MK Bezalel Smotrich
MK Bezalel SmotrichHillel Meir

MK Bezalel Smotrich (Jewish Home) wrote a letter to Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, requesting the government explain to the Supreme Court that the court has no authority to rule on issues regarding the status of the Kotel (Western Wall).

The decision to allocate an "egalitarian" prayer space at the Kotel, changing the longstanding customs at the Kotel, has stirred much controversy. Halakha mandates separate prayer spaces for both men and women and forbids women from reading from the Torah with a blessing during prayer services. The Kotel customs do not allow Torah Scrolls in the women's section.

The Women of the Wall's supporters tried to claim that the Kotel had mixed gender praying before it fell under Jordanian control in 1948 and that the Rabbinate added stringencies when it was liberated in 1967. However there is incontrovertible proof that gender separation at the Kotel was the norm except for when the Turks or British did not allow a separation partition.

In his letter, Smotrich referred to the laws made at the beginning of the British Mandate period, before the State of Israel even existed. These laws are still in effect, and the courts still reference them when deciding cases.

"This law was made at the beginning of the previous century and dealt with questions that have a religious nature and the rules for praying at holy sites. It decreed that because of the national and international sensitivities involved, these issues are not the province of the courts. Instead, there needs to be a solution reached by the government," Smotrich said.

Smotrich also said, "This regulation emphasizes the sensitive nature of holy sites, which are inherently different than other places."

The letter continues to say that in the current cases regarding norms for prayer at the Kotel, the Israeli Rabbinate needed to be given independent jurisdiction, as this is a halakhic, not a legal issue and since its stance is based on considerations that are different from those of the government officials.

He added that the government had not consulted with the Rabbinate even though the government is obligated to do so by the British Mandate law regarding holy sites, and the court had sat without having the Rabbinate represented independently at hearings regarding the Kotel.

"It is unthinkable that the Israeli Rabbinate will be forced to be represented by the Attorney General," he concluded, "when their opinion on the matter differs from that of the government.".