Women of the Wall

[John2]

I was just curious what percentage of Israeli Jews identify with non-Orthodox Judaism and saw this:

Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism are represented among Israeli Jews. According to The Israel Democracy Institute, as of 2013, approximately 8 percent of Israel’s Jewish population "identified" with Reform and Conservative Judaism, a study by Pew Research Center showed 5% did, while a Midgam survey showed that one third "especially identified with Progressive Judaism", almost as many as those who especially identify with Orthodox Judaism. The Chief Rabbinate strongly opposes the Reform and Conservative movements, saying they are "uprooting Judaism", that they cause assimilation and that they have “no connection” to authentic Judaism. The chief rabbinate's view does not reflect the majority viewpoint of Israeli Jews, however. A survey of Israeli Jews published in May 2016 showed that 72 percent of respondents said they disagreed with the Haredi assertions that Reform Jews are not really Jewish. The survey also showed that a third of Israeli Jews "identify" with progressive (Reform or Conservative) Judaism and almost two thirds agree that Reform Judaism should have equal rights in Israel with Orthodox Judaism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_ ... l_spectrum

I see the ultra-Orthodox as being similar to the Essenes in the sense that the latter had a special gate and a segregated place for offering sacrifices in Jerusalem, as Beall (following others) argues here:

Josephus ... is saying that the Essenes send votive offerings to the Temple, but because they have different purification rites, they are excluded from the common court and offer sacrifices by themselves ... Other scholars believe the Essenes did sacrifice at the Jerusalem Temple. Black proposes that the Essenes simply avoided contact with other worshippers in the public precinct. He links this with the gate of the Essenes ... necessary to avoid contact with other Temple worshippers. Baumgarten suggests that he Essenes may have eaten the sacrifices by themselves in an isolated area of the Temple after the priests had offered them on the altar. He notes that according to Josephus, the Essenes certainly had not made a complete break with Jerusalem and the Temple; Judas [the Essene] was teaching in the court of the Temple ... Menachem [the Essene] talked with Herod in his youth ... John the Essene was appointed general at a public meeting in the Temple ... and the existence of the gate of the Essenes ... denotes the Essenes presence in Jerusalem. Thus, the Essenes may well have sacrificed at Jerusalem, but segregated themselves to eat the sacrifices with ritual purity.

https://books.google.com/books?id=F0uqr ... gs&f=false

Whether or not this interpretation of Josephus is correct, it serves as an illustration of how I think the present situation regarding the Western Wall could be handled, with the ultra-Orthodox having a segregated section of it for themselves to avoid contact with other worshippers. That way all Jews (and Gentiles) could have (separate but) equal access to the most significant religious and national site in Judaism.

Personally though, given that I view the Wall as a remnant of Hadrian's pagan temple and the presence of Islamic buildings on the Temple Mount, I think a temple could be rebuilt in Shiloh, since the Torah does not specify Jerusalem as "the place where the Lord your God chooses to put His Name," and there had previously been a temple in Shiloh. As Jeremiah puts it in 7:12-15:

But go now to the place in Shiloh where I first made a dwelling for My name, and see what I did to it because of the wickedness of My people Israel. And now, because you have done all these things, declares the Lord, and because I have spoken to you time and time again but you would not listen, and I have called to you but you would not answer, therefore what I did to Shiloh I will now do to the house that bears My name, the house in which you trust, the place that I gave to you and your fathers. And I will cast you out of My presence, just as I have cast out all your brothers, all the descendants of Ephraim.

So in the big picture, the way I see it is that if God's name resided in and then was removed from the Shiloh Temple, and then resided in and was removed from the Jerusalem Temple, and then resided in and was removed from the Jerusalem Temple a second time, then why couldn't it reside in Shiloh again?

Shiloh was established by Joshua, son of Nun, approximately 3,500 years ago, as the spiritual capital of Israel. The Tabernacle was placed there, and Jews from all over the land came to worship at the location (Joshua 18:1). The Tabernacle stood in Shiloh for over 350 years according to Jewish tradition, and its remains can still be seen today ...

One of the most special features of historical Shiloh, said Sela, was the emphasis placed on the importance of women during Biblical times. Women even worked around the Tabernacle, helping to run the holy site. Today, visitors to Tel Shiloh are able to experience first-hand the tasks that women traditionally performed. “[The workshops we do] also include various types of work that women were involved with to help with the upkeep of the Tabernacle,” Sela said ...

