How the Arrest of Rabbi Freundel Led to Much-Needed Discussion

By Amy Powell

Gender, Religion and Family Law: Theorizing Conflicts between Women’s Rights and Cultural Traditions Lisa Fishbayn Joffe, ed.; Sylvia Neil, ed.

Gender, Religion and Family Law: Theorizing Conflicts between Women’s Rights and Cultural Traditions
Lisa Fishbayn Joffe, ed.; Sylvia Neil, ed.

Shortly before Rabbi Barry Freundel was arrested on charges of voyeurism for allegedly planting cameras in the synagogue’s mikveh areas, HBI’s graduate research associate, Rachel Putterman, highlighted the potential for danger in Fresh Ideas from HBI, The Beauty and the Horror of the Mikveh.

At the time, some readers criticized Putterman for being extreme or even unrealistic. Looking back, her work was prescient. Shortly after her post appeared, the Freundel abuses came to light. Unlike so many issues in the news cycle, this one stubbornly stays alive for good reason. As Putterman noted in her piece, there is much about mikveh practices that requires close examination and change.

What seems clear in the month since Freundel’s October 14th arrest is that this potentially isolated incident is born of a system without the necessary checks and balances. The discussion surrounding this inexcusable breach emboldened women and men to come forward and tell numerous stories revealing abuses of power both in the realm of the mikveh and in the process of conversion. We also see reaction from governing authorities such as batei din and the Rabbinical Council of America.

Here are some articles that best highlight the much-needed discussion that has ensued in the scandal’s wake:

  • Ethan Tucker on the core texts anchoring the discussion about mikveh practices and possible pathways forward in The Times of Israel, Immersion, Dignity, Power, Presence and Gender
  • Mayyim Hayyim’s Executive Director, Carrie Bornstein in The Times of Israel, Breaking the Mikveh Monopoly, on opening the leadership of the mikveh to multiple stakeholder to avoid future scandal.

At HBI, we have always supported scholarly research and publishing to develop fresh ways of thinking about Jews and gender worldwide.  For example, Michal Roness has written, in Gender, Religion, and Family Law, published in the Brandeis Series on Gender, Culture, Religion and the Law, about the process that led to the accreditation of the first cohort of yoatzot halacha or rabbinical law advisers who provide advice to women on how to observe the laws of family purity.

As Rabbi Freundel’s case winds through the legal system, there will be more evidence revealed and more discussion. It is our hope that those that hold roles in these sacred spheres will pay close attention.

 

 

Amy Powell

Amy Powell

Amy Powell is HBI’s communications director.

 

Good Morning Heartache: International Law and the Global Challenges Facing Women

By Amy Sessler Powell

In the torch song, Good Morning Heartache, Billie Holiday sings, “Good morning heartache thought we said goodbye last night,
I turned and tossed ’til it seemed you had gone, But here you are with the dawn.”

Some say the lyrics refer to a lover and others believe they relate to her struggle with heroin addiction, but Law Professor Fareda Banda sees the lyrics as a metaphor for the “two steps forward – one step back” pace of the global struggle for women’s rights.

“You think things are getting settled. Huge progress is being made. Then you wake up, hear the news and learn that 493 million women still can’t read,” she said.

Prof. Banda studies the role that international human rights law can play in reducing discrimination against women around the world. She is the author of “Women, Law and Human Rights: An African Perspective,” the leading text on the struggle for gender equality in Africa. She will address the tug-of-war that represents global women’s rights when she delivers Good Morning Heartache: International Law and the Global Challenges Facing Women, the Fifth Annual Diane Markowicz Memorial Lecture on Gender and Human Rights, Sunday, November 9 at 7:30 p.m., Rapaporte Treasure Hall, Goldfarb Library, Brandeis University.

Fareda Banda

Fareda Banda

Uniquely qualified to speak on these topics, Banda is a leading international scholar on human rights and a professor of law at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Currently a Hauser Global visiting professor at New York University School of Law, she has consulted to the United Nations and taught on three continents.

