In galleries and museums, I spend an unusual amount of time noticing picture frames: the ornate, the imposing, the subtle. I am continually struck by the power of the frame to shape an image and by the artistry needed to see what kind of frame best suits any particular picture.
Thus, my introduction by allusion. The subject at hand is Jews preventing other Jews from driving on Shabbat. If I were to frame it by speaking of Jerusalem and stone throwing, I could easily guess your reaction. Yet, there are other ways of framing this: see this recent article in The Jewish Chronicle on a Shabbat driving ban being tested in London, England. The frame is environmentalism, a cause held dear by many liberal folk who might not find it halakhically problematic to drive on Shabbat. Are the pictures the same in Jerusalem and London? Yes and no. Yes, in that both are propelled by Jews concerned about the actions of others. No, in both their means and their efficacy.
I think about the ways in which Jewish rituals can remain unchanged over centuries, even as Jews radically reinterpret the meaning behind the action [e.g., briss hasn't changed much over time, but I can't picture Rashi explaining it as this feminist-influenced rabbi does]. Perhaps Britain's Chief Rabbi will be able to influence many Jews toward a more traditional Shabbat observance--not by appealing to tradition or halakhah or threats, but by framing the picture in a way that appeals to more British Jews today.
Comments