Thesis Final (AB)

8/2/2019 Thesis Final (AB)

1/67

Women From the Diaspora and Of the Wall:

An Ethnography on Jewish Ritual Innovation

By Adriel Borshansky


2/67

2

Introduction

Because we dont consider ourselves a minyan (a group of Jewish men that constitute a

group and make it eligible to perform an official prayer service), we dont say things thatwould normally be recited only in a minyan. That means no Kaddish, no Barkhu, no

repetition of the Amidah.1 In this we are no different from most Orthodox womens prayer

groups, although our members are Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, andReconstructionist, and everything in between

AfterShakhrit (morning) we go into Hallel2, and each time, our leader cautions the othersabout getting carried away. Singing full-voice here could get us into trouble, even though

by this time theres more than enough noise from the mens section and the neighboring

construction to drown out any sound we make

AfterHallel we leave the womens section of the Kotel.

3

Theres a last-minute replacing ofsiddurim; some women go close to the Kotel for a moment and then rejoin the group as we

walk to a site in the Jewish Quarter for the Torah reading. Under the open sky we spreada specially made silk cloth over the raised stone structure that we use as abimah (elevated

platform for the leader of the prayer service), and we place the Torah upon it, wrapped in

its woven cover and a tallit. It is there that many women get to see the inside of a Torahscroll up close for the first time. Ourgabbai (assistant who manages the service) asks the

group, Is there anyone here who has never received an aliya (the chance to get called up

to the bimah to read from the Torah)? Five years ago there were several in each group;

now there are almost none

The Torah reading progresses, and as with Rabbi Shlomos davening, the Mi Sheberakhs

are personalized. The gabbai makes sure to find out a little bit about each olah and asksfor appropriate blessings for her. We respond with an enthusiastic Amen.

Now its time forMusaf, Psalm 104, Alenu. Then we greet friends, meet new people. Onemember passes around a mailing list. We heardivrei Torah, updates on our Court case.4

The above passage is taken from Rahel Jaskows personal account of a typical prayer

service with the group that calls itself Women of the Wall. Once every month, at the Kotel in the

old city of Jerusalem, Israel, the group meets to perform a service like the one that Jaskow

1 Kaddish, Barkhu, andAmidah are Jewish prayers2Hallel is a Jewish prayer3 The Kotel is an important site for Jewish prayer in Jerusalem, Israel. It is theremains of ancient Israels Second Temple, on which the Temple Mount stood.4Bonna Devora Haberman, Women Beyond the Wall: From Text to Praxis,Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Spring, 1997): 38-40.


3/67

3

describes. For over twenty years now, Women of the Wall have generated passionate debate in the

Jewish world. The movement has spurred American and Israeli Jews in particular to ask tough

questions, such as: How should women practice Judaism at the Kotel? Is Women of the Walls

prayer service (such as the one described above) acceptable? Women of the Wall deserve

academic attention simply because of the fierce controversy, passion, and concern that the group

has generated. Moreover, the movement is a kind of lens that the field of religious studies can use

to look at Judaism as a whole. Many of the questions that Women of the Wall raise pertain not

only to the movement, but also to broader issues. Women in Judaism, Jewish ritual innovation,

and Israel-Diaspora relations are three examples of broader issues that Women of the Wall

implicate. Jewish studies, and by extension, the field of religious studies, can gain valuable

insights into the world of Judaism by studying Women of the Wall.

In this paper, I approach Women of the Wall from two specific angles. First, I draw

connections between the movement and a particular subset of religious studies: ritual studies. It is

fitting to frame this study as one that is concerned with ritual because Women of the Wall

emphasize practice, placing particular importance on a set of rituals. Ritual theorist Catherine Bell

provides an understanding of ritual that both applies to and does not apply to Women of the Wall.

The movement not only illuminates, but also is illuminated by, the field of ritual studies.

Second, I approach Women of the Wall from an ethnographic angle. This paper is chiefly

focused on bringing out the views of the women participants themselves. Some work has already

been done to bring out these womens voices (the movement itself has produced films, blogs, and a

book about the womens experiences5), but there is still much room for academia to do

ethnographic work on the topic. Focusing on the women themselves is important because these

5 Women of the Wall: Claiming Sacred Ground at Judaisms Holy Site, edited byPhyllis Chesler and Rivka Haut, is a compilation of essays and stories fromparticipants in the movement.


4/67

4

women are real people engaging in real, lived practices. To understand Women of the Wall,

scholarship must seek to understand the lives, views, and experiences of the women who constitute

the movement.

Researching the complex ways in which Women of the Wall understand themselves reveals

that this movement is deeply contextual. Participants in the movement are concerned with the

particularities of its specific location in the Jewish world (grounded in time and space). The

womens views weave together a complex fabric of self-understanding that draws together history,

geography, and custom. This fabric is made up of many different threads, of different textures and

colors (each of the women is unique, and so they present their views in unique ways). And central

to my overall thesis is the fact that the groups self-understanding consists of two main tensions.

First, although Women of the Wall emphasize the groups legitimacy according to Jewish law,

they also want to show that Jewish law is open-ended. Therefore, they assert their legitimacy on

non-legal grounds as well. Second, Women of the Wall have a two-sided understanding of their

movement: on the one hand, they see the movement as authentically Jewish, but on the other hand,

they see it as new and innovative. In terms of the fabric metaphor, Women of the Walls views run

in two opposing, yet intertwined, directions. Views from within Women of the Wall (from now on

referred to as WOW) suggest tensions and particularities involved in the groups practice. The

movement is not a uniform body that asserts a singular argument in favor of changing Jewish

practice at the Kotel. Rather, it constitutes a rich fabric of views that are grounded in time and

space.

In concluding that WOW is deeply contextual, I am drawing upon the work of ritual

theorist Catherine Bell. Bell writes that there are four features of practice:


5/67

5

Practice is (1) situational; (2) strategic; (3) embedded in a misrecognition of what it is in

fact doing; and (4) able to reproduce or reconfigure a vision of the order of power in the

world, or what I will call redemptive hegemony.6

In this particular movement, Bells first two features of practice really work. As my thesis

argues, WOWs practice is situational in that it cannot be properly understood outside of its

specific context. WOWs practice is also strategic: whether self-consciously or not, the women in

the movement activate strategic practices based on their context and their groups goals. Bells

third feature of practice does not really apply to WOW. WOW is too aware of itself and its goals

to be embedded in a misrecognition of what it is in fact doing. Finally, Bells fourth feature of

practice works in some ways but not in others. On the one hand, WOW engages in ritual

innovation that reconfigures womens roles in the Jewish world, but on the other hand, WOW

participants are still attached to hegemonic and traditional practices at the Kotel. WOW provides a

counterexample to Bells third feature of practice, but even so, the movement exemplifies Bells

overarching argument that ritual is contextual.

Because my approach to studying WOW is ethnographic in nature and concerned with

bringing out the voices of WOW participants, I used social-scientific methods to research the topic.

I conducted phone interviews with nine women who have either participated in WOW in the past

or continue to participate in it today. I found the women both by reading materials published by

WOW and by asking participants to direct me to other women in the movement. Interviews lasted

anywhere from twenty minutes to an hour. In the interview, I asked the interview participant

various questions I had prepared. I also let the interviews evolve into conversations, in which I

asked questions that responded to statements from the interview participant. Therefore, my

methodology could be conceived of as qualitative social-science. In addition to interview

6 Catherine Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1992), 81.


6/67

6

research, I relied heavily on Women of the Wall: Claiming Sacred Ground at Judaisms Holy Site,

edited by two prominent WOW activists, Rivka Haut and Phyllis Chesler. This book brings out

the experiences, views, and voices of many women participants in the movement. Finally, I used

academic articles and books for supplementary research and historical background information.

Chapter 1 begins with the history of American Jewish womens activism and goes into a

brief sketch of Women of the Walls history. Chapter 2 introduces the nine women I interviewed,

giving a sense for who they are, how they match, and how they differ. Chapter 3 describes the

various ways in which WOW participants see the movement as authentically and traditionally

Jewish. Finally, Chapter 4 contrasts Chapter 3 by describing the ways in which WOW participants

see the movement as new and innovative.

Chapter One: Historical Backdrop

Feminist Judaism in America

Popular representations of Women of the Wall portray it as a movement that began with a

kind of haphazard, spur-of-the-moment idea in 1988. The small group of founding women may

have been acting out of a sudden burst of activist spontaneity when they started the movement, but

they were also carrying out an idea that had been developing for a long time. Feminist Jewish

activism has an extensive history, particularly in the U.S., from where the movements founding

members hail. This long and dynamic history is an important contextual piece of WOWs overall

story, as Women of the Wall can be conceived of as being connected to even a product of a

broader American feminist Jewish milieu.

