Debate Pros and Cons of Women’s Suffrage in British Synagogues

(Jewish Telegraphic Agency Mail Service)

By 211 votes against 158 the motion of the Council of the United Synagogue to concede equal voting rights to women was rejected by a meeting of the Council and delegates of the United Synagogue held here with Sir Robert Waley-Cohen, the Vice-President of the United Synagogue, in the chair.

In opening the meeting, Sir Robert said that they had no power to introduce any new alterations in the Constitution of the United Synagogue. The United Synagogue had established a tradition in Anglo-Jewry of which all of them could be very proud as it spread a great and beneficent influence throughout the Jewish communities of the United Kingdom. The question of granting equal voting rights to women, Sir Robert went on, was not a religious question except in so far as it was of the utmost importance that the women should have easy encouragement to take an active part in the work of the synagogues. Many of the women had more leisure than men and were in a better position to judge who was likely to serve the synagogue well. To give them this opportunity of serving the synagogue would be of great benefit to their community. Had he thought, Sir Robert said, that his proposal was a revolutionary one, he would have been the first to oppose it, as the future of the Jewish community depended entirely on adhering to their traditions, but even as far back as 1870, there were women in three London synagogues who had the right to vote. Those were the widows of privileged members of the synagogues. That was surely not a revolutionary proposal which simply reverted to a usage customary in three synagogues fifty years ago. It was only a natural evolution in the stone of the pedestal on which they had been founded.

Mr. Moses, Vice-President of the United Synagogue, in seconding the motion submitted by Sir Robert Waley-Cohen, said that the fact that in the old days widows of privileged members had the right to vote seemed to him a sufficient precedent for passing the motion.

Lionel Cohen, in speaking against the motion, said that there were 80 rabbis from all over the world, great authorities on the Talmud and Jewish Law, who had most emphatically expressed themselves against the granting of equality of rights to women. Among them was the Chief Rabbi of Palestine, Rabbi Kook, who when asked whether women should be allowed to participate in communal elections, said that he regarded the participation of Jewish women in the execution of the duties of communal work as, against the Din. There was also the statement of six of the most famous Rabbis of Europe who had declared publicly that on the basis of Jewish Law, women could claim no right to participate in the elections of any administrative or communal character. Among those Rabbis there was the Chofetz Chaim, one of the greatest authorities on Jewish Law. He also had the authoritative declaration of the London Beth Din, Mr. Cohen said, to the effect that although granting the right to vote to lady seatholders for charitable and admiistrative purposes relating to the synagogues could not be categorically ruled out as contrary to Jewish Law, such a proposal had many elements of great danger likely to lead to the disintegration of the United Synagogue.

Ernest Lesser said the rejection of the motion would be an act of suicidal folly. Being more in touch with certain sections of the community, Mr. Lesser said, he could assure then that educated Jewish women of orthodox opinion, resented as a great humiliation their inability to take an active part in the synagogue administration. If women were good enough to sit on the Board of Guardians, they would not be satisfied by the statement that the Din was against them. It made the women leave the United Synagogue and induced them to go over to the Liberal Jews. There was for instance a few years ago, an orthodox woman who was elected deputy-chairman of the London County Council. Would they refuse such a woman the right vote in matters relating to the synagogue? If they did that, they would deal a great blow to the United Synagogue. The Sephardic community, also an Orthodox Jewish community, had many years ago granted the vote to some women.

Mr. Barnett said that they were either English Jews or Zionists, that was to say, they either considered the Jews as a race or a nation. If they considered themselves English Jews, then they had to submit to English laws which allowed women the franchise. If, however, they were of the contrary opinion, they might, if they liked, build up Palestine on the principles prevalent thousands of years ago when women were treated as chattel, but in England they should recognize the important part played by women in the life of the country. They ought to remember that it was the woman who educated her child. How could they deny woman the rights which her child possesses?