sayin’.

  4. As the American “Centrist Orthodox” Rabbinical Council of America joins to condemn the ruling, its heated tones hint at just how much is in stake for the one-time Modern Orthodox establishment. At stake is a central (albeit implicit) claim of the Orthodoxy of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik z’l: That Halacha is an objective, positivist discipline.
    In mid-20th century America, it was crucial to claim that halacha — and in particular, Shabbat and Kashrut — were an objective demand of Judaism, rather than a personal eccentric whim. Eccentric whims were not well regarded in mainstream America in the 50s. This claim to objectivity also was used to rebut the reforms of Conservative Judaism.
    Conversion, however, may well prove the achilles heel in the scheme, because there are two halachic approaches. The liberal approach — advocated two decades ago by R Eliezer Berkovits, z’l — was that conversion required a ritual immersion, circumcision when appropriate, and a vaguely defined acceptance of Jewish rites and peoplehood. The conservative approach insisted that kabbalot ol mitzvot — acceptance of the yoke of the commandments — was not a cultural requirement that could be fudged (e.g. by Reform converts who swore off pork and shellfish) but required a commitment to Orthodox Jewish law. (This is part of what blew up the Denver joint conversion court in the 80s.)
    The problem is that in choosing the latter course, the once-modern Orthodox were unknowingly setting themselves up for sabatoge by the Postmodern Orthodox. Postmodernists say there is no “objective” knowledge of any kind; the Haredim, who say that halacha is only what conforms with their leader’s rulings, implicitly agree. For a Haredi, acceptance of Modern Orthodoxy is a rejection of Torah truth; so how could one accept a convert who isn’t haredi?
    None of the options at this postmodern juncture are good for RCA orthodoxy. The Haredim may prevail, in which case conversion is not an option for mainstream Israelis and personal status gets fully divorced from the rabbinate.
    The political chief rabbi may overturn the ruling for now in the RCA’s favor — but this only highlights the political nature of Israeli conversion. In this scenario, the rabbinate avoids increasing the need for civil marriage, but it further undercuts its moral argument.
    Or — and this is the least likely option, but the one I prefer — they can return to the liberal Orthodox position, in which conversion has a ritual aspect and a cultural aspect, where a rite is followed and a peoplehood is accepted. Such a shift on conversion, now as in the ’80s, could have a powerful unifying effect on American Judaism as well. But as I have come to understand, for the Orthodox Union and the Rabbinical Council, the prospect of a pluralistic Jewish unity is a bug, not a feature.

  5. The conservative approach insisted that kabbalot ol mitzvot — acceptance of the yoke of the commandments — was not a cultural requirement that could be fudged (e.g. by Reform converts who swore off pork and shellfish) but required a commitment to Orthodox Jewish law.
    But this camp has turned kabbalat ol mitzvot into a cultural requirement as well, with requirements such as sending your children to Orthodox day school.

  6. Good point. What I meant was a broader Jewish culture as opposed to a narrow Jewish culture. And I think it is exactly that difference, between the broad practices of the full Jewish people and the particular practices one sect, which mainstream Orthodoxy wants to erase.
    If you look at Orthodox apologetics from 70 or even 40 years ago, they were showing how traditional Jewish observances were compatible with broader American and Jewish worldviews. (For example: In the ’30s R’ Leo Jung z’l was arguing for Orthodoxy because Shabbat is both pro-worker and anti-consumerism, and Niddah brings feminist values (or as he called it in the ’30s, the ideals of wommen’s sufferage into family life!)
    Today, Orthodox apologetics are about proving that adherence to Orthodoxy is the only form of Judaism, and creating enclaves where children never encounter other varieties of American or Jewish living.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.