Even before specifically feminist Jewish modes of expression emerged in America, the

country proved to be a place that valued Jewish freedom and diversity. As the immigrant Rebecca


7/67

7

Samuel explained in a 1791 letter to her parents in Hamburg, Germany, in America, anyone can

do what he wants. There is no rabbi in all of America to excommunicate anyone.7 A sense of

freedom and diversity characterized early American Judaism. Consequently, as Jonathan Sarna

writes, in the early decades of American history, There were almost as many Judaisms as there

were individuals.8

In this early American context, where a plurality of Judaisms could flourish, feminist

Jewish modes of expression emerged. Women began to benefit from the spirit of freedom in

American religious life as early as the turn of the 19th century, when women sought new

opportunities within the synagogue. At the Shearith Israel synagogue in New York, for example,

the congregation abandoned its controversial status-based system of assigning and rating seats for

both sexes.9 Subsequent to these reforms in Shearith Israels congregation, the number of seats

for women increased, women came down from the gallery to sing as part of a mixed choir, and

women gained heightened visibility. Shearith Israel exemplifies the general American emphasis

on religious freedom. In addition to logistical reforms within the synagogue, American Jewish

women gained access to other institutionalized avenues of religious expression that had long been

unavailable to them. The Female Hebrew Benevolent Society was founded in 1819; the United

Order of True Sisters (a kind of Bnai Brith for women) was established in 1846; and the Jewish

Sunday School movement developed, opening up teaching as another vocational role for Jewish

women within their circumscribed religious sphere.10 These kinds of women-oriented Jewish

organizations and movements gave women new opportunities and helped plant the seeds for a

greater flowering of feminist Jewish expression.

7 Jonathan Sarna,American Judaism (New Haven and London: Yale UniversityPress, 2004), 45.8 Ibid.,46-47.9 Ibid., 47.10 Sarna,American Judaism, 50.


8/67

8

In the latter half of the nineteenth century, women contributed heavily to an American

Jewish awakening. Women became increasingly responsible for religious education and by 1869,

most American Jews receiving a formal Jewish education likely learned most of what they knew

from female teachers.11 These new teaching responsibilities motivated women to educate

themselves more fully in Judaism, beginning a long process of gender equality in the field of

Jewish education. Around this same time, in 1860, Hadassah, the Womens Zionist Organization

of America, formed to provide women with the opportunity to participate in social, medical, and

educational philanthropy.12

In the early decades of the twentieth century, women began to find traction in an effort to

gain ritual equality. The 1920s saw the emergence of Bat Mitzvah celebrations (the first known

one was in 1922).13 Thereafter, the ritual spread, and by the 1940s, Bat Mitzvahs were

commonplace.14 In the early decades of the 20th century, women also made gradual but substantial

progress on the issue of mixed seating. By 1947, a survey of congregations led by graduates of the

Jewish Theological Seminary reported that, a general practice in nearly all of our congregations

was that they permitted mixed pews.15 The emergence of Bat Mitzvahs and mixed pews are two

examples of womens steady progress towards the goal of acceptance into traditionally male-

dominated rituals.

In the 1970s and 1980s, American Jewish feminists made momentous strides, particularly

in the realm of ordination and education. In 1972, a group of feminist activists from the Jewish

organization Ezrat nashim showed up at an annual Rabbinical Assembly convention to present

11 Ibid., 139.12 Ibid., 143.13 Bat Mitzvah translates to daughter of the commandments and ismodeled after the male coming of age ritual, Bar Mitzvah.14 Ibid., 287.15 Ibid., 242.


9/67

9

a series of emphatic demands.16 The fight for American Jewish gender equality occurred most

notably around the issue of ordination, which became highly contentious in Jewish communities all

across the country. Men had exclusive access to ordination at this point, and the notion of a female

rabbi was considered revolutionary. The question of womens ordination had been provoking

debate in American Reform communities since as early as the turn of the twentieth century. In the

absence of widespread support or urgent motivation, even Reform rabbinical seminaries in

America decided to play it safe and maintain ordination as a male privilege.17 Finally, in 1968,

Sally Jane Priesand entered the rabbinical track of the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of

Religion. Priesand gained the support of her college president and top Reform movement leaders,

gained media attention, and even gained significant public support. In 1972, she became

Americas first woman rabbi in 1972. Two years later, the first Reconstructionist woman rabbi

was ordained, and soon thereafter, female ordination became widely accepted in Reform and

Reconstructionist communities. In the Conservative movement, womens ordination took longer

to establish itself. The United Synagogue (the lay-dominated synagogue arm of the conservative

movement) put forth three demands in a strong statement for gender equality in public ritual. By

the late 1970s, the Jewish Theological Seminarys chancellor, Gerson D. Cohen, changed his

views on the issue and became, in his own words, passionately in favor of ordination of

women.18 Soon thereafter, Conservative womens ordination gained wider acceptance. Womens

ordination was a crucial part of the feminist Jewish movement on the whole: Women now led

worship services and read from the Torah on par with men, and having had their consciousness

raised by the womens movement, they became newly sensitized to language issues. 19 Womens

16 Sarna,American Judaism, 339.17 Ibid., 340.18 Sarna,American Judaism, 342.19 Ibid., 343.


10/67

10

ordination was part of a larger movement in which women were gaining increased access to Jewish

education. Even in Orthodox circles, the 1970s and 1980s saw tremendous increases in womens

Jewish education. As a result of these educational developments, Orthodox women no longer had

to rely on men to expound Jewish law for them; a growing number could study the primary sources

of their faith themselves.20 Womens new positions as educated and sometimes ordained Jews

enabled them to promulgate their own prayer books, thus activating their feminist values from

positions of religious authority. Ordination and education were central issues to the feminist

Jewish movement in the 1970s and 1980s because as more women became ordained rabbis and

became included in Jewish higher education, they gained increased erudition and power with

which they could address gender issues.

Important though the issues of womens ordination and education were, Jewish feminist

activists of the 70s and 80s were also deeply concerned with ritual both in terms of allowing

women to partake in traditionally exclusive rituals and in terms of formulating new ones. This

ritual aspect of the feminist Jewish movement in America is particularly relevant to understanding

Women of the Wall because of WOWs emphasis on practice.

Perhaps WOW didnt really begin in Jerusalem in 1988, but in America in the late 1970s.

Lynn Gottlieb, one of the earliest female American rabbis, writes that in the late 1970s, a group of

feminists organized the first meeting of Banot Esh (Sisters of Fire), where they initiated the retreat

by praying a traditional service.21 This kind of feminist practice, whereby women enacted a

traditional service on their own (which traditionally would have needed the presence and

leadership of men), became a hallmark of the feminist Jewish movement. The fervor around

practical feminist innovation was aided by the concomitant development of Jewish catalogs. The

20 Ibid., 344.21 Vanessa L. Ochs, Inventing Jewish Ritual (Philadelphia: The JewishPublication Society, 2007), 19.


11/67

11

First Jewish Catalog, for example, first published by The Jewish Publication Society in 1973,

documented emerging Jewish rituals and promoted the creative spirit that would lead to more. 22

Ordination and formal Jewish education were not even prerequisites for feminist activism

anymore. Women from all denominations and levels of Judaism engaged in a process of

innovating the way the religion was practiced.

As this process of feminist ritual innovation developed, it took two distinct forms: allowing

women to partake in exclusively male rituals and formulating new womens rituals. Vanessa Ochs

describes these two as adaptation and creation:

In creating new rituals, Jewish feminists have alternated between two approaches:adaptation of existing rituals and creation of new ones. In adaptation, the Jewish

practices men have traditionally performed are made available for women Instead [ofadopting existing rituals], they have [also] proposed creating distinctively female

alternatives, derived from insights and practices that emerge out of the lives of Jewish

women.23

Adaptation of existing rituals was a major theme of womens Jewish activism: the number

of synagogues that called women up to the Torah rose dramatically, many women began to wear

prayer shawls (a practice traditionally exclusive to men), and some synagogues even elected

female presidents.24 Even in many Orthodox communities, Orthodox women began adopting male

practices such as donning prayer shawls, celebrating the bat mitzvahs of their daughters, and

dancing with the Torah on the holiday of Simchat Torah. Women from all kinds of Jewish

communities gained new access to rituals that had long been the exclusive purview of Jewish men.

In addition to feminist ritual adaptation, Judaism in America also saw feminist ritual

invention, as women formulated specific rituals for events and experiences in womens lives.

