The whole media maelstrom about separate rooms for Arab and Jewish mothers makes no sense.
By the time you read this, you may have forgotten the topic I am discussing, so I will remind you of it: about ten days ago the entire world attacked MK Betzalel Smotrich and his wife because they proclaimed that they prefer Jewish women sharing maternity ward rooms with other Jewish women over rooms shared with Arab women.. (They mentioned loud parties as a reason, but that was a conceptual buzzword for an alien cultural experience).
I am not familiar with the context in which the media managed to extract this dramatic and exciting statement from the two, but it certainly served its intended purpose – even a fledgling reporter who heard that statement would realize the potential of the explosive material that fell his way and begin hurling catapults engraved with words like “racists”, “Nazis”, “political damage”, “the murderous right is at it again”, “shoot! expel!” etc… .
I am not the defense attorney for Betzalel and Revital Smotrich. If I were familiar with the context in which the statement was made I might have remarked that there is a notable lack of tact and even some foolishness in their choice of remarks because they have achieved exactly the opposite of what they want; from now on, no doubt, every hospital will take extra care to be sure the maternity rooms have both Arab and Jewish women. However, now that the topic has been raised, I would like to discuss it in principle, on a level somewhat higher than the orchestrated political and media hysteria.
How about the new mother’s opinion?
Not a word was uttered by the Smotrich’s with regard to different levels of care and service, not a word about isolation other than an agreed upon form of hospitalization in the maternity ward. Everyone knows that hospitals try to attract pregnant women, considered a good source of funds because of the money paid by the National Insurance Institute for every birth. Some hospitals invest in comfort, some in cuisine, others in easy access for relatives wanting to see the newborn. Hospitals employ marketing experts to give them ideas on attracting different population sectors and on making the parents and family feel pampered, on making them feel that their every wish is fulfilled – all aimed at their coming back for the next birth!
I am amazed that someone recognized that there is a demand for this idea and decided to offer agreed upon hospitalization in separate rooms in order to cater to social and nationalist feelings. Every Arab woman who wishes to be in a room with those who speak her language, and every Jewish woman who wants a room with those of her faith, will have her wish acceded to. Anyone who doesn’t ask for either – will be in a room with Jewish and Arab women.
I fail to understand what is wrong with this kind of mutual arrangement. I don’t see a drop of racism and absolutely no danger of less attentive care when the medical staff treats someone of a different nationality, since this is an agreement that works both ways.
I am not naïve, and I know that those who disagree with me will contend: “Where will it all end?” and why not have religious/secular rooms, ethnic or political separation (the right and left sides of the hall…) – if both sides agree? My firm answer is as follows:
a. It is impossible to live one’s entire life worrying about the slippery slope and “where will it all end?”
b. It is impossible to neutralize every single thing that might be taken to disgusting extremes by unscrupulous people.
And as far as this imaginary worry is concerned, there is no chance that there would be agreement about separating patients according to political or ethnic differences in maternity wards, while religious separation could only make a difference on Shabbat. How nice it could be for the new mothers and their friends to hum Sabbath songs together instead of listening to the radio or watching TV, but I don’t think this can be done in an even handed way and cannot imagine it being agreed upon.
Gentile comptroller and Jewish comptroller
Tchumin, a series of books on halakha in modern-day Israel, contains several articles about the desired halakhic status of non-Jews living in our midst. I have written on the subject as well (Tchumin Vol. IV) in an article titled “Gentiles in a Jewish State – autonomy or dispersal?” The end of the article has the following quote from the Jerusalem Talmud (Tractate Gittin 85): “A city populated by both gentiles and Israelites should appoint aboth a gentile and Israelite comptroller, it should tax both gentiles and Jews, support both gentile and Jewish poor, visit the sick who are gentile and those who are Israelites, bury the gentile dead and the Israelite dead, comfort the gentile mourners and the Israelite mourners, launder the gentile clothing and the Israelite clothing – because those are the ways of peace.”
I infer from the wording of the injunction that the formula set forth here is the establishment of joint charity and welfare institutions (and one can deduce that other public services are meant to be joint as well) but that there are gentile officials and Israelite officials. This means that the level of services is the same (“the ways of peace”), but those who render the services are separate, divided along gentile/Israelite lines. It should be emphasized that in this Talmudic statement, the gentiles are not hostile, they are just different culturally and socially. Separation is all the more understandable when those involved are on two sides of the nationalistic divide.
The writer is the founder of the Conversion Authority and head of the Tzomet Institute for Halakha and Technology.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.