“There is no region in world where women enjoy de facto equality, but in most they do have de jure equality,” Banda said.

What actually happens in every region of the world is quite a bit different than what the law promises. The gulf between the two relates in part to gender stereotyping and in part to a need to move toward transformative equality, to look beyond the law and focus on attitudinal change.

“What happens now is that people think we need law, but in most jurisdictions we have enough law guaranteeing women rights. On some issues, we need to stop making law and start practicing, enforcing and implementing laws we have,” Banda said.

The laws give a starting point so women can make complaints, but law is not the only answer. Her lecture will look at normative gains – the body of important international legal work done in the last 20 years that protects women’s rights and equates women’s rights with human rights. But, she will also detail egregious violations in every region of the world. For example, the World Health Organization, in the 2013 report, noted that one in three women would experience violence in her lifetime.

The lecture will offer a “balance sheet, a state-of-the-union” showing examples such as progress in violence prevention and in greater participation by women in education, but areas where women are still being held back such as reproductive rights.

Dr. Lisa Fishbayn Joffe, director of the HBI Project on Gender, Culture, Religion and the Law said, “Professor Banda brings to bear a deep understanding of the operation of domestic and international law and the practical challenges in implementing these rights. She also has a complex understanding, based on her study of law reform efforts across Africa, of the ways in which culture and tradition can be involved, to enable as well as to impede, legal change that will benefit women.”

The Markowicz Lecture Series was created by the HBI Project on Gender, Culture, Religion and the Law by Project Founder Sylvia Neil and her husband Dan Fischel in memory of Sylvia’s late sister, Diane, to honor her commitment to gender, equality and social justice. The series features internationally renowned scholars, judges, and activists discussing ways of negotiating the tensions between gender, equality and religious or cultural norms.

Amy Powell is the HBI Communications Director.

RSVP to attend The 5th Annual Diane Markowicz Memorial Lecture on Gender and Human Rights, “Good Morning Heartache: International Law and the Global Challenges Facing Women” presentation by Prof. Fareda Banda, SOAS London.

Free and open to the public, dessert reception.
Sunday, Nov. 9, 7:30 p.m.
Rapaporte Treasure Hall, Goldfarb Library, Brandeis University, 415 South St., Waltham, MA 02454

Unequal Pay in Pre-State Israel: Time for a Change

by Lilach Lurie

Lilach Lurie

Lilach Lurie

In a recent research I found that most sectorial collective agreements in Israel provide male workers with a right to a family wage. Sectorial collective agreements are reached between unions and employers, and once extended by the minister they bind all the workers and employers in the relevant sector. According to the agreements, male workers whose spouses are not working are entitled to a monetary supplement to their wages. Female workers are not similarly entitled. In other words, collective agreements, which are part of the binding labor law of Israel, provide unequal pay for men and women. While these laws may have made sense at one time, I think it is time for a change.

Granted, family wage is today a very small portion of a worker’s wage. Indeed many Israeli employers ignore collective agreement provisions including family supplement provisions. Still, family wage arrangements contradict the Israeli Equal Pay Law and should therefore be considered void. Nevertheless, although fifty years have passed since the enactment of the Israeli Equal Pay Law, family wage arrangements have yet to be cancelled.

The idea of family wage is not a uniquely Israeli idea. In many countries including the U.S., the U.K., Australia and Germany, employers once paid a “family wage” to male married workers. Henry Ford, to give one well-known example, paid his famous five-dollars-a-day salary mainly to “decently married” men. While countries differ from each other, a few commonalities can be found between them. Generally speaking, family wage arrangements were popular in the period following the Industrial Revolution and between the two World Wars. During the 1960s and the 1970s, many countries enacted equal pay laws (the U.S. enacted an Equal Pay Law in 1963; the U.K. enacted an Equal Pay Law in 1970 and Israel enacted an Equal Pay Law in 1964). With the onset of feminist movements and the enactment of equal pay laws, family wage arrangements were cancelled in most countries, albeit not in Israel.

