Proper perspective on the "Women of the Wall"

[David Makowsky]

For once, some sanity:

http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/04/15/women-of-the-wall-as-if-we-dont-have-enough-problems-already/

[Shelly]

On 4/16/2013 10:30 AM, David Makowsky wrote:
> For once, some sanity:
>
> http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/04/15/women-of-the-wall-as-if-we-dont-have-enough-problems-already/
>

I think you meant "insanity". That article was totally wrong. Yes, the
wall is for ALL Jews. So, why must the women in the women's section
kowtow to the Orthodox practices of the men in the men's section. No,
David, not "some sanity". That article was "some insanity".

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

On 4/16/2013 10:30 AM, David Makowsky wrote:

> For once, some sanity:
>
> http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/04/15/women-of-the-wall-as-if-we-dont-have-enough-problems-already/
>

More on the insanity of that article:

He brings up the example of how the Federation functions are kosher so
that all Jews can attend and eat. That is valid. What is invalid is
his comparison to the WoW. In fact, he has it topsy-turvy.

No one is preventing any of the Orthodox from praying at the wall as
they usually do. The WoW do not affect them -- if they were to mind
their own business. The problem is that the WoW *ARE* prevented from
praying as they normally do. So, the wall then becomes *NOT* for all
Jews. Rather, it becomes *ONLY* for Orthodox Jews or Jews who will
pretend to be Orthodox while they are there. Hence his analogy is
actually proving the *OPPOSITE* of what he intended. It is topsy-turvy.

Again, all the Orthodox have to do is mind their own business and
everyone can pray as they wish and the wall then becomes a place for
*ALL* Jews.

--
Shelly

[JJ]

"Shelly" <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote in message
news:kkjtiv$usf$1...@dont-email.me...

I always thought a mechitza was to separate the men from the women. So the
men wouldn't be "tempted" into evil thoughts while praying. So why are the
men peeking over the mechitza to see what the women are doing? Aren't they
contravening their own rules?

MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS means look into your prayer book or look at the Wall
or look into your own soul -- not look into the women's section.

Jay

[DoD]

On Apr 16, 11:36 am, "JJ" <dmr1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Shelly" <sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote in message

>
> news:kkjtiv$usf$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4/16/2013 10:30 AM, David Makowsky wrote:
> >> For once, some sanity:
>

> >>http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/04/15/women-of-the-wall-as-if-we-dont-...

>
> > More on the insanity of that article:
>
> > He brings up the example of how the Federation functions are kosher so
> > that all Jews can attend and eat.  That is valid.  What is invalid is his
> > comparison to the WoW.  In fact, he has it topsy-turvy.
>
> > No one is preventing any of the Orthodox from praying at the wall as they
> > usually do.  The WoW do not affect them -- if they were to mind their own
> > business.  The problem is that the WoW *ARE* prevented from praying as
> > they normally do.  So, the wall then becomes *NOT* for all Jews.  Rather,
> > it becomes *ONLY* for Orthodox Jews or Jews who will pretend to be
> > Orthodox while they are there.  Hence his analogy is actually proving the
> > *OPPOSITE* of what he intended.  It is topsy-turvy.
>
> > Again, all the Orthodox have to do is mind their own business and everyone
> > can pray as they wish and the wall then becomes a place for *ALL* Jews.
>
> > --
> > Shelly
>
> I always thought a mechitza was to separate the men from the women. So the
> men wouldn't be "tempted" into evil thoughts while praying. So why are the
> men peeking over the mechitza to see what the women are doing? Aren't they
> contravening their own rules?
>
> MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS means look into your prayer book or look at the Wall
> or look into your own soul -- not look into the women's section.

Why is it incumbant on women to do the stuff. How come men don't have
to cover their beards?

[JJ]

"DoD" <danski...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bd119b32-d712-48f5...@w3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

***********************************************


Maybe because Judaism, like most religions, was created by men? And
therefore the men make the rules? Same as in Islam and Christianity (MOST
sects in Christianity, at least, where equality of the sexes does not
exist).

Jay

[DoD]

On Apr 16, 12:34 pm, "JJ" <dmr1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "DoD" <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote in message

I wonder what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot?

[Yisroel Markov]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:34:22 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>
said:

Um, AFAIK a lot of the trouble was started by O *women* who found it
hard not to be affronted by the spectacle unfolding in their section.

>Why is it incumbant on women to do the stuff.

What stuff?

>How come men don't have to cover their beards?

Because it's men who are visual, I suspect.
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand

[Yisroel Markov]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:00:47 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
<shel...@thevillages.net> said:

>On 4/16/2013 10:30 AM, David Makowsky wrote:
>> For once, some sanity:
>>
>> http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/04/15/women-of-the-wall-as-if-we-dont-have-enough-problems-already/
>>
>
>I think you meant "insanity". That article was totally wrong. Yes, the
>wall is for ALL Jews.

For all Jews to do whatever they want, including political
demonstrations?

>So, why must the women in the women's section
>kowtow to the Orthodox practices of the men

No, of the women.

>in the men's section. No,
>David, not "some sanity". That article was "some insanity".

A nice term to call a dissenting opinion, eh?

[Shelly]

On 4/16/2013 2:41 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>
> Um, AFAIK a lot of the trouble was started by O *women* who found it
> hard not to be affronted by the spectacle unfolding in their section.

...then let *THEM* mind *THEIR* own business.

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

On 4/16/2013 2:41 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:00:47 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>
>> On 4/16/2013 10:30 AM, David Makowsky wrote:
>>> For once, some sanity:
>>>
>>> http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/04/15/women-of-the-wall-as-if-we-dont-have-enough-problems-already/
>>>
>>
>> I think you meant "insanity". That article was totally wrong. Yes, the
>> wall is for ALL Jews.
>
> For all Jews to do whatever they want, including political
> demonstrations?

...for praying in the manner they usually do.

>
>> So, why must the women in the women's section
>> kowtow to the Orthodox practices of the men
>
> No, of the women.

As i said elsewhere, then let *THEM* mind *THEIR* own business.

>
>> in the men's section. No,
>> David, not "some sanity". That article was "some insanity".
>
> A nice term to call a dissenting opinion, eh?

Uh, it was David M who used the term "some sanity" first. So, my
response was to *HIS* comment in the same tone that *HE* made it tuning
on the same word he used. IOW, complain to HIM about it, not me.

--
Shelly

[DoD]

On Apr 16, 1:41 pm, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:34:22 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr1...@gmail.com>
> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"DoD" <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Cover their hair and wear ankle length dresses.

> >How come men don't have to cover their beards?
>
> Because it's men who are visual, I suspect.

Do you think that is the case in regards to the majority of both
sexes? That men are visual and women are not?

[DoD]

> sexes? That men are visual and women are not?-

I guess according to the Saudis, women can be visual.... LOL

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/uae-men-too-handsome-for-saudi-festival-498216.html#.UW2JZoJ4xeV

[W. Baker]

DoD <danski...@gmail.com> wrote:

Perhaps it is just easier to not be aware if a woman is having improper thought.

Wendydy

[DoD]

On Apr 16, 2:58 pm, "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote:

::::Chortle::::::

[Yisroel Markov]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:27:38 +0000 (UTC), DoD <danski...@gmail.com>
said:

>On Apr 16, 1:41 pm, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:

[snip]

>> >Why is it incumbant on women to do the stuff.
>>
>> What stuff?
>
>Cover their hair and wear ankle length dresses.
>
>> >How come men don't have to cover their beards?
>>
>> Because it's men who are visual, I suspect.
>
>Do you think that is the case in regards to the majority of both
>sexes? That men are visual and women are not?

I do. So did the legal authorities. At least for a majority big enough
to warrant a rule made. Laws and rules are designed for the default
case.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:54:32 +0000 (UTC), Shelly

<shel...@thevillages.net> said:

>On 4/16/2013 2:41 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:00:47 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
>> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>>
>>> On 4/16/2013 10:30 AM, David Makowsky wrote:
>>>> For once, some sanity:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/04/15/women-of-the-wall-as-if-we-dont-have-enough-problems-already/
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think you meant "insanity". That article was totally wrong. Yes, the
>>> wall is for ALL Jews.
>>
>> For all Jews to do whatever they want, including political
>> demonstrations?
>
>...for praying in the manner they usually do.

Newsflash: the Women of the Wall, being Reform, do not usually pray in
this manner.

From one of the fans of Women For the Wall-

"My close friend and her friends are part of WotW, and I can assure
you, it IS all about politics and not actual spirituality. How do I
know this?
1. They don't wear tallis/tefillin any other time they're
davening--only once a month at the wall.
2. They don't come to the Wall any other time either--only once a
month, when they know the press will be there waiting for something to
happen, only in big groups, and never quietly.
3. They speak of "taking a stand" and "being part of change." Note the
lack of mention of G-d. Some of them don't even believe in G-d.
4. Most of them are American and studying here and won't be here for
long anyway. By and large, Israeli women don't support the movement.
Why should Americans decide how things should be in Israel? (and yes,
I'm American.)"
https://www.facebook.com/#!/permalink.php?story_fbid=175680792588065&id=175472415942236

>>> So, why must the women in the women's section
>>> kowtow to the Orthodox practices of the men
>>
>> No, of the women.
>
>As i said elsewhere, then let *THEM* mind *THEIR* own business.

Most women usually daven quietly. Along comes this group and becomes
loud: "...davening loudly in big groups is what we do in our shuls.
This is not concocted for by WoW for the Kotel. Walk into any Reform,
Reconstructionist, Conservative, or Modern Orthodox shul and you will
see women (and men) singing."

