What Are the Rules for Women Praying at the Western Wall?
Israel’s Supreme Court held in 2003 that the Women of the Wall may pray in their manner, channelled to Robinson’s Arch by 5 of 9 justices.
On 6 April 2003, Israel’s Supreme Court held, on a panel of 9 justices, that the Women of the Wall “have a right to pray at the Wall in their manner”, a right it said “is not unlimited”. The same judgment channelled that prayer to the adjacent Robinson’s Arch site, by 5 of the 9 justices. It also set a conditional fallback in the Western Wall Plaza itself, by 7 of the 9. The case concerned Jewish women seeking to pray together at the Wall wearing prayer shawls and reading from the Torah.
| Figure | What it counts | Period |
|---|---|---|
| 9 | Justices on the further-hearing panel in HCJFH 4128/00 | Judgment of 6 April 2003 |
| 5 of 9 | Majority for the Robinson’s Arch holding, the President among them | Judgment of 6 April 2003 |
| 12 months | Time given to prepare Robinson’s Arch before the Plaza fallback could apply | From 6 April 2003 |
| 7 of 9 | Majority for the Western Wall Plaza fallback, the President and the Deputy President among them | Judgment of 6 April 2003 |
| 3 | Justices who sat in both majorities | Judgment of 6 April 2003 |
| 2(a)(1a) | Regulation on ceremonies “not in accordance with the local custom”, as quoted in the judgment | Regulations of 1981 |
Source: Israeli Supreme Court, HCJFH 4128/00, judgment of 6 April 2003, English translation by the Cardozo Israeli Supreme Court Project.
Women of the Wall may pray in their manner, HCJFH 4128/00 held
The Supreme Court held that the right exists and that it has limits. The holding came in a further hearing on the Court’s earlier judgment in HCJ 3358/95. In the Cardozo Israeli Supreme Court Project’s English translation, the Court wrote:
“The Women of the Wall have a right to pray at the Wall in their manner. However, like every right, that right is not unlimited.”
The judgment sets out the holding in four parts:
- The right: to pray at the Wall “in their manner”.
- The limit: the right is weighed against other rights the Court called “also worthy of protection”.
- The manner at issue: women praying together as a group, wearing prayer shawls and reading from the Torah.
- What it did not order: prayer in that manner in the main Plaza, except as a conditional fallback.
The Supreme Court issued both halves together, the right and its channelling to Robinson’s Arch. The two holdings that carry it out follow.
The Court gave the government 12 months to prepare Robinson’s Arch
The Supreme Court held, by 5 of its 9 justices, the President among them, that the government was to prepare the adjacent Robinson’s Arch site as a proper prayer space. The Court found the site, in its physical state at the time, unfit for prayer. If the site was prepared within 12 months, the Women of the Wall could pray there in their manner.
One of the 5 justices joined this holding only as the least of the outcomes before the panel. The order is the Court’s. The judgment holds no government account of its own on what was built at the site afterwards, and none is used here.
7 of 9 justices set a Western Wall Plaza fallback
The Supreme Court held, by 7 of its 9 justices, the President and the Deputy President among them, that a second order applied if two conditions were both met. The first was that Robinson’s Arch was not made suitable within 12 months. The second was that no arrangement acceptable to both sides was found. In that event the government was to make “appropriate arrangements and conditions within which the Women of the Wall will be able to realize their right to pray in their manner in the Western Wall Plaza”.
The two majorities are different coalitions. 3 justices, the President among them, sat in both. The 2 other justices in the first majority dissented from the second, and the 4 who dissented from the first joined the second.
A concurring justice held the Robinson’s Arch designation lawful as a permanent solution. That solution preserves the women’s access to the Plaza itself so long as they pray there “in accordance with the local custom”. The fallback is an order addressed to the government, not a government statement of its own. What the government did under it after 2003 is not in the judgment.
Regulation 2(a)(1a) names ceremonies not in accordance with local custom
The judgment quotes regulation 2(a)(1a) of the Regulations for the Protection of Holy Places to the Jews, 1981, which lists “conducting a religious ceremony that is not in accordance with the local custom”. The wording here is the regulation as the judgment quotes it. The phrase appears in the judgment in three places:
- The regulation, as quoted: “conducting a religious ceremony that is not in accordance with the local custom”.
- A minority opinion: one justice would have read the phrase by its halakhic meaning, which would prohibit the women’s manner of prayer in the Plaza. The Court did not adopt that reading.
- A concurring opinion: the women keep access to the Plaza so long as they pray there “in accordance with the local custom”.
The same minority justice would also have held that the Court lacked jurisdiction over freedom of worship at the Holy Places, under the Palestine Order-in-Council (Holy Places), 1924. That view remained a minority. The Supreme Court issued both holdings.