Family wage arrangements seem at first glance as representing straightforward old stereotypes about women’s and men’s roles. Men are the breadwinners who go to work and women are the caregivers who stay at home. According to these stereotypes, women who do go to work can settle with a modest salary. Indeed, women began entering the labor market in large numbers only in the second half of the 20th Century. In the first half of the 20th Century, men dominated the labor market. The employers and union representatives were mainly men. Women were hardly represented in wage bargaining or in collective negotiations.

Nonetheless, the idea of family wage in Israel is not only “patriarchal” in nature, but has roots in historical context. Family wage was a tool to achieve social justice. More than 20 years before the establishment of Israel, Israel’s future first prime minister and founding father, David Ben-Gurion, promoted “family wage” as a way to reach equality between Jewish workers in pre-state Israel (i.e. in British controlled mandatory Palestine). In the second assembly of the Histadrut, to this day the largest workers’ union in Israel, in February of 1923, David-Ben Gurion explained the ideology of family wage arrangements: “Until the economic situation in the country will enable complete equality between the workers, the Histadrut shall determine from time to time maximum and minimum wages. These maximum and minimum wages will change across time and places.” Israel’s founding fathers, Ben-Gurion among them, determined that a father of three children needs a higher income than a bachelor or a woman. Similarly, a worker who lives in a city needs a higher income then a worker who lives in a village. According to them, these considerations should be taken into the design of maximum and minimum wages.

Family wage in pre-state Israel should therefore be understood as a tool designed to achieve equality, though not gender equality, and social justice. Family wage should be understood in its own social and historical context: before the establishment of Israel, before the establishment of an advanced welfare system, and before the enactment of the Israeli Minimum Wage Law. Nonetheless, even if family wage arrangements could have been justified in the first half of the 20th Century, they certainly cannot be justified in the 21st Century.

 

Lilach Lurie is a HBI Helen Gartner Hammer scholar-in-residence and a professor at Tel-Aviv University Department of Labor Studies.

How Does One Invent a Canon?

by Julia Phillips Cohen and Sarah Abrevaya Stein

Some six years ago, we began a collaboration with little idea that it would last so long, or yield such rich fruit. Our collaboration was motivated by a single realization:  the bulk of sources by and about the Jewish communities we had dedicated our lives to studying remained inaccessible, to specialists, students and lay readers. Most had never been translated into English, republished (in the case of published works), or (in the case of archival sources) published in any form.

Sephardi_LivesThe communities in question were modern Sephardi Jews—descendants of Jews who fled medieval Iberia (modern-day Spain and Portugal) following their expulsion in 1492 and settled in the western portions of the Ottoman Empire, including the Balkans, Anatolia, and Palestine. For over four-and-a-half centuries these communities continued to speak and write in their own Judeo-Spanish language, Ladino, an Ibero-Romance language grammatically similar to fifteenth-century Castilian Spanish but encompassing loan words from other Romance languages as well as from Hebrew, Aramaic, and other languages that Sephardim encountered in their new homes, such as Turkish, Greek, and South Slavic languages.

When we began our project, English-language readers had precious few primary sources about Sephardi history at their disposal—and next to none originally written in Ladino, a language that is today threatened with extinction. This inaccessibility, we concluded with amazement, existed despite the fact that the history of Mediterranean Jewry is of great interest to so many, including overlapping circles of scholars and general readers invested in Ottoman, Middle Eastern, Jewish, Balkan, European, United States, and Latin American histories.

This insight initiated a six-year long conversation of surprising profundity, one that raised questions we debated, resolved, and reopened again and again. Where ought the geographic contours of modern Sephardi history be drawn?  How might one impose boundaries (chronological, religious, linguistic, conceptual) on this topic whilst remaining attentive to its essential richness? Whose voices, what spaces, and which historical dynamics was it necessary to include?  Was Sephardi history indeed a discrete history, or did it bleed so deeply into local, regional, imperial, continental, and Jewish histories as to render it altogether amorphous?