That's a disturbance. O Carlebachniks aren't allowed to bring their
guitars, either.

>>> in the men's section. No,
>>> David, not "some sanity". That article was "some insanity".
>>
>> A nice term to call a dissenting opinion, eh?
>
>Uh, it was David M who used the term "some sanity" first. So, my
>response was to *HIS* comment in the same tone that *HE* made it tuning
>on the same word he used. IOW, complain to HIM about it, not me.

OK, good point. Although he made a positive comment that didn't
automatically denigrate any other opinion.

[DoD]

On Apr 16, 4:24 pm, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:27:38 +0000 (UTC), DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com>

> said:
>
> >On Apr 16, 1:41 pm, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> >Why is it incumbant on women to do the stuff.
>
> >> What stuff?
>
> >Cover their hair and wear ankle length dresses.
>
> >> >How come men don't have to cover their beards?
>
> >> Because it's men who are visual, I suspect.
>
> >Do you think that is the case in regards to the majority of both
> >sexes? That men are visual and women are not?
>
> I do. So did the legal authorities. At least for a majority big enough
> to warrant a rule made.

[ Laws and rules are designed for the default case.]

I am not sure what is meant by this.

[cindys]

On Apr 16, 2:41 pm, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:00:47 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
> <sheldo...@thevillages.net> said:
>
> >On 4/16/2013 10:30 AM, David Makowsky wrote:
> >> For once, some sanity:
>

> >>http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/04/15/women-of-the-wall-as-if-we-dont-...

>
> >I think you meant "insanity".  That article was totally wrong.  Yes, the
> >wall is for ALL Jews.
>
> For all Jews to do whatever they want, including political
> demonstrations?
>
> >So, why must the women in the women's section
> >kowtow to the Orthodox practices of the men
>
> No, of the women.

-----
Exactly. All the people on this group who support WoW keep discussing
that if the men weren't inappropriately watching the women, the WoW
wouldn't be disturbing them, and no matter how many times I have
pointed out that WoW are disruptive to THE OTHER WOMEN, the WoW
supporters conveniently gloss over that inconvenient little fact. It's
not about the men; it's about the other women.

Speaking as a woman, if I went to the kotel to daven, I would be
furious if WoW were there leyning torah aloud and making a scene and
being disruptive. What WoW are doing is unfair to the other WOMEN who
daven at the kotel.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

>
> >in the men's section.  No,
> >David, not "some sanity".  That article was "some insanity".
>
> A nice term to call a dissenting opinion, eh?
> --

> Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA       Memberwww.reason.com-- for a sober analysis of the world         DNRC

[W. Baker]

Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@munginame.com> wrote:
: On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:54:32 +0000 (UTC), Shelly

Not all WOW are "Reform" Many are conservative and in many Conservative shuls the
women wear Talleisim and kippot and davven out loud and are called to the torah,
may lead services or layyan, etc. That is their SOP.

Wendy

[mirjam]

On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:32:14 AM UTC+3, cindys wrote:
Cindi i am trying not to join this discussion.But just your words pulled me in. I think that as an Israeli women i have also some rights. I find the Mekhitza by the Kotel offensive.
When i come there i am regarded as a non person. The kotel is part of MY HERITAGE. I am always properly dressed and still some strange men or women pushes a dirty rag towards me and tells me to cover myself more .
Growing up in Israel, i remember the days we as children could wear sandals and shorts when touring all Holly places to all religions, BUT we were taught that boys should wear a hat in synagogues , all of us took off shoes in mosques and boys took off hats in Christian holly places,

With Time all 3 religions And the Bahaai in Haifa as well , started to demand people to cover up more and more ,,,,

In Jerushalayim , there is a history of Fighting over the Holly places , [different Christian sects have in some places separate `praying hours`].
The whole issue is about Power and control ,,, who `controls the place !!!
The Kotel should not be a synagogue , it should be a private praying place for each person . Without any institutional arrangements.
mirjam

[Shelly]

Here is another anecdote to counter that. I have seen on numerous
occasions women wearing tallesim in the synagogue.

>>>> So, why must the women in the women's section
>>>> kowtow to the Orthodox practices of the men
>>>
>>> No, of the women.
>>
>> As i said elsewhere, then let *THEM* mind *THEIR* own business.
>
> Most women usually daven quietly. Along comes this group and becomes
> loud: "...davening loudly in big groups is what we do in our shuls.
> This is not concocted for by WoW for the Kotel. Walk into any Reform,
> Reconstructionist, Conservative, or Modern Orthodox shul and you will
> see women (and men) singing."

Are they there all the time? If it bothers an O woman so much, let her
come at the other 99% of the time.

>
> That's a disturbance. O Carlebachniks aren't allowed to bring their
> guitars, either.
>
>>>> in the men's section. No,
>>>> David, not "some sanity". That article was "some insanity".
>>>
>>> A nice term to call a dissenting opinion, eh?
>>
>> Uh, it was David M who used the term "some sanity" first. So, my
>> response was to *HIS* comment in the same tone that *HE* made it tuning
>> on the same word he used. IOW, complain to HIM about it, not me.
>
> OK, good point. Although he made a positive comment that didn't
> automatically denigrate any other opinion.

By saying that the counter to the WoW was bringing a little sanity to
the topic, the direct deduction is that he is claiming that the WoW is
insanity. No other way I see to read that.

>


--
Shelly

[Shelly]

Gee, Yisroel, another counter-anecdote.

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

Hear, hear, Mirjam! I'm glad you decided to join in.

--
Shelly

[JJ]

"Shelly" <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote in message

news:kkm5n7$ovn$3...@dont-email.me...

Amen,

Jay

[Yisroel Markov]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 22:19:27 +0000 (UTC), DoD <danski...@gmail.com>
said:

Each and every law - and religious laws are no exception - is at the
same time too broad and too narrow, in that it can't help but cover
some situations/persons that it never meant to cover, and fail to
cover those it did mean to cover. I think that's what Meir meant when
he wrote about the difficulty of writing statutes. But we don't go
without laws; we write them as well as we can, so as to cover the
majority of intended situations/persons. It is that majority I call

[Yisroel Markov]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 01:40:15 +0000 (UTC), "W. Baker"
<wba...@panix.com> said:

[snip]

>Not all WOW are "Reform" Many are conservative and in many Conservative shuls the
>women wear Talleisim and kippot and davven out loud and are called to the torah,
>may lead services or layyan, etc. That is their SOP.

I know, but this is the first time I hear of any C women among the
WotW. Didn't Anat Hoffmah describe herself as R right after being
arrested?

[Yisroel Markov]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:49:01 +0000 (UTC), Shelly

Do they consider it a requirement? I thought R had no such
requirements. And if it's not a requirement, why not forgo it out of
respect for others?

>>>>> So, why must the women in the women's section
>>>>> kowtow to the Orthodox practices of the men
>>>>
>>>> No, of the women.
>>>
>>> As i said elsewhere, then let *THEM* mind *THEIR* own business.
>>
>> Most women usually daven quietly. Along comes this group and becomes
>> loud: "...davening loudly in big groups is what we do in our shuls.
>> This is not concocted for by WoW for the Kotel. Walk into any Reform,
>> Reconstructionist, Conservative, or Modern Orthodox shul and you will
>> see women (and men) singing."
>
>Are they there all the time? If it bothers an O woman so much, let her
>come at the other 99% of the time.

That would be my solution as well, as I've mentioned. Grant them that
one hour a month and see how long it takes for WotW to demand more.

>> That's a disturbance. O Carlebachniks aren't allowed to bring their
>> guitars, either.
>>
>>>>> in the men's section. No,
>>>>> David, not "some sanity". That article was "some insanity".
>>>>
>>>> A nice term to call a dissenting opinion, eh?
>>>
>>> Uh, it was David M who used the term "some sanity" first. So, my
>>> response was to *HIS* comment in the same tone that *HE* made it tuning
>>> on the same word he used. IOW, complain to HIM about it, not me.
>>
>> OK, good point. Although he made a positive comment that didn't
>> automatically denigrate any other opinion.
>
>By saying that the counter to the WoW was bringing a little sanity to
>the topic, the direct deduction is that he is claiming that the WoW is
>insanity. No other way I see to read that.

I do see another way: he said that the Algemeiner's was a sane way to
look at WotW. It was not a comment on WotW itself. But it did imply
that all previously expressed views were insane.

[David Makowsky]

On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 8:43:34 AM UTC-5, Yisroel Markov wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:49:01 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:

> >On 4/16/2013 5:24 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:

> >> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:54:32 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
> >> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:

> >>> On 4/16/2013 2:41 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:

> >>>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:00:47 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
> >>>> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:

> >>>>> On 4/16/2013 10:30 AM, David Makowsky wrote:

> >>>>>> For once, some sanity:

> >>>>>> http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/04/15/women-of-the-wall-as-if-we-dont-have-enough-problems-already/

[ Snip ]

> >>>>> David, not "some sanity". That article was "some insanity".

> >>>> A nice term to call a dissenting opinion, eh?

> >>> Uh, it was David M who used the term "some sanity" first. So, my
> >>> response was to *HIS* comment in the same tone that *HE* made it tuning
> >>> on the same word he used. IOW, complain to HIM about it, not me.

> >> OK, good point. Although he made a positive comment that didn't
> >> automatically denigrate any other opinion.

> >By saying that the counter to the WoW was bringing a little sanity to
> >the topic, the direct deduction is that he is claiming that the WoW is
> >insanity. No other way I see to read that.

> I do see another way: he said that the Algemeiner's was a sane way to
> look at WotW. It was not a comment on WotW itself. But it did imply
> that all previously expressed views were insane.