Sarna writes, Where female equivalent ceremonies did not commonly exist rituals were either

22 Ibid., 39.23 Ibid., 47.24 Sarna,American Judaism, 342.


12/67

12

formulated from scratch or laboriously recovered from the recesses of Jewish tradition.25

Practices that are now considered commonplace emerged out of womens innovative efforts to

create new prayers and rituals for women. Womens mikveh (ritual bath) rituals gained popularity,

feministseders (ritual dinners) on Passover became customary, and, perhaps most important for

the history of Women of the Wall, gatherings of women to celebrate Rosh Chodesh (the new

moon) became popular. Rosh Chodesh womens prayer groups also popularly known as

womens tefillah groups26 became central to feminist Jewish practice. Moreover, many members

of Women of the Wall were active in these kinds of groups prior to (and at the same time as) their

participation in WOW. In fact, leading members of the movement articulate their WOW activism

as directly stemming from WTGs:

In most modern Orthodox communities throughout the world Orthodox women regularly

gather in women-only groups in which they perform exactly the same activities that arecurrently prohibited to women in Israel at the Wall. It is these halakhicallypermitted

activities that we seek to have legalized at the Kotel today.27

This excerpt, taken from Women of the Wall: Claiming Sacred Ground at Judaisms Holy

Site, by Phyllis Chesler and Rivka Haut of WOW, illustrates two connections between WOW and

its historical backdrop. For one, the passage includes the argument that WOWs activities are

halakhicallypermitted, indicating Hauts and Chesslers high level ofhalakhic fluency and

Jewish erudition. And secondly, this passage indicates the direct connections between Women of

the Wall and womens tefillah groups.

Women of the Wall emerged out of a broader feminist Jewish milieu that developed from

colonial-era America and accelerated in the 1970s and 1980s. In particular, the recent wave of

25 Ibid., 343.26 Rosh Chodesh groups are the same as womens tefillah groups. I willusually refer to them as womens tefillah groups or WTGs.27Women of the Wall: Claiming Sacred Ground at Judaisms Holy Site, ed.Phyllis Chesler and Rivka Haut (Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Publishing,2003), xxvii.


13/67

13

feminist Judaism, which emphasizes ordination, education, and ritual innovation (especially in the

form of womens tefillah groups) helped make WOW possible.

A Brief Sketch of WOWs History

In addition to being part of the dynamic history of feminist Judaism in America, WOW has

its own dynamic history: it has evolved, grown in size and scope, and struggled through major

legal battles with the state of Israel. These pieces of historical background information are critical

to understanding WOW because they contextualize the participating womens experiences in the

movement.

In December 1988, the first International Conference for the Empowerment of Jewish

Women was held in Jerusalem under the auspices of the American Jewish Congress. Rivka Haut,

an active member of one of the earliest womens tefillah groups in Brooklyn, New York, was

asked to speak at the conference. She wanted to actually enact the change she wished to see in

Jewish practice, so she approached several other women at the conference (Bonna Haberman,

Norma Joseph, and Deborah Brin among them) to ask them if they would join her in running a

womens prayer service at the Kotel. Surprised and excited by Rivkas audacity, the women

agreed to the idea, and on Wednesday of the conference week, this small group of women gathered

in one hotel room to discuss the details of their plan for a service at the Kotel. Having told many

of the other women at the conference about their idea, the next day they took approximately

seventy women (in buses that they rented) to the Kotels womens section to pray and read the

Torah aloud together.28 The service started out smoothly, but soon an elderly woman noticed the

women and began to yell at them to try to get them to leave. Some men noticed the commotion

from across the mechitzah and soon they too began yelling at the group, shouting harsh and

28Women of the Wall, xix.


14/67

14

harassing words at them. Feeling that they were in danger and that their service was getting

disrupted, the women decided to back away from the Wall. After the service, Rabbi Meir Yehuda

Getz, the administrator of the Kotel at the time, said, Although the women have done nothing

against Halakhah, religious law, what they have done is not accepted in the community of Israel. 29

Despite verbal harassment from ultra-Orthodox men and women at that first service, the leading

women in the movement walked away from the experience proud of what they had done. They

invited additional women to join them for future services and borrowed a Torah scroll from an

Orthodox learning institution. The year 1989 saw the beginning of their monthly prayer

celebrations of Rosh Chodesh at the Wall, and on Rosh Chodesh Tevet, Women of the Wall was

officially born.30

WOW has engaged in a long process of legal battles with Israel over the rights to partake in

certain practices at the Wall. The movements practical mission is to allow women to engage in

the following activities at the Kotel: praying aloud in a group; singing prayers; wearing

tallitot(prayer shawls); wearing tefillin (phylacteries); blowing a shofar (ritual rams horn);

carrying or chanting from asefer Torah (Torah scroll).31 Importantly, WOW does not challenge

the existence of a mechitzah at the Kotel, and the services are non-minyan services, so that all

Jewish women, including the strictly Orthodox, may feel comfortable joining the group in

prayer.32 In 1988 and 1989, when the womens group first came to pray in these ways at the

Kotel, there were no legal rules governing the ways that Jews should practice at the Wall. After

particularly threatening confrontations between the women and ultra-Orthodox men, WOW filed a

petition to the government of Israel to ask for protection. By this time, a group of diaspora women

29 Ibid., 3.30 Ibid., 4.31Women of the Wall, xxvii.32 Ibid., xxvii.


15/67

15

(including Rivka Haut, Bonna Haberman, and the rest of the founding members) had formed the

International Committee for Woman of the Wall (ICWOW) so that even if they were not actively

participating in prayer services at the Kotel, they could help the movement in more of a supportive

role. The government denied ICWOW and WOWs request, citing halakhic opinions that ban

WOWs practices. In 1991, ICWOW and WOW teamed up to appeal the Supreme Court for the

legal right to conduct WOW services at the Kotel. The Supreme Court split its 1994 decision.

Subsequently, over the next few years, ordered a series of largely unsuccessful commissions to

resolve the issue. The commissions (first the Mancal Commission and then the Neeman

Commission) repeatedly failed to meet their deadlines, yet the government kept giving the

commissions six-month extensions. Meanwhile, praying aloud with Torah and tallit in the Kotels

womens section remained a crime that was punishable by imprisonment and/or fine.33

In May of 2000, to all of the womens surprise, the court granted women the right to wear

prayer shawls at the Kotel, pray aloud, and read from a Torah scroll as part of the service.

However, soon thereafter, government parties submitted several bills to override the Supreme

Court decision, including one that would make communal prayer by women at the Kotel

punishable by a fine and seven years in prison. In the early 2000s, the Supreme Court and the

government repeated the cycle that began WOWs legal ordeals in the 1990s. The court would

order the government to find a solution, but the government would procrastinate.34

In 2005, a panel of nine judges ruled against WOW, five to four. As a result, Israeli law

does not permit WOW to pray in their manner. Those women who do so anyway are subject to a

fine and up to six months in jail. Currently, the Kotel is controlled by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel

and a special force led by Chief of Police of the Kotel. WOW members still meet, though. Every

33Women of the Wall, 369-371.34 Ibid., 377-399.


16/67

16

Rosh Chodesh, they complete the shacharit service and Hallel in front of the Wall and then go to

Robinsons Arch (a nearby archaeological area) in order to read Torah and conclude the service.

WOW participants also read the Scroll of Esther at the Kotel every Purim; they read the Book of

Lamentations every Tisha bAv; they conduct Bat Mitzvah ceremonies for Jewish girls at the

Kotel; and they sponsor seminars, lectures, and retreats.35

Although these legal battles have been hard-fought from WOWs perspective and they

have weighed heavily on the spirits of the movements participants, the group has continued to be

active at the Kotel nonetheless. In 1989, soon after the founding of the group, American Jewish

leaders in the movement helped the group raise funds for a Torah scroll that WOW could use in

group prayer services.36 The group continues to use this same Torah today. Despite periodic

incidents in which the members of the group have been physically attacked and even dragged away

from the Kotel37, they have persevered. In 1997, Bonna Haberman reflected fairly positively on

the groups progress:

Since January 1989, there has been a womens prayer celebration of Rosh Hodesh every

month at the Wall. Due to our adherence to the Israel Supreme Courts interim decision

requesting that we uphold the status quo ante, we begin our morning prayers at the Kotelwithout prayer shawls. For the Torah reading we adjourn to an archaeological garden

above the Kotel plaza, where we are uninhibited by the courts censorship. There we

rejoice, wearing our prayer shawls and singing with full voices.38

Since the time of the writing of that passage, WOW has continued to go to the Kotel every

Rosh Chodesh. In fact, Haut and Chessler write that in February of 2002, we actually

experienced what we have longed for WOW prayed aloud and read from a Torah scroll at the

Kotel, before the ancient stones.39

35 Ibid., 380-391.36Women of the Wall, xxxvii.37 Ibid., xxxiii.38Bonna Devora Haberman, Women Beyond the Wall: From Text to Praxis,Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Spring, 1997): 15-16.39Women of the Wall, xxxiii.