With these questions always motivating (and vexing) us, we gathered and collected.  Our goal was to amass a corpus of sources that reflected Sephardi history in all its diversity; from the courtyard to the courthouse, spheres intimate, political, commercial, familial, and religious.  We sought to reflect life within Jewish communities and between Jews, Muslims, and Christians (Greek Orthodox, Armenian, and Serbian Orthodox, among others), as well as between Sephardi and Jewish communities of other varieties (those of Judeo-German, Judeo-Greek, or Judeo-Arabic backgrounds, for example). Finally, we wanted to depict Sephardi culture in times of peace, manifold wars, and during the Holocaust, focusing on the Ottoman heartland of Southeastern Europe and the Levant but reaching across the Middle East and Europe and into diasporic contexts that spanned four continents.

Working in a field still in its infancy and without an established body of canonical texts to choose from meant that we were compelled to do extensive archival research of our own and to consult with scores of experts in a variety of fields to identify sources that covered the broad sweep of modern Sephardi history—ranging from documents of high politics to those covering various aspects of everyday life. Our list of sources topped three hundred at its peak, but was, at last, arduously winnowed down to just over one hundred a fifty. They were translated from fourteen languages, with the help of many colleagues and collaborators.  The selections are of a vast range, including private letters from family collections, rabbinical writings, documents of state, memoirs and diaries, court records, selections from the popular press, and scholarship.

In the words of one of our sources, all this remains but “a drop in the ocean.”  For perhaps the most profound lesson that we learned over years of collaboration is this: when it comes to Sephardi history, one must invent a canon painstakingly, humbly, and with the knowledge that there is far more cultural richness and historical complexity that can be confined to a single volume.

Read a Q&A with the editors of Sephardi Lives

juliaphillipscohenJulia Phillips Cohen is Assistant Professor of History and Jewish Studies at Vanderbilt University. She is the author of Becoming Ottomans: Sephardi Jews and Imperial Citizenship in the Modern Era (Oxford University Press) and co-editor of Sephardi Lives: A Documented History, 1700-1950.

 

sarahsteinSarah Abrevaya Stein is Professor of History and Maurice Amado Chair in Sephardic Studies at UCLA. She is the author of several books, including most recently, Saharan Jews and the Fate of French Algeria (University of Chicago Press) as well as co-editor of multiple volumes including A Jewish Voice from Ottoman Salonica: The Ladino Memoir of Sa’adi Besalel a-Levi and Sephardi Lives: A Documented History, 1700-1950. She is also a series editor for the Stanford Studies in Jewish History and Culture

 

Julia Phillips Cohen and Sarah Abrevaya Stein received a 2011 HBI Research Award for their work on Sephardi Lives.

Gender Discrimination in the Air: Is it Legal?

by Lisa Fishbayn Joffe

In a recent article in Tablet Magazine, Elana Sztokman describes a disturbing experience flying on the Israeli airline, El-Al. Her plane was delayed because the ultra-Orthodox man assigned to the seat next to her, refused to take his seat. He felt obligated to find someone to trade with him so that he would not have to sit next to a strange woman for the 11-hour flight to Israel. Sztokman describes her feelings of humiliation as men negotiated with each other to solve the problem presented by her embodied presence. The issue ignited discussion from other women treated this way on El Al flights and by those who simply feel that flights should not be delayed for this reason. Sharon Shapiro, a Chicago writer, circulated a petition signed by more than 3,600 people, demanding that El Al “stop the bullying, intimidation and discrimination against women on their flights.”