I have not responded to any of the comments made in opposition to the article because a careful reading of the article itself or in response to the comments following the article itself one would see that the author addressed them. For this reason I will not do so here.

I used the term "insanity" as an expression that seemed to fit how I was feeling at the time. I did not mean to imply that the "other side" was being insane. I should have used a more suitable word, or not have made a comment at all.

[Herman Rubin]

If they were allowed to leyn Torah aloud and otherwise conduct
services, they would not be making a scene and being disruptive.
At least in the US, Conservative and Reform Judaism consider that
behavior completely appropriate, and other than circumcision have
few if any gender restrictive rules of performance.





--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

[henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net]

But the kotel is not in America and the situation in Israel is different.
Henry Goodman

[Shelly]

On 4/17/2013 9:43 AM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> Do they consider it a requirement? I thought R had no such
> requirements. And if it's not a requirement, why not forgo it out of
> respect for others?

Is it a requirement for O women that to pray that other women cannot
wear tallesim. If it is not a requirement, why no forgo acting on the
dislike out of respect for others.

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

On 4/17/2013 9:43 AM, Yisroel Markov wrote:

> I do see another way: he said that the Algemeiner's was a sane way to
> look at WotW. It was not a comment on WotW itself. But it did imply
> that all previously expressed views were insane.

A distinction without a difference.

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

On 4/17/2013 11:48 AM, David Makowsky wrote:
> I have not responded to any of the comments made in opposition to the article because a careful reading of the article itself or in response to the comments following the article itself one would see that the author addressed them. For this reason I will not do so here.

Really? As I showed earlier, his "example" actually proved the opposite
of what he intended to prove.

> I used the term "insanity" as an expression that seemed to fit how I was feeling at the time. I did not mean to imply that the "other side" was being insane. I should have used a more suitable word, or not have made a comment at all.

No, you should not have. Apology accepted.

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

Exactly. It is "disruptive" because the Orthodox choose to make it
disruptive.


--
Shelly

[mm]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:27:38 +0000 (UTC), DoD <danski...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>> >How come men don't have to cover their beards?
>>
>> Because it's men who are visual, I suspect.
>
>Do you think that is the case in regards to the majority of both
>sexes? That men are visual and women are not?

It's more than the majority.

Have you noticed that there are hundreds of pornographic magazines
printed for men, but only one printed for women, and that one is not
very successful.
--

Meir

[Shelly]

On 4/17/2013 1:46 PM, henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net wrote:
> But the kotel is not in America and the situation in Israel is different.
> Henry Goodman

The questiona are:
a - "Is the kotel for ALL Jews or not?" or
b - "Is it for Israeli Jews?" or
c - "Is it for Israeli Orthodox Jews?".

If you want the answer to be yes for (a) then the issue if Israel or
America is totally irrelevant. Also, having it an Orthodox domain
defeats that purpose.

If you want the answer to be yes for (b) then the issue of it being an
Orthodox domain defeats that purpose.

If, however, you want the answer to be yes for (c) then your response is
apropos.

I/we hold that the proper answer should be yes to (a) -- but it is not
currently true.

--
Shelly

[DoD]

On Apr 17, 8:43 am, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 22:19:27 +0000 (UTC), DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com>

Thank you for that clarification.

[henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net]

It is normal practice for visitors to a country to follow the laws and customs of the country they are visiting. For example in Britain we drive on the left and forbid ownership of guns. if an American came here and drove on the right or brandished a gun he would be arrested. Similarly visitors to Israel should follow the custom that women daven behind a mechitza and do not wear tallit or tefillin. The gemara says that visitors to a place that has different minhagim to where they come from should obey the chumras of both.
Henry Goodman

[Shelly]

On 4/17/2013 2:20 PM, henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 7:05:46 PM UTC+1, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:
>> On 4/17/2013 1:46 PM, henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net wrote:
>>
>>> But the kotel is not in America and the situation in Israel is different.
>>> Henry Goodman
>>
>> The questiona are:
>> a - "Is the kotel for ALL Jews or not?" or
>> b - "Is it for Israeli Jews?" or
>> c - "Is it for Israeli Orthodox Jews?".
>>
>> If you want the answer to be yes for (a) then the issue if Israel or
>> America is totally irrelevant. Also, having it an Orthodox domain
>> defeats that purpose.
>>
>> If you want the answer to be yes for (b) then the issue of it being an
>> Orthodox domain defeats that purpose.
>>
>> If, however, you want the answer to be yes for (c) then your response is
>> apropos.
>>
>> I/we hold that the proper answer should be yes to (a) -- but it is not
>> currently true.
>

> It is normal practice for visitors to a country to follow the laws and customs of the country they are visiting.
> For example in Britain we drive on the left and forbid ownership of guns. if an American came here and drove on
> the right or brandished a gun he would be arrested. Similarly visitors to Israel should follow the custom that
< women daven behind a mechitza and do not wear tallit or tefillin. The
gemara says that visitors to a place that
> has different minhagim to where they come from should obey the
chumras of both.
> Henry Goodman

Israel is not Britain as far as diaspora Jews are concerned, and so your
attempted analogies do not apply. I put it to you clearly. You
apparently hold with (c), while Israel proclaims it to be (a) -- yet
makes it effectively (c).

Now if it truly is to be (c), then your analogies would be perfect.
However, that is not SUPPOSED to be the case. It is SUPPOSED to be (a).

--
Shelly

[henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net]

The kotel is for all Jews but American Jews should respect the minhag hamakom and not try to introduce their own odd customs
Henry Goodman

[Herman Rubin]

But it is not against Israeli law to follow the practices of
Conservative or Reform Judaism. The WoW are Israeli citizens,
and are making a non-violent protest against the declaration of
the Kotel as an Orthodox synagogue.

I repeat; it is not Israeli custom, but Israeli Orthodox custom,
and some female members of the Knesseth have joined the WoW to
protest it. It is not visitors.

[cindys]

On Apr 17, 1:00 pm, Herman Rubin <hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
snip

>
> If they were allowed to leyn Torah aloud and otherwise conduct
> services, they would not be making a scene and being disruptive.

snip
-----
It's the leyning torah aloud and conducting services that IS
disruptive. But I can't understand why everybody is so worked up
about the talleisim.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Shelly]

You simply refuse to address the question. If it is for ALL Jews, then
it should not dictate Orthodox procedures. Otherwise, it is NOT for all
Jews. You say it is for all Jews, but your statements clearly indicate
it is for Orthodox Jew.

--
Shelly

[Yisroel Markov]

Your answer is not to the point. It's not a requirement for me to shut
you up if you talk loudly during prayers, disrupting my concentration.
That doesn't make such action on your part acceptable. Or will you
tell me: "Well, just don't listen, then!"

[Yisroel Markov]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:05:46 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
<shel...@thevillages.net> said:

>On 4/17/2013 1:46 PM, henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net wrote:
>> But the kotel is not in America and the situation in Israel is different.
>> Henry Goodman
>
>The questiona are:
>a - "Is the kotel for ALL Jews or not?" or
>b - "Is it for Israeli Jews?" or
>c - "Is it for Israeli Orthodox Jews?".

No, these are not the questions AISI. Everyone I know answers "yes" to
(a). The question then becomes: "Given (a), what is the standard of
appropriate behavior that will ensure maximum utility of the place to
the maximum number of users?" The answer, to me, is "minimal
offensiveness and disruption." That's why, e.g., I would object to a
Reconstructionist service there, with guitars and tambourines.

>If you want the answer to be yes for (a) then the issue if Israel or
>America is totally irrelevant. Also, having it an Orthodox domain
>defeats that purpose.

No. You can go to an O shul. The reverse is not necessarily true.

>If you want the answer to be yes for (b) then the issue of it being an
>Orthodox domain defeats that purpose.
>
>If, however, you want the answer to be yes for (c) then your response is
>apropos.
>
>I/we hold that the proper answer should be yes to (a) -- but it is not
>currently true.
--

[henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net]

Why should Israel have to tolerate the behaviour of minority sects that have developed in the totally different environment of the USA?
Henry Goodman

[Shelly]

On 4/17/2013 5:48 PM, henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net wrote:

>
> Why should Israel have to tolerate the behaviour of minority sects that have developed in the totally different environment of the USA?
> Henry Goodman

...because they are Jews and the Kotel is *SUPPOSEDLY* for all Jews.
What is so difficult for you to understand?

--
Shelly

[mirjam]

On Thursday, April 18, 2013 12:48:03 AM UTC+3, henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net wrote:
Because our Collective Israeli Judaism respects minority Jewish groups.
But Alas some of those minorities do not respect our Collective Israeli Judaism .
mirjam

[henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net]

Why can't these Jews that reject halachah conform the the practices of the country they are visiting?

What is so difficult for you to understand?

Henry Goodman

[henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net]

I received this this morning from Stephen Cohen with whom I shared a room in St.John's College Cambridge 60 years ago. Rachel is his daughter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM4ReLVmmYk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Henry Goodman

[Shelly]

Ghandi, MLK, etc. Besides, these are ISRAELIS you are talking about.
Hoffman is as much an Israeli as Moshe Shorr is.

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

On 4/18/2013 5:13 AM, henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net wrote:

> I received this this morning from Stephen Cohen with whom I shared a room in St.John's College Cambridge 60 years ago. Rachel is his daughter.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM4ReLVmmYk&feature=youtube_gdata_player
>
> Henry Goodman

?????