17/67

17

WOW is a self-described grassroots organization that relies on participation from all

sorts of women activists (from American Jewish women leaders who advise the group, to Israeli

women who pray every month on Rosh Chodesh at the Kotel, to North American Jewish women

who make WOW prayer at the Kotel an important part of their visits to Israel). Many participants

in the movement feel pessimistic because legal stalemates, political resistance, and patriarchal

customs seem like such formidable obstacles to WOWs goals. Even so, by some measures, the

group has already succeeded in creating a community of Jewish women who actively pray at the

Kotel. The group continues to fight in the legal, political, and cultural arenas for the right to pray

as they wish.

WOWs dynamic history, as well as WOWs connections to the broader American feminist

milieu, provides helpful background information. This historical backdrop is helpful not only

because it establishes WOWs place in history, but also because it introduces the context in which

many WOW participants understand their activism. Women of the Wall are concerned with

history. They articulate their views with regard to historical evidence, such as WOWs

relationship to the larger womens tefillah network, its multi-denominational roots, and its legal

battles (especially halakhic debates). In the same vein, Chapter 3 will introduce the women whom

I interviewed. Just as this chapter has done, Chapter 3 will help to both set the stage and to step

into the shoes of WOW participants themselves.

Chapter Two: Interview Participants

Before making the more substantive analyses of my interviews, I will introduce the women

themselves. Each of the nine women whom I interviewed has a unique story worth telling. They

are all American women, with the exception of Deborah Brin and Norma Joseph, who are both


18/67

18

American and Canadian. To be sure, these women have all spent significant time in Israel, but

they are distinctly North American, diasporic Jews.40 The women ranged in age from about 40

to about 70. Partly because of their different ages and the different stages they are at in their lives

and careers, these nine women have varying levels of active commitment to the movement. Some

continue to be active leaders in WOW, while others have long since distanced themselves from it.

They each have different relationships to Judaism, in terms of how she understands the religion as

well as how she practices it. The Kotel, for example, has great religious significance to some of

the women, while others see it as just another place to pray.

In this chapter, I highlight the diversity and richness of this group of nine women. I also

conclude with some of the ways in which the women are very similar to each other. This detail-

oriented depiction of the women themselves is valuable in its own right, as each of these womens

stories is special. It is also crucial for understanding WOW because it places the womens lived

realities at the heart of my thesis. Scholarship on WOW has a responsibility to contextualize these

womens participation because the women themselves view their activism as deeply contextual.

The womens participation in WOW is not an abstract topic up for debate, but an integral part of

their lives. As such, in order to understand WOW as a whole, scholarship has to begin with an

understanding of the people who constitute the movement.

Childhood Experiences with Judaism

Most of the study participants were heavily involved in Judaism at young ages. In my

interviews, they talked about their Jewish upbringings, their families, and the ways that their

Judaism has evolved over time since childhood. In some cases, the womens comments and

anecdotes about childhood experiences with Judaism made it clear that those experiences either

40 The term diaspora or diasporic connotes Jews living outside of the stateof Israel.


19/67

19

connect to their participation in WOW. Miriam Benson, for example, said that she grew up in a

Conservative family, one in which egalitarianism was always entrenched.41 Egalitarian Jewish

ideas play an important role in WOWs mission, as WOW aims at equitable practices between men

and women. Bensons egalitarian-leaning family predisposed her to the kinds of thinking that is so

foundational for Women of the Wall. Deborah Brin also hinted at this same childhood launching

of Jewish ideas when she mentioned that she grew up in a liberal Conservative community in

Minneapolis.42 Her self-awareness of having grown up in a specifically liberalJewish

community indicates that progressive Jewish values have played a role in her life since an early

age. Vanessa Ochs also suggested that in general, the relationship between a daughter and her

mother is crucially formative for the development of girls Jewish beliefs and practices.

There is a great deal of diversity amongst the childhood stories of the nine interview

participants. Benson, Brin, Ochs, and others shared stories of real connection between their

childhood and their participation in WOW. However, some women did not have those same

childhood-WOW connections. Rahel Jaskow, for example, was not raised Jewish, in the

conventional sense, at all: I started observing Judaism out of free choice in my teens and early

twenties,43she said. Miriam Benson also had a different path from childhood to WOW-hood than

that of Benson, Brin, and Ochs. Benson was raised in a Conservative family where

egalitarianism played a role, but then later in life, she became part of a Reform congregation in

Israel.44 Benson and Jaskow were both informed by Judaism as they were growing up. However,

they took somewhat atypical paths from childhood experiences with Judaism to participation in

WOW.

41 Miriam Benson, interview by author, phone, January 1, 2012.42 Deborah Brin, interview by author, phone, February 14, 2012.43 Rahel Jaskow, interview by author, phone, January 31, 2012.44 Miriam Benson, interview by author, phone, January 1, 2012.


20/67

20

Identifying (or not identifying) with Denominations

In trying to map out the demographics of my nine interview participants, I initially hoped

to lay out a kind of numerical breakdown of the different participants denominations of Judaism.

However, this task soon proved more challenging than I had anticipated. The women often reacted

uncomfortably to my asking what denomination do you identify with?, and often responded with

ambiguous, convoluted answers. Vanessa Ochs preferred not to answer the question at all, saying

that she didnt think that kind of information is relevant to my researching Women of the Wall.45

Rahel Jaskow told me she has no denomination.46 Susan Aranoff had to think about the question

for a few moments before saying, I have to say I'm flexodox. I'd say I'm a halakhic Jew - I'm so

disturbed by Orthodox rabbinic leadership.47 These kinds of answers worked against my efforts

to neatly categorize each participant into one particular denomination of Judaism.

Some of the women were more concrete about their denominational alignment. Rivka

Haut was the most concrete with her response, as she stated matter-of-factly that I identify as

Orthodox.48 Others articulated their denominational identity with precision, but their responses

still rang of a kind of trans-denominationalism (a combination of denominational affiliations).

Rayzel Raphael said, Well, I'm Reconstructionist ordained, but now I'm Renewal, which, to me, is

much more creative-arts based."49 Similarly, Deborah Brin also straddled the two related but

distinct denominational identities of Reconstructionist and Renewal Judaism: I was ordained

Reconstructionist, identify as Reconstructionist, and serve as the rabbi of a Renewal community in

Albuquerque."50 Even Norma Joseph, who identifies as clearly Orthodox, admitted to a kind of

45 Vanessa Ochs, interview by author, phone, February 6, 2012.46 Rahel Jaskow, interview by author, phone, January 31, 2012.47 Susan Aranoff, interview by author, phone, February 8, 2012.48 Rivka Haut, interview by author, phone, February 15, 2012.49 Rayzel Raphael, interview by author, phone, February 9, 2012.50 Deborah Brin, interview by author, phone, February 14, 2012.


21/67

21

fluidity to her denominational identity. She responded by saying that she is Orthodox, but Im a

crazy Orthodox because I'm pluralist and respecting and free-thinking.51 Even some of the

women who identified with a particular denomination suggested that their Jewish identity is

somehow trans-denominational. Many of the women responded tenuously, or intricately at best

(such as Raphael, Brin, and Joseph), and made it clear that my initial statistical approach would be

an ineffective way of capturing the participants denominational complexities.

In addition to the theme of individual women affiliating with some combination of

denominations, the group as a whole identifies as multi-denominational. In other words, although

WOW has many Orthodox roots, participants can identify in any way they choose. Susan Aranoff

told me, "Multi-denominationalism has been such a hallmark of our group.52 As I will bring up in

ensuing chapters, WOW participants champion the groups denominational diversity. They

embrace the challenges involved in reconciling all of the denominational backgrounds represented

in the movement and take pride in their ability to unite across denominational borders.

Current Practices

It is important to note that many of the interview participants talked about their

participation in womens tefillah groups, or Rosh Chodesh groups (womens prayer groups

that meet on the last Saturday of every month in honor of the new moon). Rayzel Raphael actually

helped found a womens tefillah group with Bonna Haberman (an influential leader of WOW who

I did not get a chance to interview) and others, and continues to be active in that community. 53

Susan Aranoff and Rivka Haut were in a womens tefillah group in Brooklyn, New York together,

along with about 50 or 60 other women, for many years. For Aranoff, this was their chance to

51 Norma Joseph, interview by author, phone, February 4, 2012.52 Susan Aranoff, interview by author, phone, February 8, 2012.53 Rayzel Raphael, interview by author, phone, February 9, 2012.