But Tel Shiloh isn’t just a site to commemorate the past. It is a place that embraces Jewish continuity and a Jewish future. In addition to having a mutually beneficial relationship with the local thriving Jewish community of Shiloh, the site attracts over 100,000 visitors each year, including people of all ages from all over Israel as well as approximately 50,000 tourists from around the world.

https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/4817 ... d-samaria/

[Ulan]

Yeah, building the third Jewish Temple in the center of Samaria and the geographical center of the West Bank would surely solve all issues.

[semiopen]

Funny, one doesn't see much news on Catholics allowing women to conduct masses at the Vatican, or having same sex weddings or abortions there. Plus, Catholics don't even completely believe their bullshit in contrast to the Haredi.

Majority Rules: The obligation to follow the majority opinion - https://www.ou.org/torah/mitzvot/taryag/mitzvah78/

MAJORITY RULE, deciding a matter according to the majority opinion. In the field of the halakhah this rule is applied in three principal instances:

(a) determination of the binding law according to (the view of) the majority of halakhic scholars;

(b) adjudication of dispute by the majority decision of the courts' judges; and

(c) imposition by majority decision of the community, or its representatives, of a communal enactment (see *Takkanot ha-Kahal), binding on all members of the community. The basis for the majority rule is to be found in the exegesis of the scriptural phrase, aḥarei rabbim le-hattot (to "follow a multitude…" Ex. 23:2).

You shall neither side with the mighty to do wrong -- you shall not give perverse testimony in a dispute so as to pervert it in favor of the mighty -- (Exod. 23:2 TNK)

‎לֹֽא־תִהְיֶ֥ה אַחֲרֵֽי־רַבִּ֖ים לְרָעֹ֑ת וְלֹא־תַעֲנֶ֣ה עַל־רִ֗ב לִנְטֹ֛ת אַחֲרֵ֥י רַבִּ֖ים לְהַטֹּֽת׃

The halakhic opinion that has prevailed is that the law is decided in accordance with the view expressed by a majority of the scholars, and this is so even if in a particular matter a heavenly voice (see *Bat-Kol) should declare that the law is according to the minority opinion (BM 59a).

The individual may continue to express his opinion that the majority has erred, but may not instruct in practice according to the minority opinion; if he actually instructs others to follow the minority opinion, he becomes (when there is a Sanhedrin) a *zaken mamre (i.e., a "rebellious scholar"; Maim., Yad, Mamrim, 3:5–6).

The Rabbinical court has power to implement standards for the Jewish people that supersedes the will of God. This might be outdated in secular matters but certainly it applies to defining appropriate behavior at the Kotel.

[John2]

Yeah, building the third Jewish Temple in the center of Samaria and the geographical center of the West Bank would surely solve all issues.

No, I suppose it wouldn't solve all issues. I just think it's a better idea than others that are out there regarding building a Jewish Temple (if one is interested in such a thing) since it would not involve removing anyone else's sacred buildings, and already, as the article notes, "several large festivities take place at Tel Shiloh and in the surrounding area during each holiday season."

Or a Temple could not be built anywhere, for all I care. But as far as Judaism and the existence of Israel goes (and factoring in my view regarding the scope of "the place where the Lord your God chooses to put His Name" and the presence of islamic buildings on the Temple Mount -which I view as being a remnant of Hadrian's temple in any event), I don't see why a Temple couldn't be built anywhere it would be possible and cause the least amount of offense to anyone (which of course would be ideally no one), like somewhere else on Mount Moriah, or in west Jerusalem, or, for the above reasons and since it seems logical to me from a biblical/historical perspective, Shiloh. Or nowhere, and the present situation could go on interminably.

In the bg picture though, since Judaism is of course a bibically-based religion and thus consists of the idea of having a central place of worship and sacrifice in israel, and since the state of Israel exists, I don't see why such a place cannot be built in an inoffensive place in Israel today.

[John2]

You shall neither side with the mighty to do wrong -- you shall not give perverse testimony in a dispute so as to pervert it in favor of the mighty -- (Exod. 23:2 TNK)

Yes, but what is "wrong" with the idea of all Jews being able to worship however they like at the most significant religious and national site in Judaism?

The Rabbinical court has power to implement standards for the Jewish people that supersedes the will of God. This might be outdated in secular matters but certainly it applies to defining appropriate behavior at the Kotel.

According to who (in the "outdated" sense and setting aside the present situation at the Kotel)? Themselves? And it doesn't mean it's right, regardless.