--
Shelly

[Yisroel Markov]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 21:09:32 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
<shel...@thevillages.net> said:

>On 4/17/2013 4:12 PM, henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net wrote:

[snip]

>> The kotel is for all Jews but American Jews should respect the minhag hamakom and not try to introduce their own odd customs
>> Henry Goodman
>>
>
>You simply refuse to address the question. If it is for ALL Jews, then
>it should not dictate Orthodox procedures. Otherwise, it is NOT for all
>Jews. You say it is for all Jews, but your statements clearly indicate
>it is for Orthodox Jew.

IMHO they do not so indicate. Let's take an opposite example. Is St.
Peter's Cathedral in Rome (which I believe we both have visited) for
all Catholics, all Christians, or perhaps all people?

[Shelly]

On 4/18/2013 10:15 AM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 21:09:32 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>
>> On 4/17/2013 4:12 PM, henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> The kotel is for all Jews but American Jews should respect the minhag hamakom and not try to introduce their own odd customs
>>> Henry Goodman
>>>
>>
>> You simply refuse to address the question. If it is for ALL Jews, then
>> it should not dictate Orthodox procedures. Otherwise, it is NOT for all
>> Jews. You say it is for all Jews, but your statements clearly indicate
>> it is for Orthodox Jew.
>
> IMHO they do not so indicate. Let's take an opposite example. Is St.
> Peter's Cathedral in Rome (which I believe we both have visited) for
> all Catholics, all Christians, or perhaps all people?

I have not visited it. I have not been to Rome. However, to answer
your question, it is for all Catholics. Others many visit there, but it
is not for them. Actually, it is not even for all Catholics. It is for
all Roman Catholics not, for example, Greek or Russian Orthodox.

--
Shelly

[Yisroel Markov]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:11:35 +0000 (UTC), Shelly

I think the Pope would disagree with you. He'd say that it's for
everybody. And he'd encourage you to pray there, as long as you didn't
violate the established customs of the place. And he'd welcome even
Catholics that don't accept Vatican-2, under the same conditions.

Otherwise, what do you mean when you say "this place is for the X
group of people"?

[Shelly]

I think the Pope would LIKE it to be for everybody. That is, that
everybody would be a Roman Catholic. However, it is a Roman Catholic
Cathedral, and so it is for Roman Catholics -- not everybody.

By contrast the Kotel is *SUPPOSEDLY* for all Jews. In fact it is not.
It is only for those that abide by Orthodox Judaic strictures.

> Otherwise, what do you mean when you say "this place is for the X
> group of people"?

I think I have made myself quite clear.

--
Shelly

[Yisroel Markov]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 19:02:24 +0000 (UTC), Shelly

You mean it's not in the Pope's power to make it "for everybody"?

>By contrast the Kotel is *SUPPOSEDLY* for all Jews. In fact it is not.
> It is only for those that abide by Orthodox Judaic strictures.
>
>> Otherwise, what do you mean when you say "this place is for the X
>> group of people"?
>
>I think I have made myself quite clear.

Not quite, as presumably you aren't advocating for no strictures at
all - or are you? - but you haven't stated your criteria (that I can
remember).

[mm]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:13:38 +0000 (UTC),
"henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote:

double and triple spaced google junk deleted.

>>
>>
>
>I received this this morning from Stephen Cohen with whom I shared a room in St.John's College Cambridge 60 years ago. Rachel is his daughter.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM4ReLVmmYk&feature=youtube_gdata_player
>
>Henry Goodman

The intro is wrong, is it not? He says only men can lead prayer. But
in the women's section, women can lead prayer, can't they. It just
can't include the borchu, kedusha, or kaddish, if a woman is leading
it. If they want those parts, they need to follow a service being
led by a man on the other side of the mechitza**

The caller is wrong when she calls it a secular state. Israel is not
fully secular, and it shouldn't be. But even if it were, there would
still have to be rules for what happens at the Kotel. When there is an
invocation at a government event, such as the presidential
inauguration in the US, (since they seem to think that an invocation
(to God) is acceptable at the inauguration) it's run by rules. Only
the person invited gets to speak. They don't let several people with
diverse views run up from the audience and give their own invocation.

"It's like telling a woman who was raped that she was raped because
her neckline is too low." Talk about changing the subject, and an
absurd comparison with rape.

It won't teach us anything about prayer at the Kotel, but since she
raises the topic, let's look at it Whether or not necklines or the
woman's looks make a difference in the likelihood of her being raped
is a matter of fact, not of ideology. 50 million women could say a
woman isn't raped because he neckline was too low, but if the rapist
says that's part of why he chose her, than the 50 million are wrong.

And there was a case in the US about 10 or 20 years ago where a woman
was wearing a lace dress (the kind with holes between parts of the
lace) with nothing on underneath and dancing, on her own, not hired
to do so, in the bar or pool hall, and she got raped. If she'd been
wearing baggy jeans and a sweatshirt, would she have gotten raped?

(I doubt you can predict my answer. )


**Wendy, there seems to me to have been three groups of women at the
Kotel. The biggest group who don't object to the way things are run.

An earlier all-Reform group who started making objections.

A later group that includes some C women who have joined in and
changed to some extent the nature of the objections.

About the latter two groups, I would ask, How often do they go to
their own congregations where they can do as they wish. I'll bet for
most it's not even every Shabbes morning.

Along with the right to make up a minyan comes the responsibility to
daven 21 times a week. Last time this was discussed here, or maybe
it was with my Jewish hiking club, someone insisted that there were at
least one or two women who actually did daven 21 times a week. But
for the rest it's probably 2 times a week, once, or fewer. They
want what they see as the honor of being part of a minyan without
taking the responsibility of davening 3 times a day, every day.
Probably most of them have never known well a man who davens 21 times
a week. They don't really appreciate what they're not doing, and
they probably don't want to know, or they would realize they're not
willing to make the trade, even if it were allowed.
--

Meir

[Herman Rubin]

Conservative and Reconstructionist Judaism did develop in the US.
Reform Judaism developed in Germany first. If not for the overwhelming
fertility of the Haredim, Orthodox Judaism would definitely be a minority,
and it might still be one among those who observe a form of Judaism.

[Shelly]

Yes I have. All Jews should be able to pray in their accustomed manner.
That means mixed gender in a certain area *of the wall*, not adjacent
to it. That means women reading from the Torah and wearing tallesim if
they want to. It also means gender segregated areas *of the wall* for
the Orthodox. If there is not enough area for all of this, then have
*reasonable* time allocations on a regularly scheduled basis so that all
can be accommodated. If the noise of women singing is offensive to the
Orthodox men, then have the women's section between the men's and the
mixed gender. IOW, try to accommodate everyone.

Is that clear enough for you?


--
Shelly

[Yisroel Markov]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 01:46:37 +0000 (UTC), Shelly

<shel...@thevillages.net> said:

>On 4/18/2013 4:41 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 19:02:24 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
>> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>>
>>> On 4/18/2013 1:45 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:11:35 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
>>>> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:

[snip]

>>> By contrast the Kotel is *SUPPOSEDLY* for all Jews. In fact it is not.
>>> It is only for those that abide by Orthodox Judaic strictures.
>>>
>>>> Otherwise, what do you mean when you say "this place is for the X
>>>> group of people"?
>>>
>>> I think I have made myself quite clear.
>>
>> Not quite, as presumably you aren't advocating for no strictures at
>> all - or are you? - but you haven't stated your criteria (that I can
>> remember).
>
>Yes I have. All Jews should be able to pray in their accustomed manner.

What I don't understand is why this is a necessary condition for the
Wall to be "for all Jews." Why can't everybody "abide by Orthodox
Judaic strictures" for the short time they're at the Kotel?

> That means mixed gender in a certain area *of the wall*, not adjacent
>to it. That means women reading from the Torah and wearing tallesim if
>they want to. It also means gender segregated areas *of the wall* for
>the Orthodox. If there is not enough area for all of this, then have
>*reasonable* time allocations on a regularly scheduled basis so that all
>can be accommodated. If the noise of women singing is offensive to the
>Orthodox men, then have the women's section between the men's and the
>mixed gender. IOW, try to accommodate everyone.
>
>Is that clear enough for you?

Yes. Now please explain why. Why is it that one has only to be able to
pray in their accustomed manner (and it's not at all clear that talit
and tefillin are "accustomed manner" for these women), but not "act in
their accustomed manner"? Do you have a problem with the prohibition
of musical instruments, and if not, why? (Reconstructionists have
services with music.) How about a "no political demonstrations" rule?

[W. Baker]

Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@munginame.com> wrote:
: On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 01:46:37 +0000 (UTC), Shelly

: <shel...@thevillages.net> said:

: >On 4/18/2013 4:41 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
: >> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 19:02:24 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
: >> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
: >>
: >>> On 4/18/2013 1:45 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
: >>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:11:35 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
: >>>> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:

: [snip]

I have been reading this thread intermittantly so this may well be a reptition of erlier
comments. the Kotel is a National monument of the time of the Beit Ha Midash, not the
Beit Ha Mgdosh , itself. why should it be regarded as a synagogue? A sacred and precious
space for all Jews, but not necessarily a synagogue. If it were not so considered, then
it could be a place for all Jews to come a;nd weep or cheer or pray or put notes into the
cracks or hold services as they wish. If an O service, a mehitza could be put up, bu tnot
be an underlying part of the Kotel experience? tourists or visitors in shorts or jeans
could come s well as hareidim covered from head to toe. If it is not regarded as a
synagogue that would not be an issue. Kids could come with their guitars and sing their
songs. Very loud music might be forbidden to not disturb the whole Kotel area for those
quietly contemplating or praying , but a kumsitz at the Kotel for teenagers? why not?