22/67

22

pray in a group, not behind a separation wall.54 Not all the women noted participation in

womens tefillah groups, and former participation in one is in no way a prerequisite for

participation in Women of the Wall. That said, Norma Joseph told me that Women of the Wall is

one particular outgrowth of these prayer groups.55 The women who are active in womens tefillah

groups make direct connections between their part in WOW and their broader Rosh Chodesh

womens prayer involvement.

Significance of the Kotel

The Kotel is undoubtedly a central component of Women of the Wall, but the women differ

in how they understand the Kotels significance. To be sure, many of the women I interviewed

emphasized the Kotels importance to Jewish people in general. However, this emphasis was

usually devoid of emotional attachment to the Wall. It was often more of an intellectual nod to the

fact that the Kotel is significant in Judaism. Norma Joseph, for example, said, It [Kotel] became

very important for me when I brought my mother there, but it's not that special to me.

56

It is only

the Kotels meaning to other people that makes it important to Joseph. Even Rivka Haut, who

initially came up with the idea of doing a womens prayer service at the Kotel, denied any sort of

sacred relationship with the Wall:

In terms of holiness, I don't know what that is or how to locate it (I can access God in NewYork just as well), but when you realize that so many people have stood there in real life or

in their dreams It has its roots in most Jewish souls.57

54 Susan Aranoff, interview by author, phone, February 8, 2012.55 Norma Joseph, interview by author, phone, February 4, 2012.56 Norma Joseph, interview by author, phone, February 4, 2012.57 Rivka Haut, interview by author, phone, February 15, 2012.


23/67

23

For Haut, the Kotel is insignificant for Judaism as a whole, but it doesnt evoke holiness or

for her on a personal or spiritual level.

Joseph and Haut care about the fact that the Kotel is meaningful to other Jews without

sharing in that spiritual connection with it. In many cases, this de-emphasis on the Kotels holiness

seems to come from the fact that the women feel alienated by conventional practices at the Wall.

Deborah Brin, for example, said, Emotionally, it does not evoke holiness in me - it invokes anger

and pain in me at being unequal and oppressed.58 Brin and others feel more than ambivalence

towards the Walls supposed holiness; they feel angry about being excluded from the Wall.

Vanessa Ochs, for example, said, To me, the Kotel is a kind of monument or national spot, even a

kind of idolatry, though maybe if women had been included it would be different. 59 For some

women, especially Brin and Ochs, the Kotel is a symbol of womens alienation, so they

intentionally de-emphasize its holiness.

Although Ochs, Joseph, Haut, and Brin all feel that the Kotel lacks some sort of inherent

holiness for them, one interview participant, Raphael Rayzel, felt differently. Rayzel began to

open up when I asked her if there is anything especially meaningful about the Kotel:

I like the Kotel most at midnight, where the divine feminine presence is palpable. Therocks speak to me. I hear music. One night at the Wall, I heard the words "Holy mother,"

being spoken to me. Then I heard the word "Shechinah" [divine presence of God]. Then

suddenly I heard a song about the Holy mother I learned this song and sang andrecorded it on CD.60

58 Deborah Brin, interview by author, phone, February 14, 2012.59 Vanessa Ochs, interview by author, phone, February 6, 2012.60 Rayzel Raphael, interview by author, phone, February 9, 2012.


24/67

24

Compared to the other women who placed little emphasis on the Kotels holiness, Rayzel

actually emphasized her reverential experiences at the Wall. This issue serves to show another

way in which the women participants whom I interviewed differ. In this case, most of the women

had an intellectual appreciation for the Kotels significance while lacking an emotional attachment

to it, while Raphael Rayzel proved to be an outlier as the one participant who expressed a deep

spiritual connection to the Kotel.

Other Forms of Activism

For many of the women participants whom I interviewed, Women of the Wall is not their

sole activist focus. As Vanessa Ochs told me, Many are political activists in other parts of their

lives.61 As I mentioned earlier, many of the interview participants have been involved in

womens tefillah groups in the U.S., and many of them have other causes to which they are

devoted, some of which relate to WOW, others of which are more disconnected. Raphael Rayzel

stood out as perhaps the most active in terms of feminist Jewish activism outside of Women of the

Wall:

I havent only chosen WOW. I've been meeting with B'not Eish (and "Sisters of Light") for

thirty years to discuss Jewish feminism. I make music as a form of feminist liturgy, I dointerfaith outreach, and I lead interfaith services.62

Rayzel had just left an interfaith funeral service that she had led when I interviewed her,

and she was insistent that I understand the full breadth and depth of her feminist Jewish

expression. Similarly, Deborah Brin talked about her feminist Jewish activism in Canada. As a

61 Vanessa Ochs, interview by author, phone, February 6, 2012.62 Rayzel Raphael, interview by author, phone, February 9, 2012.


25/67

25

female rabbi, she had to fight for recognition: At one point I was the only female rabbi in Canada

(while living in Toronto), which was really tough. I would show up at board meetings just to let

the male rabbis know that I existed But their attitudes never changed."63 Brin and Rayzel made

it clear that WOW was just one manifestation of their feminist Jewish activist ambitions.

Several of the women I interviewed mentioned womens divorce rights (and debates over

Agunah [anchored married woman]). In particular, Norma Joseph, one of WOWs top leaders

and advisors, emphasized the issue ofagunah. She said that even for many WOW activists

"[womens prayer rights at the Kotel] wasn't a central issue. We [WOW activists] had our own

prayer groups and we had other issues like divorce rights. For me, divorce rights are a much

higher priority.64 The issue ofagunah is a major ongoing debate, especially in Israel. Susan

Aranoff, who now lives in Israel, talked about the importance of activism around the issue of

agunah as well as other Jewish womens issues, such as girls getting spit at on their way to school,

gender segregation on public buses, and womens visibility on posters.65 Clearly, womens prayer

rights at the Kotel are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Jewish womens issues. Norma

Joseph even suggested that the general public has ignored Women of the Wall precisely because it

addresses such a specific manifestation of a much larger complex of issues. Many of the women I

interviewed are in touch with this reality and choose to engage in Jewish feminism in a variety of

ways that are not limited to or exclusive to WOW.

Commonalities

63 Deborah Brin, interview by author, phone, February 14, 2012.64 Norma Joseph, interview by author, phone, February 4, 2012.65 Susan Aranoff, interview by author, phone, February 8, 2012.


26/67

26

While there is difference amongst these interview participants, they are also uniform in

many ways. For one, they all come to WOW with the same foundational belief that women should

be allowed to engage in many of the same rituals that men perform. These women may differ in

their grounds for believing so, but they all agree with WOWs practices and see womens ritual

equality as a good thing. Second, they are predominantly white, Ashkenazi Jews from North

America.66 To be sure, each womans background is unique, but they share this common overall

identity. Third, these interview participants all share a high level of erudition. All of them have

bachelors degree; four of the women are published professors (not including Rivka Haut, who is

not a professor but is published) and two others are ordained rabbis; and the majority of them are

exceptionally active leaders in Jewish communities in North America, which at least suggests that

they are learned in Judaism. Finally, these women predominantly have relatively high economic

statuses. Their high levels of education, their ability to travel to Israel to participate in WOW, and

their ability to be devote time to Jewish activism at home all indicate that they women are well-

supported financially.

Each of the nine women whom I interviewed has a unique background and a particular

perspective. Diversity is a major motif of this chapter: the women claim different denominational

affiliations, they express different attitudes towards the Kotel, et cetera. At the same time, there

are important values and attributes that bind these women together, just as there are important

values and attributes that bind the broader WOW community together. This chapters introduction

to nine WOW participants has been anything but comprehensive. I have brought out key

66 Ashkenazi Jews generally descend from Central, Eastern, and NortheasternEurope.


27/67

27

examples, anecdotes, and themes that merely serve to introduce these women. Chapters 3 and 4

will pick up on these womens views, as well as the views of many other WOW participants who I

did not get to interview, on WOWs practices.

Chapter Three: Seeing WOW as Authentically Jewish

In this chapter and the next one, I unpack the ways in which Women of the Wall conceive

of their practices and their movement as a whole. As my thesis argues, WOW participants

understand the movement in numerous, contextual ways. Their views weave together a rich fabric

that fits together despite tensions between some of the different strands of argumentation. In this

chapter, I focus on a set of views that run in the same general direction. These views, ideas, and

arguments are all directed at understanding WOW as authentically Jewish. Many WOW activists

address their groups commitment to Jewish values. One of the Jewish values the women

emphasize is halakha: they bring in arguments about Jewish law in order to defend their practices

as authentically Jewish. They also commonly bring in arguments about history, custom, and

precedent in the Jewish world. These kinds of arguments are not so much about legality and

halakhic permissibility as they are about showing that WOW is not as radical as its critics make it

out to be. In fact, while some women defend WOWs halakhic legitimacy, others de-emphasize

the role ofhalakha in these debates, saying that halakha is too subjective for any kind of

authoritative decision about WOWs legal permissibility.