No Israeli text here sets dress, partition or tallit rules
No Israeli official text used on this page states site rules on modest dress, the partition between the men’s and women’s sections, tallit, tefillin, reading from a Torah scroll, or Shabbat and holiday conduct at the Wall.
| Practice | In the 2003 holdings |
|---|---|
| Modest dress | No rule stated |
| Partition between sections | No rule stated |
| Prayer shawls and Torah reading | Named as the women’s manner of prayer at issue; no site rule stated |
| Tefillin | No rule stated |
| Shabbat and holiday conduct | No rule stated |
Rules of that kind would sit with the Western Wall Heritage Foundation, the Rabbi of the Western Wall and the Ministry of Religious Services. No ministry or government text of its own is used here, and no Israeli ruling or government decision on the Wall later than 6 April 2003 is among the records on this page.
Every figure here comes from one 2003 judgment
- Every figure comes from HCJFH 4128/00, the Supreme Court’s further hearing decided on 6 April 2003.
- The English quotations are the Cardozo Israeli Supreme Court Project’s translation. The Hebrew judgment is the authoritative text.
- The 5 of 9 and the 7 of 9 are votes on two different holdings. Neither is the vote in the case, and they are not added or combined.
- The regulation’s wording is as the judgment quotes it.
- The 12 months ran from the judgment. What followed at the site is outside it.
Questions readers ask
Can women pray at the Western Wall?
Yes. Israel’s Supreme Court held on 6 April 2003 that the Women of the Wall “have a right to pray at the Wall in their manner”, and that the right “is not unlimited”.
Who are the Women of the Wall?
The Supreme Court ruled on the claim of a group of Jewish women seeking to pray together at the Western Wall wearing prayer shawls and reading from the Torah. Anat Hoffman is the named respondent in HCJFH 4128/00.
Where is Robinson’s Arch?
It is the site adjacent to the Western Wall that the Supreme Court held the government was to prepare as a proper prayer space. In 2003 the Court found the site, in its then physical state, unfit for prayer.
Did the Supreme Court allow prayer shawls and Torah reading in the main plaza?
Only as a fallback. The Supreme Court held, by 7 of 9 justices, that Plaza arrangements applied if Robinson’s Arch was not made suitable within 12 months and no arrangement acceptable to both sides was found.
How many justices decided the case?
- The Supreme Court held the further hearing on a panel of 9 justices and delivered judgment on 6 April 2003.
Why does the judgment have two vote counts?
The Supreme Court ruled on two holdings by two different majorities: 5 of 9 on Robinson’s Arch and 7 of 9 on the Plaza fallback. 3 justices, the President among them, sat in both majorities.
How long did the government have to prepare Robinson’s Arch?
12 months. The Supreme Court held that if the site was prepared within that time, the Women of the Wall could pray there in their manner.
Was Robinson’s Arch meant to be permanent?
A concurring justice held it lawful as a permanent solution. In that justice’s view, the women keep access to the Plaza itself so long as they pray there “in accordance with the local custom”. The Supreme Court’s 5 of 9 holding set a 12-month deadline for preparing the site.
What does “local custom” refer to?
The Supreme Court quoted regulation 2(a)(1a) of the Regulations for the Protection of Holy Places to the Jews, 1981, which lists “conducting a religious ceremony that is not in accordance with the local custom”. A halakhic reading of the phrase appeared only in a minority opinion.
Did any justice say the Court could not decide the case?
One justice would have held that the Court lacked jurisdiction under the Palestine Order-in-Council (Holy Places), 1924. That view remained a minority, and the Supreme Court issued both holdings.
Is there an Israeli legal rule on dress at the Wall?
None appears here. The Supreme Court ruled in 2003 on the women’s manner of prayer and stated no dress rule in its holdings. No other Israeli official text used on this page sets one.
Is there a later Israeli ruling on women’s prayer at the Wall?
None is used here. The Supreme Court held its further hearing on 6 April 2003, and no later Israeli ruling or government decision on the Wall is among the records on this page.
Which text of the judgment is quoted?
The English translation by the Cardozo Israeli Supreme Court Project. The Supreme Court issued the judgment in Hebrew, and the Hebrew is authoritative.
Sources
- Israeli Supreme Court, 2003. HCJFH 4128/00 Director General of the Prime Minister’s Office v. Hoffman (Women of the Wall, further hearing), judgment delivered 6 April 2003. English translation by the Cardozo Israeli Supreme Court Project. https://versa.cardozo.yu.edu/sites/default/files/upload/opinions/Director%20General%20of%20the%20Prime%20Minister%E2%80%99s%20Office%20v.%20Hoffman.pdf. Official or primary record (court judgment).