I know it is not likely to happen, but it seems a nice possibilitiy so that someone like
me doesn't have to sneak into someone's Bar Mitzvah sservice to get to say a Kaddish for
her Mother.

Wendy

[Shelly]

On 4/19/2013 3:12 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 01:46:37 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>
>> On 4/18/2013 4:41 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 19:02:24 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
>>> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>>>
>>>> On 4/18/2013 1:45 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:11:35 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
>>>>> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> By contrast the Kotel is *SUPPOSEDLY* for all Jews. In fact it is not.
>>>> It is only for those that abide by Orthodox Judaic strictures.
>>>>
>>>>> Otherwise, what do you mean when you say "this place is for the X
>>>>> group of people"?
>>>>
>>>> I think I have made myself quite clear.
>>>
>>> Not quite, as presumably you aren't advocating for no strictures at
>>> all - or are you? - but you haven't stated your criteria (that I can
>>> remember).
>>
>> Yes I have. All Jews should be able to pray in their accustomed manner.
>
> What I don't understand is why this is a necessary condition for the
> Wall to be "for all Jews." Why can't everybody "abide by Orthodox
> Judaic strictures" for the short time they're at the Kotel?

Why should they have to? Be having to do that, it is no longer a place
for all Jews to OWN, but rather an Orthodox OWNED one that other Jews
are ALLOWED to visit.

>
>> That means mixed gender in a certain area *of the wall*, not adjacent
>> to it. That means women reading from the Torah and wearing tallesim if
>> they want to. It also means gender segregated areas *of the wall* for
>> the Orthodox. If there is not enough area for all of this, then have
>> *reasonable* time allocations on a regularly scheduled basis so that all
>> can be accommodated. If the noise of women singing is offensive to the
>> Orthodox men, then have the women's section between the men's and the
>> mixed gender. IOW, try to accommodate everyone.
>>
>> Is that clear enough for you?
>
> Yes. Now please explain why. Why is it that one has only to be able to
> pray in their accustomed manner (and it's not at all clear that talit
> and tefillin are "accustomed manner" for these women), but not "act in
> their accustomed manner"?

See above. It is "ownership". If ALL Jews own it, that is one thing.
Right now, the Orthodox own it and permit other Jews to visit so long as
they act Orthodox.

> Do you have a problem with the prohibition
> of musical instruments, and if not, why? (Reconstructionists have
> services with music.)

I don't know. It would depend upon the volume of the music. Reform
also has instruments, BTW.

> How about a "no political demonstrations" rule?

If it is designated as a place of prayer for ALL Jews, then that is what
to be done there. That means no political demonstrations that are not
directly related to praying at the wall. If you designate it as a
historic site, then they should be allowed.

Do you understand my position now?




--
Shelly

[JJ]

"W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:kks65e$r0m$1...@reader1.panix.com...

Wendy:

My wife says that when she was a youngster, she could not understand why her
aunts kept saying "Oy" all the time. Now that she's a grandmother, she
understands.

So: Oy, Wendy, if all Orthodox people (OK, not all, even just a majority)
were as progressive and tolerant as you are, this would be a better world.

Please accept that as the compliment it was meant to be.

Jay

[Harry Weiss]

Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote:
> On 4/17/2013 1:46 PM, henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net wrote:
> > But the kotel is not in America and the situation in Israel is different.
> > Henry Goodman

> The questiona are:
> a - "Is the kotel for ALL Jews or not?" or
> b - "Is it for Israeli Jews?" or
> c - "Is it for Israeli Orthodox Jews?".

It is an Israel O insitution, but others all allowed provided they comply
with the rules.

> If you want the answer to be yes for (a) then the issue if Israel or
> America is totally irrelevant. Also, having it an Orthodox domain
> defeats that purpose.

> If you want the answer to be yes for (b) then the issue of it being an
> Orthodox domain defeats that purpose.

> If, however, you want the answer to be yes for (c) then your response is
> apropos.

> I/we hold that the proper answer should be yes to (a) -- but it is not
> currently true.

> --
> Shelly

--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com

[henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net]

On Monday, April 22, 2013 1:50:03 AM UTC+1, hjw...@panix.com wrote:
> Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote:
>
> > On 4/17/2013 1:46 PM, henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net wrote:
>
> > > But the kotel is not in America and the situation in Israel is different.
>
> > > Henry Goodman
>
>
>
> > The questiona are:
>
> > a - "Is the kotel for ALL Jews or not?" or
>
> > b - "Is it for Israeli Jews?" or
>
> > c - "Is it for Israeli Orthodox Jews?".
>
>
>
>
>
> It is an Israel O insitution, but others all allowed provided they comply
>
> with the rules.
>
>
>>

> Harry J. Weiss
>
> hjw...@panix.com

It is mainly for Jews who wish to pray for the coming of the Meshiach and Binyan Bet Hamikdash.
For those who don't want the Bayit shelishi why is it important?
Henry Goodman

[mirjam]

On Monday, April 22, 2013 9:37:29 AM UTC+3, henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net
I disagree Henry
The Kotel is part of My Roots Historical, Cultural symbolical and physical ..
Nothing to do with any third Mikdash nothing to do with the mashiach.
The day it was freed i sat with my daughter in my arms and wept .. because something in me knew it was coming home.

mirjam

[Shelly]

On 4/21/2013 8:50 PM, Harry Weiss wrote:
> Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote:
>> On 4/17/2013 1:46 PM, henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net wrote:
>>> But the kotel is not in America and the situation in Israel is different.
>>> Henry Goodman
>
>> The questiona are:
>> a - "Is the kotel for ALL Jews or not?" or
>> b - "Is it for Israeli Jews?" or
>> c - "Is it for Israeli Orthodox Jews?".
>
>
> It is an Israel O insitution, but others all allowed provided they comply
> with the rules.

At last an honest person from the opposition. We need to change that
status.

>> If you want the answer to be yes for (a) then the issue if Israel or
>> America is totally irrelevant. Also, having it an Orthodox domain
>> defeats that purpose.
>
>> If you want the answer to be yes for (b) then the issue of it being an
>> Orthodox domain defeats that purpose.
>
>> If, however, you want the answer to be yes for (c) then your response is
>> apropos.
>
>> I/we hold that the proper answer should be yes to (a) -- but it is not
>> currently true.
>
>> --
>> Shelly
>


--

Shelly

[Shelly]

It is an important part of Jewish heritage and history. It is important
for those of us who wish to work for bringing about the messianic age,
meaning all living in peace. It is important as a symbol that Judaism
will survive. And, lastly, it is (or, rather, shoul be) a symbol that
we all are Jews, and that the Orthodox do not hold a monolpoly on how it
is practiced.



--
Shelly

[Shelly]

On 4/22/2013 7:05 AM, mirjam wrote:
> On Monday, April 22, 2013 9:37:29 AM UTC+3, henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net
> I disagree Henry
> The Kotel is part of My Roots Historical, Cultural symbolical and physical ..
> Nothing to do with any third Mikdash nothing to do with the mashiach.
> The day it was freed i sat with my daughter in my arms and wept .. because something in me knew it was coming home.
>
> mirjam

I'm with this Israeli, rather than that Brit.

>>
>> It is mainly for Jews who wish to pray for the coming of the Meshiach and Binyan Bet Hamikdash.
>>
>> For those who don't want the Bayit shelishi why is it important?
>>
>> Henry Goodman
>

--
Shelly

[henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net]

On Monday, April 22, 2013 12:20:20 PM UTC+1, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:
> On 4/21/2013 8:50 PM, Harry Weiss wrote:
>
> > Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote:
>
> >> On 4/17/2013 1:46 PM, henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net wrote:
>
> >>> But the kotel is not in America and the situation in Israel is different.
>
> >>> Henry Goodman
>
> >
>
> >> The questiona are:
>
> >> a - "Is the kotel for ALL Jews or not?" or
>
> >> b - "Is it for Israeli Jews?" or
>
> >> c - "Is it for Israeli Orthodox Jews?".
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > It is an Israel O insitution, but others all allowed provided they comply
>
> > with the rules.
>
>
>
> At last an honest person from the opposition. We need to change that
>
> status.
>
>

you may need to change that status. I do not.
Shelly, last time you visited the kotel how did you and your wife behave?
Henry Goodman

[JJ]

"mirjam" <mir...@actcom.co.il> wrote in message
news:964234ff-f5e3-4647...@googlegroups.com...

> On Monday, April 22, 2013 9:37:29 AM UTC+3,
> henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net
> I disagree Henry
> The Kotel is part of My Roots Historical, Cultural symbolical and physical
> ..
> Nothing to do with any third Mikdash nothing to do with the mashiach.
> The day it was freed i sat with my daughter in my arms and wept .. because
> something in me knew it was coming home.
>
> mirjam

Based on my family and friends in Israel, Mirjam epitomizes the secular
feeling about the Kotel: I may not go every week or every month, I may not
even attend synagogue at all or keep any mitzvot, but the Kotel is my
history and heritage and culture, and I resent it being taken over by the
haredim. Just as I may live in Tel Aviv and never use the segregated bus
lines in Jerusaem, but it is WRONG to segregate them. Just as I may be
happily married and never contemplate another rabbinic wedding for myself or
my kids, but I resent the monopoly of the marriage institute by the
rabbinate and the blatant discrimination against a large part of the Israeli
population which cannot get married in Israel at all.

My late mother was very, very secular. I was with her, in Tel Aviv, on that
Wednesday (June 8) when the kotel was liberated. I had just come home from
reserve duty (I was called up). Her emotions could not be contained, nor
described. The kotel belongs to the Jewish people, not to the haredi
politicians.