All of the views presented in this chapter portray WOW as a movement that is

authentically Jewish and rooted in tradition. Moreover, these ideas highlight how deeply


28/67

28

contextual WOW is. WOW participants dont just rely on legal arguments to defend their

rootedness in Jewish tradition. They also rely on context-related arguments, such as those based

on historical precedence, custom, and contemporary Judaism.

Jewish Devotion

WOW activists emphasize that their involvement in WOW is passionately Jewish and

devoted to the highest of Jewish causes. In my interviews, as well as in other contexts, the women

illustrate their Jewish devotion by arguing that they act in the name of Jewish causes, that they

activate the most holy elements of Judaism, and that they maintain strict devotion to orthodoxy.

WOW participants consistently make pleas to their audience to understand that their

movement is in the name of Judaism. Norma Joseph includes this powerful statement in her

chapter on Listening to Womens Voices in Prayer:

We wish to participate! Not to rebel or remove ourselves from community. We wish to

give voice to our spiritual/religious commitment. Our presence at the Kotel is an act of

religious enhancement; a means to further participation and expression of faith .67

Joseph wants to make it clear that her actions, and those of her WOW comrades, are for the

sake of the Jewish cause. To express this commitment to Judaism, she frames WOWs actions in

deeply religious language, invoking her devotion to prayer, and to heaven. She writes, these

women [WOW activists] chose to further their ritual practice and deepen their understanding of

prayer. Their actions, like those of their biblical foremothers, are for the sake of heaven.68

WOW participants further argue their commitment to Judaism by presenting their

movement as an activation of some of Judaisms most essential, sacred features. For instance,

Karen Erlichman describes her experience at a WOW prayer service at the Kotel by invoking

important, sacred Jewish symbolism. She writes, We created our own mishkan (Tabernacle) in

67Women of the Wall, 297.68Women of the Wall, 309.


29/67

29

our circle that morning at the Wall.69 A mishkan is a deeply-rooted Jewish symbol for a dwelling

place sometimes taken literally as a Tabernacle for God. This choice of words is a powerful

suggestion of WOWs prayer groups sacred, Jewish nature. Erlichmans description is

particularly evocative here because of the fact that mishkan is commonly associated with the

concept ofshekhinah, the divine feminine presence. Thus, her statement not only likens WOWs

prayer group to an ancient, holy symbol of Gods presence, but also brings into focus the notion

that femininity shares in the power of that sacred symbol.

Much like Erlichman, Rahel Jaskow and Vanessa Ochs both discuss essential features of

Judaism in the context of WOWs activities. In my interview with her, Jaskow emphasized the

collective nature of WOWs prayer services as a way of showing how Jewish WOW really is. She

told me, In Judaism, collective prayer is much more powerful, its the highest form of prayer,

and Judaism focuses on prayer.70 For her, praying with like-minded people is one of the most

rewarding aspects of participating in WOW, and that collective prayer reminds her of Judaisms

celebration of communal prayer. Vanessa Ochs focused on the very act of praying, whether in a

group or as an individual. She sees WOW as an expression of Judaisms essence because prayer is

at the heart of what it means to be Jewish: In many ways, this isnt really innovation. Jews pray,

its what they do.71 The symbolism of the mishkan, Judaisms celebrated collective form of

prayer, and the very act of prayer are three examples of essential, sacred features of Judaism that

WOW participants have invoked in describing the movement.

Finally, WOW activists express their movements highly Jewish nature by asserting that

WOW maintains strict adherence to orthodoxy. Even though the group prays as a collective, they

face halakhic issues with regard to the way they define their prayer service and which prayers they

69Women of the Wall, 102.70 Susan Aranoff, interview by author, phone, February 8, 2012.71 Vanessa Ochs, interview by author, phone, February 6, 2012.


30/67

30

can actually recite. According to many orthodox authorities, women do not count as part of a

minyan (a group of Jewish men that constitute a group and make it eligible to perform an official

prayer service). WOW leaders make it clear that they observe this gender distinction when it

comes to group prayer. Rivka Haut, for example, told me, The women at the feminist Jewish

conference in Jerusalem in 1988 were largely orthodox, so we refrained from calling ourselves a

minyan. We still did Haftarah and Torah readings, but we were not a minyan.72 Some folks call

the WOW prayer group a kahal(congregation) while others use the term tzibur(collective) to

describe them.73 As Haut alluded to, because WOW leaders generally do not consider its prayer

group to be a minyan, they are very careful to follow the proper prayer observances that come with

being a non-minyan group. They refrain from reciting certain prayers out loud: Some women in

the early years of the group didnt count women as part of the minyan, and so wouldnt read aloud

in the barachu and other prayers.74 Here, Benson draws attention to WOWs disciplined

adherence to the orthodox conventions that apply to non-minyan prayer groups. Since orthodoxy

has a strong air of authenticity, these kinds of statements from WOW members frame the

movement as one that sticks to the highest, most authentic values of Judaism.

WOW participants consistently emphasize their deep level of Jewish devotion. They

present themselves as committed Jews who act in the name of the Jewish cause, activate some of

the most holy elements of Judaism, and maintain strict adherence to orthodoxy. These ways of

articulating the movement enhance WOWs claim to halakhic legitimacy (a claim that the next

72 Rivka Haut, interview by author, phone, February 15, 2012.73 This issue has developed as a long-standing debate within WOW, and thegroup is not united around one particular position. There are some women,especially those who come from non-orthodox denominations, who argue thatthe women do count as a minyan.74 Miriam Benson, interview by author, phone, January 1, 2012.


31/67

31

section describes). WOWs activities are not only permissible according to Jewish law, but they

are also characteristic of exalted Jewish values.

Halakhic Legitimacy

The WOW community is rife with arguments that defend WOWs practices as halakhically

legitimate. In her analysis of WOWs rhetoric, Susan Sered illustrates that WOWs written

statements repeatedly emphasize expert orthodox halakhic approval of what the women are

doing.75 As my findings show, halakha is not the only source that WOW participants look to for

support of their practices, but it is certainly an important one.

In my interviews, the women consistently mentioned that WOWs activities are halakhic

or halakhically permissible. Rivka Haut was most outspoken about the groups halakhic

legitimacy, perhaps because she is exceptionally confident in her knowledge of and understanding

of Jewish law. She told me, We did not intend to make any waves at all. We read the laws, and

even under strict halakhic law, these activities were permitted.76 WOW activists argue that the

customs at the Kotel are based on misunderstandings ofhalakha. In their view, when one really

examines the law, one finds that women are allowed to do group Torah reading services:

For so many centuries, women and Torah scrolls have been physically separated, not forhalakhic reasons but because of underlying fear and disgust at womens bodies. WOW

shows the fallacy of this reasoning.77

When Rivka approached me with the idea of doing a group Torah reading service at the

Kotel, I thought, Why not try it? We wouldnt be violating any halakhic rules or

anything.78

75Susan Sered, Women and Religious Change in Israel: Rebellion orRevolution, Sociology of Religion, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Spring, 1997): 11.76 Rivka Haut, interview by author, phone, February 15, 2012.77Women of the Wall, 28.78 Norma Joseph, interview by author, phone, February 4, 2012.


32/67

32

There is a significant legal text that reveals that women were counted among those who

were called up to read from the Torah in public.79

In addition to making direct assertions about WOWs halakhic legitimacy, interview

participants often cited other sources as ascribing halakhic approval to the group. Many of the

women brought up this statement from an Israeli authority at the Kotel: What you do, the way you

pray, is halakhically acceptable and is okay anywhere in the world but here. Referencing this

quote is a way of showing that even some who opposed the movement admitted that Jewish law

permits WOWs form of prayer services. Nearly every interview participants made some sort of

assertion about WOWs activities being halakhically permissible.

Prominent WOW activists have emphasized the issue ofhalakhic legitimacy in writing as

well. For example, in her chapter about WOWs legal action against the Israeli Supreme Court,

Susan Alter writes, We wanted to explain our intentions to conduct a prayer service strictly

according to Halakhah.80 Authors of the various chapters in Women of the Wall: Claiming

Sacred Ground at Judaisms Holy Site consistently reiterate the point that womens prayer services

at the Kotel are as acceptable and desirable to the God of Israel as the prayers of men. 81 In other

words, this is not just a feminist reform movement: this is a movement in accordance with Judaism

that prays according to Gods will.