I tend to view the big picture with a Karaite heart and don't see ultra-Orthodox Judaism as being worthy of solely determining who is a Jew in Israel or "defining appropriate behavior at the Kotel" or whatever other matters that pertain to observing Judaism in Israel (if we define Judaism as being biblically-based). I find the Karaite approach to post-biblical "traditions and customs" more appealing than forcing any particular ones on anyone.

Karaite Jews do not object to the idea of a body of interpretation of the Torah, along with extensions and development of non-Rabbinic Halakha (Jewish law) that strives to adhere to the Tanakh's straightforward meaning. Several hundred such books have been written by various Karaite Ḥakhamim (sages) throughout the movement's history, although most are lost today. The disagreement arises over the Rabbinic tradition's raising of the Talmud and the other writings of the Rabbis above the Torah. The Karaites believe this has led to traditions and customs being kept under Rabbinic law that contradict what is written in the Torah. The Karaites also have their own traditions and customs passed down from their ancestors and religious authorities. These are known as Sevel HaYerushah, which means "the Yoke [or burden] of Inheritance." Most of these practices are kept primarily by traditional Karaites; theoretically, any tradition thereof is said to be rejected if it contradicts the simple meaning of the Tanakh's text. The vast majority of these traditions are not forced upon any Karaite Jew or convert to Judaism through the Karaite movement, except very few such as donning a head covering in the Karaite synagogues (except the synagogue in Hedgesville, West Virginia). Those Karaites who are new to the Karaite lifestyle do not have such an inheritance or tradition and tend to rely heavily upon just the Tanakh and those practices mentioned in it, and to adapt Biblical practices to their cultural context.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Judaism

And what's so "wrong" about that?

[semiopen]

The Rabbinical court has power to implement standards for the Jewish people that supersedes the will of God. This might be outdated in secular matters but certainly it applies to defining appropriate behavior at the Kotel.

According to who

It's called Rabbinic_Judaism

I've got some differences with them but thank God they are in charge as opposed to you.

[John2]

The Rabbinical court has power to implement standards for the Jewish people that supersedes the will of God. This might be outdated in secular matters but certainly it applies to defining appropriate behavior at the Kotel.

According to who

It's called Rabbinic_Judaism

I've got some differences with them but thank God they are in charge as opposed to you.

In other words, themselves, like I said above. And the citation you gave of Rambam regarding the Rabbinic interpretation of Ex. 23:2 is an illustration of why I think they are wrong (if we define Judaism as being biblically-based). As Modern Karaite (and former Orthodox and son of an Orthodox Rabbi) Nehemia Gordon discusses in The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus (pg. 18-19):

What this verse [Ex. 23:2] means is that we should not testify that a person is guilty just because everyone else says he is guilty; this would be a perversion of justice. We must testify to the truth whatever that happens to be, even if we are the lone voice of reason. The Rabbis take this same verse and derive a completely different principle from it. They arbitrarily remove words from the beginning and end of the verse ... What is left is "incline after the majority." Disembodied from their original context, these words are "interpreted" as a commandment to "go after the majority." Whatever the majority of rabbis says is binding because Exodus 23:2 says to go after the majority. Never mind that Exodus 23:2 actually says not to go after the majority but to go after whatever is true. This does not matter because the Rabbis have the prerogative to "interpret" as they see fit. This practice of taking words out of context and twisting their meaning is typical of the Rabbinical approach to Scripture. Strictly speaking this approach is not "interpretive" but rather "creative." It uses random sound bites to create new meaning not naturally emanating from the words of Scripture.

So it sounds strange to me to hear you say "thank God they are in charge" in light of this Rabbinic practice of "taking words out of context and twisting their meaning" (assuming for the sake of discussion that the Tanakh is the word of God).

[John2]

And as Modern Karaite Isaac Kight writes in the Tmes of Israel:

The Karaite Jews face many chalenges in modern Israel. Rabbinical authorities, convinced of their own superiority, have sought to take from the Karaite Jews their right to conduct their own marriages. Karaite Kasher meat for many years could not be labeled "Kosher." The courts only recently overturned that regulation. In response, Rabbinical authorities have sought to ban Karaite shokhets (slaughterers) from all slaughtering facilities in Israel.