Jay

[henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net]

I don't suppose secular Israelis care whether the "Women of the Wall" can have their own davening with tallesim and leining or not.
Henry Goodman

[mm]

I remember when they built the new R congregation building in
Indianapolis. Even though the lot was large and they would have had
no trouble facing the congregation in the right direction, towards
Jerusalem, they didn't bother. Or maybe by 1960, no one was left who
knew about this.

And while C congregations afaik continue to be built facing Jerusalem
and the Temple, that doesn't mean individual C members care about the
building the Bayit shelishi, the Third Temple in Jerusalem. I wonder
if a survey of the demonstrators' views on this would be taken by them
and if it would give reliable results.
--

Meir

[JJ]

"henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote in
message news:d637e913-9fea-4094...@googlegroups.com...

Increasingly they do. That's why Sharansky was given the task of solving the
problem -- it has become a headache for the government. The papers
increasingly have been commenting on it, and have been demanding a solution.

Jay

[Herman Rubin]

Even for those of us who do not believe in a messianic age, or even
that such would be good for mankind, it is an important part of
history and heritage. Also, the WALL was part of he courtyard
wall, not the wall of the Temple itself; any Temple rebuilding
is not likely to involve the wall at all.

[cindys]

On Apr 22, 9:05 am, "JJ" <dmr1...@gmail.com> wrote:
snip

>
> Based on my family and friends in Israel, Mirjam epitomizes the secular
> feeling about the Kotel: I may not go every week or every month, I may not
> even attend synagogue at all or keep any mitzvot, but the Kotel is my
> history and heritage and culture, and I resent it being taken over by the
> haredim. Just as I may live in Tel Aviv and never use the segregated bus
> lines in Jerusaem, but it is WRONG to segregate them. Just as I may be
> happily married and never contemplate another rabbinic wedding for myself or
> my kids, but I resent the monopoly of the marriage institute by the
> rabbinate and the blatant discrimination against a large part of the Israeli
> population which cannot get married in Israel at all.

-----
And again the conflation of two different issues. Again, women leyning
torah at the kotel is not about who has a monopoly on the marriage
institution in Israel.

From where I sit, the issue at hand is that a bunch of R women want
the right to create disturbances at the kotel and use the kotel to
make feminist political statements, even though it will ruin the
atmosphere of the kotel for a myriad of other people. And that is the
beginning and end of the issue.

Yet, somehow, every single time you write a post about this, you
immediately start talking (as you do above) about segregated buses and
Rabbanut control of Israeli marriages etc. This is not about any of
those things. This is ONLY about the disruptive behavior of Anat
Hoffman and her publicity hounds at the kotel.

To me, the segregated buses and Rabbanut monopoly of marriage is a
completely different issue. It seems that you are unable to wrap your
head around the idea that outside the charedi world, not everybody
wants to see egalitarian worship at the kotel with women leyning and
mixed minyanim etc, and it seems to me that your posts on this subject
are consistently based on the (false) premise that this egalitarianism
and these mixed minyan are desired or at least acceptable to nearly
everybody who is not charedi. It's NOT true.

I find it problematic that you keep muddying the waters. For me (and
I suspect for many other people), the issue of the women's leyning
torah at the kotel is not a black and white issue of whether or not
the charedim control the kotel. There are plenty of people (such as
myself) who are not even close to being charedim but still don't want
to see women leyning torah at the kotel. Can you at least acknowledge
that? Can't you see that you are consistently attempting to turn a
gray issue into a black and white issue and then mixing it up with a
bunch of other tangentially related issues?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[JJ]

"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:d04d39c9-bc85-461f...@o6g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

Control of the Kotel by the haredim is part and parcel of the wholesale
takeover by the haredim of many aspects of Israeli life. Many people I know
would like to see the Kotel become more egalitarian because of this. I
believe that Mirjam shares my views.

As regards the fact that some people do not wish to see or hear women
reading the Torah at the kotel -- sure I understand it. All those haredi
men don't like it. And many haredi women probably don't. And the
power-hungry haredi politicians surely don't. But they have the kotel for
24 hours a day, 30 days a month. That comes to 720 hours per month. For WoW
to ask for ONE HOUR A MONTH is hardly disruptive. They're not asking for
equal time. They're asking for 1/720 a month. And I do not agree that it's
merely political, as you think. If it were political, they might have given
up years ago. They have been doing this for the past 24 YEARS. I think
that's proof enough of their religious conviction, not their political
desire, for a little bit of equal time.

You don't like Anat Hoffman and her agenda. You've made that abundantly
clear. And you're entitled to your opinion. Anat Hoffman is entitled to
hers. And I am entitled to mine.

Jay

[cindys]

On Apr 22, 1:33 pm, "JJ" <dmr1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "cindys" <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message

But when it comes to the kotel, it is not limited to that. There are
many more issues involved here than simply the "charedi takeover" but
you consistently refuse to acknowledge that.

>Many people I know
> would like to see the Kotel become more egalitarian because of this.

Just to stick it in the eye of the charedim? That I can believe. But
do most of these people genuinely have a desire to see traditional
Judaism replaced with American Reform? I doubt that very much.

I
> believe that Mirjam shares my views.

And she very well may.

>
> As regards the fact that some people do not wish to see or hear women
> reading the Torah at the kotel -- sure I understand it.  All those haredi
> men don't like it. And many haredi women probably don't.

And a lot of the non-charedi women don't like it either. Especially
because the kotel is nothing more than a pawn in Anat Hoffman's
feminist crusade/political ambitions/whatever as opposed to a sincere
expression of religious devotion.

>And the
> power-hungry haredi politicians surely don't.  But they have the kotel for
> 24 hours a day, 30 days a month.  That comes to 720 hours per month. For WoW
> to ask for ONE HOUR A MONTH is hardly disruptive.

They want it for one hour a month *to start.* Surely, you can't
believe they will be satisfied to limit themselves to one hour
indefinitely. But I say, go ahead, give them their hour, and then
we'll see how long it takes until they start demanding more.

>They're not asking for
> equal time. They're asking for 1/720 a month. And I do not agree that it's
> merely political, as you think. If it were political, they might have given
> up years ago. They have been doing this for the past 24 YEARS. I think
> that's proof enough of their religious conviction, not their political
> desire, for a little bit of equal time.

Religious conviction. Lol.

>
> You don't like Anat Hoffman and her agenda.

You're right. I don't like anything about her or her group at all.
All they're doing is seeking attention and breeding dissension. And my
feelings about her are totally unrelated to my feelings of wanting to
see an end to the segregated buses and the charedi control of many of
the institutions (and I mean "institutions" in the sense of social
order not necessarily physical buildings, although maybe that too) in
Israel.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[JJ]

"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message

news:e44d1aaa-e372-4daf...@c14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

***********************************

No, they don't want American Reform. They want a more egalitarian Israeli
Judaism. And the kotel is part and parcel of it.

Jay

[Yisroel Markov]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:33:52 +0000 (UTC), "W. Baker"
<wba...@panix.com> said:

>Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@munginame.com> wrote:
>: On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 01:46:37 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
>: <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>
>: >On 4/18/2013 4:41 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>: >> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 19:02:24 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
>: >> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>: >>
>: >>> On 4/18/2013 1:45 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>: >>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:11:35 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
>: >>>> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>
>: [snip]
>
>I have been reading this thread intermittantly so this may well be a reptition of erlier
>comments. the Kotel is a National monument of the time of the Beit Ha Midash, not the
>Beit Ha Mgdosh , itself. why should it be regarded as a synagogue?

Politics, Wendy. AISI, the current status of the Kotel is tailored to
those who use it most and care the most about what they consider
proper usage.

>A sacred and precious
>space for all Jews, but not necessarily a synagogue. If it were not so considered, then
>it could be a place for all Jews to come a;nd weep or cheer or pray or put notes into the
>cracks or hold services as they wish. If an O service, a mehitza could be put up, bu tnot
>be an underlying part of the Kotel experience? tourists or visitors in shorts or jeans
>could come s well as hareidim covered from head to toe. If it is not regarded as a
>synagogue that would not be an issue. Kids could come with their guitars and sing their
>songs. Very loud music might be forbidden to not disturb the whole Kotel area for those
>quietly contemplating or praying , but a kumsitz at the Kotel for teenagers? why not?

I would support a compromise where this would be the case during the
time not alloted for prayer, like between shaharit and minha. This
would be a variation on Anat Hoffman's recent suggestion that
segregated prayer be allowed between 6 and 9 AM and that the mehitza
and all other O rules be gone at all other times.

>I know it is not likely to happen, but it seems a nice possibilitiy so that someone like
>me doesn't have to sneak into someone's Bar Mitzvah sservice to get to say a Kaddish for
>her Mother.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:30:11 +0000 (UTC), Shelly

<shel...@thevillages.net> said:

>On 4/19/2013 3:12 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 01:46:37 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
>> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>>
>>> On 4/18/2013 4:41 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 19:02:24 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
>>>> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/18/2013 1:45 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:11:35 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
>>>>>> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>> By contrast the Kotel is *SUPPOSEDLY* for all Jews. In fact it is not.
>>>>> It is only for those that abide by Orthodox Judaic strictures.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Otherwise, what do you mean when you say "this place is for the X
>>>>>> group of people"?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I have made myself quite clear.
>>>>
>>>> Not quite, as presumably you aren't advocating for no strictures at
>>>> all - or are you? - but you haven't stated your criteria (that I can
>>>> remember).
>>>
>>> Yes I have. All Jews should be able to pray in their accustomed manner.
>>
>> What I don't understand is why this is a necessary condition for the
>> Wall to be "for all Jews." Why can't everybody "abide by Orthodox
>> Judaic strictures" for the short time they're at the Kotel?
>
>Why should they have to?