Susan Sered frames this theme ofhalakhic legitimacy as a way for WOW to sell their

movement as a rebellion (as opposed to a revolution). In Sereds vocabulary, a rebellion comes

from within Judaism and assumes Jewish values, whereas a revolution seeks to change Judaism

from the outside. WOW presents itself as lying clearly in the rebellion camp, in that they accept

halakha and see themselves as part of mainstream Orthodox Judaism. Moreover, Sered points out

79Bonna Devora Haberman, Women Beyond the Wall: From Text to Praxis,Journal ofFeminist Studies in Religion, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Spring, 1997): 27.80Women of the Wall, 134.81Women of the Wall, 280.


33/67

33

that their [WOW activists] legal documents focus on halacha and not on sex discrimination.82

Indeed, in my interviews, the women rarely presented feminist arguments, but often presented the

kinds ofhalakhic arguments that I discussed earlier. This favoring ofhalakhic grounds over

feminist grounds for WOWs legitimacy suggests that the women see their groups halakhic

acceptability as central to their group identity. They are willing to forego feminist arguments in

order to drive home the message that their movement is halakhically legitimate, and therefore

authentically Jewish.

The Open-ended Nature ofHalakha

To be sure, Women of the Wall often rely on halakha for legitimacy. However,

participants also emphasize a very different view of their groups relationship to halakha. This

view understands halakha as a very subjective and unreliable source, and wants to stress that

Jewish laws open-endedness gives WOW its legitimacy. Although some WOW participants say

that WOW is legitimate because it has direct and concrete approval from reliable halakhic sources,

other women articulate a very different argument: they assert that WOW is legitimate because no

one interpretation ofhalakha is more correct than any other.

Many WOW participants articulate halakha to be an open-ended source. With regard to

the issues ofmechitzah, kol ishah83, and minyan, they readily admit that the movement has faced

major internal questions about how to interpret the law. Firstly, Norma Joseph spoke to me about

disagreement within the movement about the issue of the Kotels mechitzah (physical barrier

separating men from women). There was a broad spectrum of views about the most proper way to

pray. Joseph said, There were women who had vowed to never pray behind a mechitzah, and so

82 Susan Sered, Women and Religious Change in Israel: Rebellion orRevolution, Sociology of Religion, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Spring, 1997): 12.83Kol ishah is a prohibition against men hearing or being in the presence of awomans singing voice.


34/67

34

didnt want to go. There were others who wanted to do it orthodox and not even use the Torah.84

Even among Orthodox women, there was disagreement about what the law says about women

reading from the Torah. This issue suggests that halakhic authority on the mechitzah and how to

pray is open-ended. Another example of the open-ended nature ofhalakhic interpretation in

WOWs internal debates is the issue ofkol ishah. Norma Joseph delves into a long discussion

about the complex debates surrounding kol ishah before concluding, Contemporary responsa have

redefined the category and characteristics ofkol ishah. The topography of this legal map is open

for investigation and implementation.85 Legal deciders and commentators have established all

sorts of interpretations of what halakha really says about men hearing women sing, and what even

counts as singing. Joseph brings this up as a way of highlighting the openness ofhalakha to

investigation and implementation.

Lastly, WOWs views on the issue ofminyan are just as convoluted as those on the issue of

mechitzah and kol ishah. Although the group has generally decided that they do not constitute a

minyan, and so refrain from reciting certain prayers, there are many divergent views on this issue

within WOW. Norma Joseph is quick to point out that halakha does not provide any hard-and-fast

answers to these questions:

The entire question of women and minyan is not as clear as many think The late Rabbi

Shlomo Goren, zl, in his capacity as chief rabbi of Israel, wrote a halakhic decision

about WTGs [womens tefillah groups] in which he permitted women to recite all prayersrecited in a minyan, including Barkhu, Kaddish, and Kedushah There are other

Orthodox rabbis who permit ten women to constitute a minyan For now, WOW is not

constituted as a minyan.86

This passage depicts the confusing nature ofhalakha. Josephs understanding ofhalakha

stands in sharp contrast to the confident tone with which some other WOW statements assert the

84 Norma Joseph, interview by author, phone, February 4, 2012.85Women of the Wall, 308.86Women of the Wall, 283.


35/67

35

groups adherence to concrete halakhic guidelines. Here, just as in the cases ofmechitzah and kol

ishah, Joseph argues that halakha is open-ended and that WOW continues to grapple with how it

wants to interpret and implement Jewish law.

WOW members specifically use the open-ended nature ofhalakha in the context of

advocating for the movements legitimacy. This form of argumentation is a kind of apologetic for

WOW that is premised on the fact that halakha can neither prove nor disprove the groups

legitimacy. Frances Raday discusses the significance ofhalakhas fluidity in her chapter entitled

The Fight Against Being Silenced:

Judaism is not given to a single hierarchy of authoritative interpretation. Theinterpretation of the sources is a matter of dialectic; theological rulings are determined by

the accumulation of conflicting rabbinical writings and responses to questions from thecommunity. Thus, because alongside the core of opposition there is Orthodox authority

that supports the womens claim, it can be said that the status of this mode of prayer is not

decided under Halakhah.87

Raday argues that WOWs activities are legitimate because halakha is undecided on the

issues at stake. Rather than attribute authority to Orthodox corroboration of the womens claim,

Raday draws attention to the uncertain nature ofhakahic interpretation as a whole. This approach

discredits arguments on behalf of WOWs halakhic legitimacy, but more importantly, it discredits

arguments on behalf of WOWs halakhic illegitimacy. Norma Joseph takes a similar approach to

the more narrow issue of reciting the Shema (a central prayer, for which opinions abound on

whether or not women should recite it). Joseph points out inconsistencies in halakhic authoritative

opinions over the years:

According to Talmud (Berakhot 20b), women are exempt from reciting the Shema but

obligated in tefillah. There are many permutations and combinations of this basic

mishnaic statement in rabbinic law It is noteworthy that having begun with a seeminglyclear and simple rabbinic text, later authorities had to restate the obligation to prayer and

reinterpret the exemption of the Shema.88

87Women of the Wall, 116.88Women of the Wall, 293.


36/67

36

Joseph brings up inconsistencies in halakhic statements about the issue of reciting the

Shema in order to show that, while some halakhic sources exempt women from reciting the Shema,

others elaborate that women should definitely say the Shema.89

She is primarily interested here

in the silencing of Jewish women over time, and her overarching argument is that halakhically

rooted arguments that silence women are unfounded. One can find halakhic justifications for both

sides of the debate, so there is no real reason to favor the silencing of women over including them

in public prayer.

Many WOW participants assert that WOW is legitimate because no one interpretation of

halakha is more correct than any other. This assertion contrasts other arguments about WOWs

halakhic legitimacy: both approaches provide an apologetic for WOWs activities, but they are in

tension because of their understanding ofhalakha as, in the one case, concrete and reliable, and in

the other, open-ended and subjective.

Historical Backings for Women of the Wall

The tension between WOW activists arguing, on the one hand, that WOW has concrete

proof ofhalakhic legitimacy, but also that halakha is inherently subjective begs this important

question: are there other, non-halakhic ways in which WOW members understand their Jewish

legitimacy? If so, on what kinds of grounds do they base that understanding? One of the non-

legalistic forms of argumentation that comes up in WOW literature and that figured prominently in

my interviews is a historical one. WOW participants make two historical points about the

acceptability of the groups prayer services: first, the Kotel has not always been as exclusive

towards womens prayer groups as it is now, and second, the activities that WOW engages in have

precedent throughout Jewish womens history.

89Women of the Wall, 293.


37/67

37

Many WOW activists consistently bring up the notion that the current situation at the Kotel

is a kind of historical anomaly. They argue that traditionally, the Kotel was much more inclusive

of womens prayer, and tensions around prayer at the Wall really only developed during the period

when it was under non-Jewish rule. Raphael Rayzel told me in an interview, I have a picture of

the Kotel, in around 1920, of men and women praying together. In 1967, there was not even a

mechitzah.90 Vanessa Ochs also emphasizes the fact that the Wall was a gender-neutral,

unsegregated space prior to 1948. She writes, Now [June of 1967 onwards], for the first time in

Jewish history, it was configured like an outdoor orthodox synagogue, with chairs and prayer

equipment for men who prayed in groups together on the much larger area to the left of the

mechitzah.91 These women place the current situation in historical perspective in order to show

that what WOW advocates is not very radical when one considers that hardly a century ago, men

and women prayed shoulder-to-shoulder at the Wall.

