Article from 1957 Regarding Acceptability of Men and Women Sitting Together in Synagogue Under Jewish Law

caption:
Mixed Seating

Continued from Page 1

Silver, when questioned by the attorney for the defendants about the Orthodoxy of the Chevra Thilim would not give a direct answer, but when questioned by the judge, he said that it was not strictly Orthodox. He then qualified his statement by saying that if men and women were sitting together, it would be worse. Rabbi Weiss, in answer to this question said that Chevra Thilim was Orthodox. He denied that he was not in agreement with the other three experts for the plaintiffs, explaining that as an expert  he was better qualified to understand what the other experts meant. They meant, he said, that i was Orthodox if men and women say together. On this point the two experts for the defendants agreed that Chevra Thilim Synagogue was not strictly Orthodox, that it was Orthodox in the liberal sense of the word.

RABBIS AGUS, ARONSON FOR DEFENDANTS

The two experts who testified for the defendants were Rabbi Jacob Agus of Baltimore, Md., and Rabbi David Aronson of Minneapolis, Minn. Although both are conservative rabbis, because they are “students” of Jewish law, they were qualified as experts on Judaism. Rabbi Aronson is a sixth generation descendent of the Gaon of Wilna. In substance they agreed in their testimony.

They presented a brief history of the development of Orthodox Judaism, stating that the word came into use recently, comparatively speaking, and that it meant “right doctrine.” The fundamentalists, they said, believe not only that their doctrine is right, but also that it is the only doctrine. The non-fundamentalists, on the other hand, they stated, believe that their doctrine is right, but that there are doctrines which others accept as right. They pointed out that the Orthodox doctrine has differed in various countries and in various eras. They testified that there has never been unanimity in Judaism, that there has always been disagreements among Jewish authorities. They pointed out that the Talmud, the Shulchan Aruch and all other Jewish codes deal at great length with the construction of synagogues, but in no instance is the separation of sexes mentioned, although need for a center “bimah” is frequently mentioned. All quotations citing the separation of the sexes, they testified, had reference to the Temple in Jerusalem and not to the synagogue. There has never been a “double standard” in Judaism, they said, one law for the synagogue and another for the home, and at the time the laws regarding the separation of sexes in the synagogue during services were promulgated, separation of the sexes also existed in the home and on the streets. The two experts from the de -

  •  Article from 1957 Regarding Acceptability of Men and Women Sitting Together in Synagogue Under Jewish Law
  •  Article from 1957 Regarding Acceptability of Men and Women Sitting Together in Synagogue Under Jewish Law
  •  Article from 1957 Regarding Acceptability of Men and Women Sitting Together in Synagogue Under Jewish Law

Identifer: cjf-2014134

Medium
-

Leave a Comment

Cincinnati Judaica Fund| 8401 Montgomery Road | Cincinnati, OH 45236 | 513-241-5748
Center for Holocaust and Humanity Education | 8401 Montgomery Road | Cincinnati, OH 45236 | 513-487-3055
powered by CollectiveAccess 2014