To be polite, Shelly. For the sake of that elusive ideal of "Jewish
unity," if nothing else.

>Be having to do that, it is no longer a place
>for all Jews to OWN, but rather an Orthodox OWNED one that other Jews
>are ALLOWED to visit.

Own in what sense? In the sense that all Americans own the Capitol
rotunda? Meir's example was a good one.

Yes, I think, but not why "ownerhsip" has anything to do with it. It's
a conflict of interests. When there is such conflict, IMHO it's
reasonable that concerns that are less important to those who hold
them should be subrogated. IOW, if it's more important to a group of
women that there be no public reading of the Tora on the women's side
than it is to that smaller group of women to read it, it's the latter
that should yield. I don't see why it's more important *to them* to
read the Tora davka at the Kotel than anywhere else, and why that
should trump the concerns of others. In fact, this importance seems
political rather than religious.

Or do you support my "right" to practice stilt-walking in the Capitol
rotunda, owned by all Americans?

[Shelly]

OK then, why can't the Orthodox be polite for that elusive ideal of
"Jewish unity" and ignore the women reading from the torah and wearing
tallesim for that short time at the kotel, if nothing else?

Foot - shoe - other foot.

>
>> Be having to do that, it is no longer a place
>> for all Jews to OWN, but rather an Orthodox OWNED one that other Jews
>> are ALLOWED to visit.
>
> Own in what sense? In the sense that all Americans own the Capitol
> rotunda? Meir's example was a good one.

Yes, in that sense. Has Meir B. returned to posting? He is the only
Meir here AFAIAC.

the only Jews that own it more than me are the soldiers who liberated
it. The haredi no more own it that squatters do of a piece of land. Of
course due to the political pressure, they have had it "legitimitized"
by a prior Israeli government. We need to get rid of that law.

> a conflict of interests. When there is such conflict, IMHO it's
> reasonable that concerns that are less important to those who hold
> them should be subrogated.

IMO, a reasonable compromise should be worked out.

> IOW, if it's more important to a group of
> women that there be no public reading of the Tora on the women's side
> than it is to that smaller group of women to read it, it's the latter
> that should yield. I don't see why it's more important *to them* to
> read the Tora davka at the Kotel than anywhere else, and why that
> should trump the concerns of others. In fact, this importance seems
> political rather than religious.
>
> Or do you support my "right" to practice stilt-walking in the Capitol
> rotunda, owned by all Americans?

The rotunda is a place for tourists. Are you part of a group that
regularly does their sight-seeing by wearing stilts? If so, and if
there is no physical danger to others nearby, then I would say yes.
That others may be distracted (or amused) is not relevant. Safety,
however, is.


--
Shelly

[Shelly]

On 4/22/2013 2:34 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:

> IOW, if it's more important to a group of
> women that there be no public reading of the Tora on the women's side
> than it is to that smaller group of women to read it, it's the latter
> that should yield.

What is your position on "If it's LESS important to a group of

women that there be no public reading of the Tora on the women's side

than it is to that smaller group of women to read it"?

--
Shelly

[Yisroel Markov]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:06:53 +0000 (UTC), Shelly

Because of the relative importance. I doubt that any of the WotW think
that they *must* daven like they do. But plenty of people there think
that they must not. There's disparate impact. Why is it the latter
that must give in? Shouldn't the ones for whom the issue is less
important be the ones to do so?

>>> Be having to do that, it is no longer a place
>>> for all Jews to OWN, but rather an Orthodox OWNED one that other Jews
>>> are ALLOWED to visit.
>>
>> Own in what sense? In the sense that all Americans own the Capitol
>> rotunda? Meir's example was a good one.
>
>Yes, in that sense. Has Meir B. returned to posting? He is the only
>Meir here AFAIAC.

He never left.

Whoa. So now the haredi "own" it less than you do?

>Of
>course due to the political pressure, they have had it "legitimitized"
>by a prior Israeli government. We need to get rid of that law.

That's the right avenue.

>> a conflict of interests. When there is such conflict, IMHO it's
>> reasonable that concerns that are less important to those who hold
>> them should be subrogated.
>
>IMO, a reasonable compromise should be worked out.

But not by staging political protests, which is what those Rosh Hodesh
services resemble the most. Yes, I know you consider them civil
disobedience and approve on those grounds. I don't -- the Kotel
shouldn't be a place of conflict. Get the WotW protection of the law
and then it'll be incumbent on everyone else to prevent conflict, but
now, it's on the WotW.

>> IOW, if it's more important to a group of
>> women that there be no public reading of the Tora on the women's side
>> than it is to that smaller group of women to read it, it's the latter
>> that should yield. I don't see why it's more important *to them* to
>> read the Tora davka at the Kotel than anywhere else, and why that
>> should trump the concerns of others. In fact, this importance seems
>> political rather than religious.
>>
>> Or do you support my "right" to practice stilt-walking in the Capitol
>> rotunda, owned by all Americans?
>
>The rotunda is a place for tourists.

Not really: "The Rotunda is used for important ceremonial events as
authorized by concurrent resolution, such as the lying in state of
eminent citizens and the dedication of works of art."
http://www.aoc.gov/capitol-buildings/capitol-rotunda

>Are you part of a group that
>regularly does their sight-seeing by wearing stilts? If so, and if
>there is no physical danger to others nearby, then I would say yes.
>That others may be distracted (or amused) is not relevant. Safety,
>however, is.

I applaud your consistency.

[cindys]

-----
There is nothing "egalitarian" about Israeli Judaism. Anat may
technically be an Israeli citizen but what she and her group are
promoting is American Reform, and as I said, I really don't believe
the majority of Israelis are interested in this. And the ones who are
supporting her cause are doing so primarily because they want to stick
it to the charedim. Even when Mirjam responded, the first thing she
said was that she is sick and tired of being approached by charedim at
the kotel who tell her her clothes are not sufficiently modest, which
is quite different from saying she wants to leyn torah aloud at the
kotel or hear other women do so. How many secular Israeli women are
eager to hear other women leyning torah at the Kotel? Not many I'll
bet. It seems to me that the support of the secular Israelis is
primarily grounded in the fact that they are very angry with the
charedim in general, and it annoys them that charedim are trying to
control their lives, not that they want to see egalitarian American
Reform services at the kotel.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[cindys]

On Apr 22, 5:40 pm, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:06:53 +0000 (UTC), Shelly

snip

>
> >> Own in what sense? In the sense that all Americans own the Capitol
> >> rotunda? Meir's example was a good one.
>
> >Yes, in that sense.  Has Meir B. returned to posting?  He is the only
> >Meir here AFAIAC.

The Meir who is currently posting here, i.e. "googy" is not Meir B.
Meir B is an O rabbi, who is a leader of a big kehilla. He referred
to himself as "Meir B" so that he would not be confused with "Meir A"
who currently posts here. Meir B used to get SCJM posts to delivered
to his e-mail account in digest form. I'm not sure if he still does,
but he has not posted here in ages.

>
> He never left.

Yes, Meir B did leave. "Meir A" ("googy") is the Meir who never
left.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[cindys]

On Apr 22, 2:34 pm, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
snip

>
> I would support a compromise where this would be the case during the
> time not alloted for prayer, like between shaharit and minha. This
> would be a variation on Anat Hoffman's recent suggestion that
> segregated prayer be allowed between 6 and 9 AM and that the mehitza
> and all other O rules be gone at all other times.

snip
-----
Wait a minute! Anat has recently suggested that segregated prayer at
the kotel should be limited to between 6 and 9 AM daily and for the
rest of the time the mechitza should be taken down, and there should
be egalitarian Reform services all day long, 7 days a week?

But I thought all she wanted was a one-hour egalitarian service once a
month on Rosh Chodesh at 7 AM !!!!! I can't believe she's now saying
she's not satisfied with that! I'm absolutely stunned. Who would have
guessed??

That woman and her followers are not going to be satisfied until they
totally ruin the kotel experience for anybody who isn't them.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[W. Baker]

cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

Hold you horses, cindy. that would mean that after Schacharit and before
andafter MIncha-Maariv, the times of set prayer, the kotel would be
available as a kind of fre seclar or praying place for whoever wanted to
use it in a prayerful or patriotic or Jewish History, or Jewish monument
kind of way. You are juming to conclusions here.

Wendy

[Shelly]

You are making an assumption of the relative importance. Perhaps to the
WoW it is of great importance that they daven as they do because that is
the only way to establish a permanent presence of non-O Judaism at the
wall. Perhaps it is only a small minority of the O women who are
"distrurbed" by it while the majority think it ridiculous or just don't
care? I would venture to say that the percentage of the WoW who
consider it of great importance is much greater than the percentage of O
women at the wall who think it blasphemous (or whatever similar term).
Yes, it is only a guess, but I think it is probably so.

>
>>>> Be having to do that, it is no longer a place
>>>> for all Jews to OWN, but rather an Orthodox OWNED one that other Jews
>>>> are ALLOWED to visit.
>>>
>>> Own in what sense? In the sense that all Americans own the Capitol
>>> rotunda? Meir's example was a good one.
>>
>> Yes, in that sense. Has Meir B. returned to posting? He is the only
>> Meir here AFAIAC.
>
> He never left.

He hardly ever posts, so I thought he had left.

Not what I said. They own it as much as I do, or any other Jew. I just
give "additional" ownership to the soldiers who liberated it. I, too,
no more own it that squatters on a piece of land.