The second strand of historical legitimations of WOW has to do with Jewish womens

history: many WOW members connect their struggle to the stories of Jewish women throughout

history who participated actively in the Jewish community. Norma Joseph points out that in

biblical times, pious women did not merely attend on the Sabbath but were regulars at least on

Mondays and Thursdays.92 And in medieval Europe, some Jewish women sang in the synagogue:

Some women, such as thirteenth-century Urania and Richenza, were eulogized as synagogue

singers.93 These points strongly suggests that there is historical precedent, within Jewish

tradition, for women to pray out loud at the Kotel. In fact, Joseph explicitly argues the connections

between WOW and historical Jewish womens voices. She writes, The command to Abraham

90 Rayzel Raphael, interview by author, phone, February 9, 2012.91Women of the Wall, 318.92Women of the Wall, 291.93Women of the Wall, 291.


38/67

38

from God that he should listen to Sarahs voice, poignantly frames this issue. I do not consider it

coincidental that our experience connects with Sarahs, with her voice and laughter.94 Rather than

make the kinds ofhalakhic arguments in favor of WOW that Rivka Haut and many others make,

here Joseph focuses on historical precedent. Her argument is that regardless of what the law says,

history shows that Jewish women have consistently played an important role in prayer (even in the

form of song and out-loud recitation), and so WOW should be able to continue that tradition.

While these historical accounts are not necessarily about women doing exactly the same practices

that WOW pursues, the narratives still play a role in the way that WOW conceives of its

connections to Jewish history.

WOW activists articulation of their movement consists of two kinds of historical

argumentation: one contextualizes the Kotels history in order to show that WOW has historical

precedent in terms of prayer at the Wall, and the other contextualizes womens prayer more

broadly in order to show that WOW has historical precedent in terms of Jewish womens prayer

throughout time. Both of these ways of understanding WOW as a movement are much less

legally-oriented than the arguments that Rivka Haut and others raised earlier about halakhic

legitimacy. Unlike the halakhic arguments, here Norma Joseph, Raphael Rayzel, and others turn

to history, legacy, and tradition as grounds for WOWs legitimacy.

Equivalences Between Women of the Wall and other Womens Tefillah Groups

In addition to arguing that WOWs activities have various forms of historical precedence,

many women in the movement emphasize ways in which WOW has precedence in contemporary

Jewish practice. Most commonly, women make connections between WOW and the larger

network of womens tefillah groups. As I specified in Chapter 1, womens tefillah groups

94Women of the Wall, 289.


39/67

39

(WTGs) sprung up in the 1980s around the world as women only prayer groups where Jewish

women could pray aloud, read from Torah, wear tallitot, and even wear tefillot. In articulating

their practices, WOW members do not just bring up their participation in outside WTGs, but they

also explicitly argue that WOWs practices are legitimate because they are no different from those

of all other WTGs.

The majority of my nine interview participants brought up their involvement in womens

tefillah groups (WTGs). Joseph told me, We had all been part of our womens prayer groups in

the 1980s.95 Susan Aranoff was one of the women who was most clear about the connection

between WOW and the womens tefillah movement. She said, There were these groups all over

the country and around the world. The roots of WOW are the womens tefillah groups.96 WOW

certainly has many roots, but WOW activists commonly locate the movements origins in the

broader womens tefillah network. After all, most, if not all, WOW participants have participated

in WTGs, and WOW models its beliefs and practices directly after those of WTGs.

WOW activists dont just talk about their participation in outside WTGs: they make overt

arguments about ways in which the womens tefillah network legitimizes WOWs practices.

Susan Aranoff, for example, said that she had been a member of a WTG, and saw no difference

between the way that her WTG prayed and the way that WOW prayed. She told me, We felt that

if this is how we pray, then we should be able to do this when we go to Israel and Jerusalem.97

Rahel Jaskow also expressed her feeling of shock and surprise at finding out that practices that had

been going on in WTGs since the early 1980s were not accepted at the Kotel. She said, There

was such negativity about something that had been done in the US for so long. 98 Aranoff and

95 Norma Joseph, interview by author, phone, February 4, 201296 Susan Aranoff, interview by author, phone, February 8, 2012.97 Susan Aranoff, interview by author, phone, February 8, 2012.98 Rahel Jaskow, interview by author, phone, January 31, 2012.


40/67

40

Jaskow may not intentionally be making an argument about WOWs legitimacy, but their remarks

effectively form a kind of defense against WOWs critics. In their introductory chapter, Phyllis

Chessler and Rivka Haut make this argument even more explicit by arguing, In most modern

Orthodox communities throughout the world Orthodox women regularly gather in women-only

groups in which they perform exactly the same activities that are currently prohibited to women in

Israel at the Wall.99 In writing this passage, Chessler and Haut stress that WOW is not very

radical. They stress that all around the world, women do the kinds of practices that WOW is

bringing to the Kotel, and yet nowhere else but at the Kotel do the women face exclusion and

retribution.

Many of the WOW participants whom I interviewed and who write in Chessler and Hauts

book discuss the strong links between WOW and the broader womens tefillah network.

Moreover, they commonly argue that since WOWs practices are no different from those of other

WTGs, they should be treated with the same level of acceptance. Just like arguments based on

historical precedent, this defense of WOWs practices is based less on halakha than on the fact that

in the broader Jewish world, women do the kinds of practices that WOW pursues at the Kotel.

WOW participants offer a range of arguments for why WOW is rooted in authentic,

traditional Judaism. These arguments are grounded in WOWs context, especially in light of

Bells understanding of ritual as contextual. For example, the last view that I presented (the

argument that WOW is legitimate because it is no different from other WTGs) is, to use Bells

terminology, situational. WOW participants hold this view because of the groups particular

situation as one WTG among many around the world. This argument also frames WOWs

practices as strategic because WOW uses WTGs halakhic legitimacy to its own advantage.

99Women of the Wall, xxvii.


41/67

41

The two different arguments about WOWs relationship to halakha also show that WOW is

grounded in context. The fact that the two arguments run counter to each other shows that WOW

is fluid, capable of arguing different positions. Chapter four brings out what is perhaps the best

illustration of this fluidity: the macro tension between WOW participants tendency to both defend

the movements authenticity and emphasize the movements novelty.

Chapter Four: Seeing WOW as New and Innovative

To only speak of the ways in which WOW activists understand the movement as

authentically Jewish is to miss out on another important piece of their activist identities. Many of

the women readily admit and often boast that WOWs practices are new and innovative.

Importantly, this movement presents itself as one that assumes Jewish values but advocates

change. They dont just normalize WOWs practices and emphasize the groups authenticity; they

also bring out WOWs particularities and emphasize its novelty. WOW participants talk about the

groups multi-denominationalism; the innovative dynamics of a North American-led movement

operating in an Israeli context; the novel symbolism of a womens prayer group at the Wall; and

the novelty of womens ritual innovation in the Jewish world. Moreover, many of them express

excitement and apprehension about their engagement in WOWs practices.

This chapter highlights the fact that WOW is deeply contextual. Even though WOW

legitimizes itself on all sorts of legal, intellectual, and traditional grounds, many of its members

still communicate the visceral newness of what they are doing. WOW participants understand

their ritual innovation not only in terms of abstract theological ideas, but also in terms of their lived

experiences of the movement. In this chapter, I focus on some of the main contextual factors that

shape WOW participants self-understanding.


42/67

42

The Multi-denominational Nature of Women of the Wall

In researching Women of the Wall, and especially in interviewing nine of its participants, I

found that the groups multi-denominational nature is a critical component of the movement. Both

a challenge and a triumph for WOW, its multi-denominationalism is one of the main reasons why

its members understand the movement as unique and innovative.

When the group was first forming in 1988, it came out of an already multi-denominational

context. Rivka Haut says that the feminist Jewish conference in Jerusalem that many of the soon-

to-be WOW leaders attended included women from Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox

backgrounds: It was a multi-denominational conference, so I was scrupulous about including

women of all sorts of backgrounds and denominations.100 While WOW is rooted to the womens

tefillah network on many levels, the movements multi-denominationalism sets it apart from other

WTGs. Haut writes, Unlike most WTGs, WOW has no single rabbinic advisor. Unlike

Orthodox tefillah groups, composed mostly of Orthodox women, WOW has a different agenda. It

transcends any particular denomination to promote all inclusive ahavat Yisrael(love of Israel).101

This passage provides contrast to other statements from WOW participants that deliberately place

WOW within the broader womens tefillah network context: here, Haut sets WOW apart because

of its multi-denominational nature.

WOWs central motif of multi-denominationalism presents new a

Thesis Final (AB)

Documents