If Israel does not have room for Karaite Judaism, and the wide array of Jewish customs, beliefs and religious movements, then the notion that Israel is a Jewish Democratic State is a lie. In order for Zionism to succeed and for Judaism to prosper, every Jew must be included equally. Together we will draw strength from our brotherhood, divided we will, once again, become weak and vulnerable.

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/karaite-judaism/

[semiopen]

The Rabbis won, and get to say what kind of behavior is appropriate at the Kotel. The reason they won is the same reason they lost to Christianity, they had a better product than the other guys.

Guess all Jews dislike Jews for Jesus - https://jewsforjesus.org/ so perhaps we can dispense with your crocodile tears over them.

[John2]

The Rabbis won, and get to say what kind of behavior is appropriate at the Kotel. The reason they won is the same reason they lost to Christianity, they had a better product than the other guys.

Guess all Jews dislike Jews for Jesus - https://jewsforjesus.org/ so perhaps we can dispense with your crocodile tears over them.

The Rabbis may be more numerous, but that doesn't mean that they "won" (re: Ex. 23:2, "You must not follow the crowd in doing wrong"). The oldest synagogue in Jerusalem is Karaite, for example, as may be the MT. And Karaites have always been Zionists, unlike some Rabbinic Jews (past and present).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff_D4Sd1bg8

Jews who criticize or oppose Zionism are usually Orthodox and maintain that Israel can only be regained miraculously. They view the present state as a blasphemous human attempt to usurp G­d's role, and many actively work to dismantle the secular State of Israel. However, unlike many gentile anti­Zionists, Jewish anti-Zionists usually firmly believe in the Jewish right to the Land of Israel, but only at the future time of redemption. The best­known group of the Jewish religious anti­Zionists are the Neturei Karta.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/an ... among-jews

Aaron ben Moses ben Asher lived in Tiberius during the first half of the 10th century. His family had been involved in creating and maintaining the Masorah for either five or six generations. Ben-Asher rapidly gained fame as the most authoritative of the Tiberias masoretes, and, even after his death, his name continued to hold respect ...

From documents found in the [Karaite] Cairo Geniza, it appears that this most famous masorete (and, possibly, his family for generations) were also, incidentally, Karaites.

It should not be surprising to discover that many masoretes, so involved in the Masorah, held Karaite beliefs. After all, it was the Karaites who placed such absolute reliance on the Torah text. It would be natural that they would devote their lives to studying every aspect of it.

The surprising element was that being a Karaite didn't disqualify Aaron ben Moses ben Asher in the eyes of Rabbinic Jews (like RaMBaM).

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/aa ... -ben-asher

And I don't understand your "Jews for Jesus" remark. Perhaps it's because I cited something from Nehemia Gordon's book The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus, and if that is the case, I will let Nehemia speak for himself about it.

So why do I have what one of my sisters (a devout Orthodox Jew) refers to as an “unhealthy interest in Jesus”? It started many years ago, when I came out of Rabbinical Judaism and began researching all of the world’s religions. I was particularly interested in ancient Judaism in all of its forms, and this naturally included the teaching ministry of Yeshua of Nazareth. My interest in this subject is not as unusual as my sister might think. Over the past century, Jewish scholars have increasingly carried out research to uncover the Hebrew background and context of the New Testament. One of the greatest of these scholars was Professor David Flusser, himself an Orthodox Jew, who taught at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. I was trained in the study of ancient Jewish texts at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem where I earned my Masters Degree in Biblical Studies, and I view my own research on the teachings of Yeshua as part of this scholarly tradition.

To give this research some context, a number of years ago I was privileged to have worked with the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were written by an ancient Jewish movement called the Essenes. While I believe the Dead Sea Scrolls contain great value, at no time did I ever become an Essene. Furthermore, as a textual scholar researching the scrolls it was not my role to convince anyone whether or not to believe in Essene Judaism. My role as a scholar was to attempt to understand what these ancient documents meant in their original linguistic, historical, and cultural context. This is how I see my role in exploring the Hebrew background of the New Testament. It is not my role as a textual scholar to lead anyone into the Christian faith. Nor is it my role to lead anyone out of the Christian faith. These are issues of personal faith and belief that are beyond the scope of my research. My role as a textual scholar is to understand what Yeshua taught in the linguistic, historical, and cultural context in which he preached. For those who believe in Yeshua, I would think this should be of great importance. But it should also be important for non-Christians, as Yeshua was indisputably a pivotal figure in world history who profoundly influenced the development of Western civilization.

https://www.nehemiaswall.com/ass-speaks-out