What have the courts said about this? This issue of sex segregated seating on public transport has recently been addressed very clearly by the Supreme Court of Israel.  In response to a civil lawsuit brought by women who had been harassed and assaulted when they refused to move to the back of buses, into makeshift “women’s sections,” the Israeli Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that coerced sex segregation in seating on public (and privately owned) buses in Israel was discrimination against women and ordered it stopped. Some ultra-Orthodox people might feel uncomfortable having to ride with or sit with people of the opposite sex, and with people who did not share their point of view about gender, but they would have to find a way to cope. They have no right to force others to comply and the state is not permitted to accommodate them by violating the rights of others. Now this issue has re-emerged in the context of air travel.

Opposition to coed seating on public transportation is also a novel and stringent interpretation of Jewish norms. In the past, men who felt unable to sit next to women without succumbing to lustful thoughts might be said to be “weak-minded.” Rav Moshe Feinstein delivered the leading 20th century opinion on the permissibility of mixed seating on public transportation when asked whether an Orthodox Jewish man could sit next to a female stranger on a crowded New York subway train. He responded that there was no prohibition on incidental contact with women or sitting next to them when there is no other seat available and when this contact was not undertaken with any sort of sexual intent. If a man thinks that travelling under these conditions might incite sexual thoughts, he should try to distract himself and think about words of Torah. If he is so filled with lustful thoughts that even this incidental proximity to women might cause him to be sexually aroused, then he ought not travel. His pathology is not another person’s problem, though Feinstein lamented the fact that anyone should be so weak-minded. Such obsessiveness is the result of idleness, Feinstein said, and men like this need to be more involved in Torah study and work and “not be that way.”

Commentators differ on how this decision should be applied in the context of the modern state of Israel. Some emphasize Rav Feinstein’s point that while Jewish law expresses concern that men may be distracted by the sexual appeal of women, and mandates that both men and women dress and behave modestly, it is clearly men’s responsibility to control their appetites – “to not be that way.” Others, however, argue that Feinstein’s ruling ought not to apply in the state of Israel, where Jews hold the instrumentalities of the state in their hands and can recreate public life to be more fully compliant with Torah law. Halacha may not require it, but, according to Shlomo Rosenstein, Agudath Yisrael coordinator of public transportation, “If it possible to sanctify ourselves, why not?” Indeed, Rabbi Yehuda Warburg, writing in the Jewish academic journal, Tradition, has argued that Feinstein’s ruling should be confined to the diaspora. Orthodox Jews outside of Israel have not applied these norms to public transportation because “in modern society such a practice is unrealistic.” But in Israel, it might be possible. The fact that Jews who understand themselves to be Orthodox have not sought to practice such separation in the past or elsewhere does not preclude accommodation of this novel but legitimate conception of the requirements of Jewish law, according to Warburg.

Setting aside the fact that the El Al flight in question originated in the U.S., where anti-discrimination laws and Federal Aviation Rules also make this practice unrealistic, the Supreme Court of Israel issued a clear refutation of this argument in the bus case. Orthodox passengers who see women as a source of temptation to men are entitled to their opinion, but not to impose it on others, or ask that women who do not share their views be compelled to see themselves that way.   Perhaps this man on the airplane felt he knew himself well enough that he could not sit next to a woman for an 11-hour flight without having lustful thoughts. Perhaps he thought the only way to deal with this temptation was to create physical distance between him and women whom he viewed as sources of temptation. However, this sort of heightened caution about contact with women has the perverse effect of sexualizing what would otherwise be read as neutral encounters. It is the anxiety about the temptations that hyper-sexualizes these interactions between men and women. Dwelling on how to avoid all women because they constitute a temptation turns men like this passenger into Rav Feinstein’s third category of the disappointing fellow who needs to develop more internal self discipline, to focus on more noble thoughts and works, and “not be that way”.

Lisa Fishbayn Joffe

Lisa Fishbayn Joffe

Lisa Fishbayn Joffe is director of the HBI Project on Gender, Culture, Religion and Law. She is the co-editor with Sylvia Neil of “Gender, Culture, Religion and Law: Theorizing Conflicts Between Women’s Rights and Cultural Traditions.”