>
>> Of
>> course due to the political pressure, they have had it "legitimitized"
>> by a prior Israeli government. We need to get rid of that law.
>
> That's the right avenue.

Agreed. That is why their presence there is so important. It brings
public pressure to counter the power of the religious parties.

>
>>> a conflict of interests. When there is such conflict, IMHO it's
>>> reasonable that concerns that are less important to those who hold
>>> them should be subrogated.
>>
>> IMO, a reasonable compromise should be worked out.
>
> But not by staging political protests, which is what those Rosh Hodesh
> services resemble the most. Yes, I know you consider them civil
> disobedience and approve on those grounds. I don't -- the Kotel
> shouldn't be a place of conflict. Get the WotW protection of the law
> and then it'll be incumbent on everyone else to prevent conflict, but
> now, it's on the WotW.

We will just have to agree to disagree here concerning civil disobedience.

>>> IOW, if it's more important to a group of
>>> women that there be no public reading of the Tora on the women's side
>>> than it is to that smaller group of women to read it, it's the latter
>>> that should yield. I don't see why it's more important *to them* to
>>> read the Tora davka at the Kotel than anywhere else, and why that
>>> should trump the concerns of others. In fact, this importance seems
>>> political rather than religious.
>>>
>>> Or do you support my "right" to practice stilt-walking in the Capitol
>>> rotunda, owned by all Americans?
>>
>> The rotunda is a place for tourists.
>
> Not really: "The Rotunda is used for important ceremonial events as
> authorized by concurrent resolution, such as the lying in state of
> eminent citizens and the dedication of works of art."
> http://www.aoc.gov/capitol-buildings/capitol-rotunda

Those are "special occassions", not every day phenomena.

>
>> Are you part of a group that
>> regularly does their sight-seeing by wearing stilts? If so, and if
>> there is no physical danger to others nearby, then I would say yes.
>> That others may be distracted (or amused) is not relevant. Safety,
>> however, is.
>
> I applaud your consistency.

Thank you.

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

...and, as I said, AFAIAC no Meir posts here now.

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

On 4/22/2013 7:47 PM, cindys wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2:34 pm, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
> snip
>>
>> I would support a compromise where this would be the case during the
>> time not alloted for prayer, like between shaharit and minha. This
>> would be a variation on Anat Hoffman's recent suggestion that
>> segregated prayer be allowed between 6 and 9 AM and that the mehitza
>> and all other O rules be gone at all other times.
>
> snip
> -----
> Wait a minute! Anat has recently suggested that segregated prayer at
> the kotel should be limited to between 6 and 9 AM daily and for the
> rest of the time the mechitza should be taken down, and there should
> be egalitarian Reform services all day long, 7 days a week?

Source? (I had never seen this until Yisroel posted it, so --- source?)

>
> But I thought all she wanted was a one-hour egalitarian service once a
> month on Rosh Chodesh at 7 AM !!!!! I can't believe she's now saying
> she's not satisfied with that! I'm absolutely stunned. Who would have
> guessed??
>
> That woman and her followers are not going to be satisfied until they
> totally ruin the kotel experience for anybody who isn't them.

Mind reading again, are we?

--
Shelly

[Harry Weiss]

Waht about all the Chassidishe minyanim that are later. Go to the kotel
and you will see hundreds davening all day. Why kick tens of thousands of
religious Jews out of their O shul and descerate onne of the holies
places to observant Jews to make a small handful of rabble
rouzers happy.

--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com

[mm]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 01:59:48 +0000 (UTC), "W. Baker"
<wba...@panix.com> wrote:

>cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>: On Apr 22, 2:34?pm, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
>: snip
>: >
>: > I would support a compromise where this would be the case during the
>: > time not alloted for prayer, like between shaharit and minha. This
>: > would be a variation on Anat Hoffman's recent suggestion that
>: > segregated prayer be allowed between 6 and 9 AM and that the mehitza
>: > and all other O rules be gone at all other times.
>
>: snip
>: -----
>: Wait a minute! Anat has recently suggested that segregated prayer at

She's quick, Cindy. You just predicted this request yesterday for
months into the future, and it seems she's already made it.

That's the trouble with 24-hour news.

>: the kotel should be limited to between 6 and 9 AM daily and for the
>: rest of the time the mechitza should be taken down, and there should
>: be egalitarian Reform services all day long, 7 days a week?
>
>: But I thought all she wanted was a one-hour egalitarian service once a
>: month on Rosh Chodesh at 7 AM !!!!! I can't believe she's now saying
>: she's not satisfied with that! I'm absolutely stunned. Who would have
>: guessed??
>
>: That woman and her followers are not going to be satisfied until they
>: totally ruin the kotel experience for anybody who isn't them.
>: Best regards,
>: ---Cindy S.
>
>Hold you horses, cindy. that would mean that after Schacharit and before
>andafter MIncha-Maariv, the times of set prayer,

AIUI, and I'm sure I'm right, one can pray shacharis any time from
just after dawn (shouldnt' say the shma until after sunrise) until the
end of the first third of daylight hours (10AM more or less), but
until midday if necessary: mincha from1/2 halachic hour after midday
and finishing beforei sunset: and ma'ariv from even a little before
sunset in the summer until.... Well the last scheduled maariv service
in Baltimore is 11:15 PM iirc. (At Ner Israel Yeshiva, mostly for
boys who were away from the yeshiva all evening.) Ah it says
halachic midnight is the latest time permitted now.

I may be off by a little bit, but the notion is false that there are
set times outside of which one may not hold one of the three daily
services and that these set time windows are so small they leave most
of the day free with no chance for a minyan. There is only about a
half hour (1/24th of the daylight hours) during which one shouldn't
daven with a minyan.

> the kotel would be
>available as a kind of fre seclar or praying place for whoever wanted to
>use it in a prayerful or patriotic or Jewish History, or Jewish monument
>kind of way.

Where O men wouldn't be able to pray.

>You are juming to conclusions here.
>
>Wendy

--

Meir

[henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 3:20:45 AM UTC+1, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:

> ...and, as I said, AFAIAC no Meir posts here now.
>

>He posts a lot but you told us years ago that he is in your killfile
Henry Goodman

[Shelly]

Do you know what AFAIAC stands for?

--
Shelly

[cindys]

On Apr 22, 9:59 pm, "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote:

----
I was responding to what Yisroel wrote above. He didn't say anything
at all about the mechitza going back up for Mincha-Maariv. Re-read
what he wrote above: He said Anat would allow the mechitza to be up
between 6 and 9 AM and then the mechitza and all O rules should be
gone AT ALL OTHER TIMES.

Personally, I think that's a rather brazen demand for a tiny minority
group to make, especially considering that a few months back Anat was
thrown in jail for creating a disturbance there. All I can say is that
I understand that the secular Israelis totally resent and despise the
charedim, but when it comes to the kotel, I sure hope they don't bite
off their noses to spite their faces.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[cindys]

-----
I didn't, but I looked it up and it means "As far as I am concerned."
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[cindys]

On Apr 22, 10:45 pm, Harry Weiss <hjwe...@panix.com> wrote:
> W. Baker <wba...@panix.com> wrote:

------
Of course, you're right, but I didn't even want to go into this in my
follow-up, which is why I limited my response to "mincha-maariv." The
time for davening shacharis most certainly does not end at 9 AM. IIRC,
it goes until arba shaot, which is the 6th halachic hour after
sunrise. Please see:

http://www.myzmanim.com/day.aspx?askdefault=1&vars=27547187&q=israel

What follows are the times for davening in Israel at this time of
year. Note the latest time for shacharis is at 10:27 AM not 9 AM.
Mincha can start as early as 1:15 PM and as late as 5:53. Maariv can
start as early as 7:53 PM (Cindy S: and IIRC can go until alos
hashacha which is the "pillar of dawn" the next morning).

So, on the basis of this schedule, the only non-davening times AT THIS
TIME OF YEAR in Israel are maybe for an hour or two at lunch time and
maybe for an hour or two in the late afternoon. But I am open to
correction on my recall of these halachic times. And as I implied,
these times change as the hours of sunrise and sunset change.


---begin cite---

Dawn עלות השחר
72 minutes as 16.1 degrees [Computation by degrees explained] 4:45:59
72 דקות לפי 16.1 מעלות

Earliest talis & tefillin [Sources for the zman of Earliest Talis &
Tefillin] זמן ציצית ותפילין
Sun is 11.5 degrees below horizon 5:09:51 11.5 מעלות תחת האופק

Sunrise** **הנץ החמה
Level region at sea level 6:03:08 מישור בגובה פני הים

Latest shema Magen Avraham סוף זמן קריאת שמע
מגן אברהם
Using 72 minutes as 16.1 degrees 8:42:45 לפי 72 דקות במעלות

Latest shema Gra & Baal Hatanya 9:21:16 סוף זמן קריאת שמע
גר"א ובעל התניא

Latest shachris Gra & Baal Hatanya 10:27:18 סוף זמן תפילה
גר"א ובעל התניא

Midday & Midnight 12:39:24 חצות

Earliest mincha מנחה גדולה
Lechumra 1:12:25 לחומרא

Plag hamincha פלג המנחה
Gra & Baal Hatanya 5:53:06 גר"א ובעל התניא

Sunset** **שקיעת החמה
Level region at sea level 7:15:41 מישור בגובה פני הים

Nightfall - 3 stars emerge לילה - צאת ג' כוכבים
36 minutes as degrees [Sources for the zman of Tzes (nightfall)]
7:53:50 36 דקות במעלות

Nightfall - 72 minutes 8:27:41 לילה - 72 דקות

---end cite--
Best regards,
---Cindy S.