Author Archives: Rabbi

On Inequality

Posted on January 31, 2014 | 12 comments

The latest poll-tested platitude being purveyed by the politicians is the notion of “income inequality,” a pernicious idea that only leads to harm. Consider: In 2010, Joe earned $50,000 and Bill earned $100,000, a gap of $50,000. The following year saw a boon for both: Joe and Bill both doubled their earnings, to $100,000 and $200,000 respectively. Great news for both, right? Not according to this theory, which saw the disparity in their incomes also double. They each might have earned more money – a lot more money – but they should presumably be unhappy because the income gap rose from $50,000 to $100,000. Are there people who really think this a bad thing? Yes; these are the politicians and their spinners trying to agitate the public to serve their own purposes.

Are normal people bothered by this? One would think not, but in fact studies have shown that most people would rather not have their earnings increased if it meant that their neighbors’ earnings increased even more. The problem then is not “income inequality,” but “character inequality.” People who let envy dictate their moods and happiness and begrudge the success of others will usually lead over-competitive and miserable lives, never able to enjoy their bounty, and only because someone has the same or more. That weakening of society’s moral fiber threatens more than opportunities for all to prosper; indeed, it threatens our ability to relate to each other properly and respect the rights of all.

The President and his PR advisors surely know this, but what has made “Income inequality” today’s buzzword is the sheer outrageousness of it. There has always been income inequality, and there will always be income inequality. Even if every person was a millionaire, there would still be people in the bottom 20% and the top 1% of earners. That is simple arithmetic. If we posit – as the liberals seem to – that the bottom 20% is almost always the victim of the top 1% (or top 10%) then there is no hope of ever moving forward because logic is then the greatest impediment to progress. There will always be a bottom 20% – in income, education, accomplishment, talent, etc., and there is no way to avoid that.

Thus, the “income inequality” gambit is a shameless plea for votes, and nothing else, by stirring up class warfare – by arousing the jealousy of the less fortunate (who are more numerous) against the more fortunate. But note the selectivity of the thinking: inequality troubles the Chief Executive only in one narrow area of life: industry and the professional class. That CEO’s, doctors, attorneys, bankers and similarly situated people out-earn (and by far) the average worker is held to be some sort of crime perpetrated by them against the masses. But those groups of people are also more educated and (generally) spent far many more years of their lives studying and preparing for their careers. They are also the ones who take risks, start businesses, build factories, manufacture products and invest their money in enterprises that will employ others. With risk comes the possibility of failure but also the possibility of great reward. Why should they be begrudged their successes when their counterparts who invest and lose money are not compensated for their losses? (Of course, some are –like the big banks that failed – and blame the politicians for that cozy relationship that uses taxpayer money to bail them out so – among other things – campaign donations could keep flowing).

But that is the only kind of inequality that troubles the President. Oprah far out-earns her competitors, as does Lebron James who out-earns the 12th man on his team. Chicago Cubs fans suffer from championship inequality, certainly in comparison to Yankee fans. How shall that be rectified? The pay scale in Hollywood is wildly disparate, certainly between the lead actor and the “best boy” (I’m unclear what he does and I am afraid to ask.).

Life presents a series of inequalities: of intelligence, talent, opportunity and family stability. Across the world, there is a gross disparity in equality of freedom. These inequalities can be ameliorated but never fully eradicated. It is just life, in which we are placed in differing circumstances and forced to deal with a variety of challenges. Poverty is a challenge for some, and, frankly, wealth is a challenge for others. Indeed, wealth may be the greater challenge, if our guide is the young Hollywood star – there are a few such wretches every year – who comes into wealth early and self-destructs before our eyes but to the delight of the celebrity media.

The idea that taxing the wealthy more will improve the financial situation of the poor has been tried, tested and failed repeatedly. The war on poverty has spent trillions in fifty years with no appreciable impact on the poor; the percentage of poor people –but poor, not just relative poor – remains the same.  And why would we think it should? Poverty is here to stay. “For the destitute shall never cease from the midst of the land; therefore I command you that you shall surely open your hand to your brother the poor and to the destitute in your land” (Devarim 15:11).

In a healthy society, the existence of different classes is a phenomenon that binds people together, that enables each group to interact and make its unique contribution, and allows the wealthier to share their G-d-given bounty with the less fortunate. Taxation is not charity, and government is not an instrumentality of charity. Taxation is coercive, and therefore tax avoidance (not evasion, of course) is part of the American system; charity is voluntary and therefore ennobles the giver, as well reminds him of the simple justice involved in helping the needy. When government tried to displace the individual of the dispenser of charity, it not only does it more inefficiently but it also deprives the donor of the opportunity to refine his character.

None of this wins votes. What win votes are the promises to take money from Bill (by one mechanism or another) and give it to Joe. That is why the true solution to the income gap – due to the diminished opportunities available to some – lies within our reach but is unlikely to be embraced or even widely discussed outside a small circle of interested people. The problem is not the dearth of money for some but the dearth of values for too many.

It is well known that the greatest indicators of financial success in life are completing school (even just high school), getting married, and having children after marriage, not before. One can extrapolate from this and readily perceive the causes of poverty in American life: the poor are generally those who fail to finish high school, have children before they are married, and who even fail to marry or marry repeatedly. Those who stay in school and stay married are rarely poor, and usually their strained economic circumstances are the result of some trauma or untoward event.

There was a time when married couples received tax advantages in recognition of the government’s interest in encouraging stable homes. Although it still exists in modified form, there are other inducements to the anti-social behavior that produces or prolongs poverty. Children born out of wedlock to unmarried women are generally subsidized by the government – their births, their health care, their education, even their food. There is little incentive for a male breadwinner to stay behind, and so they don’t. Lingering poverty almost directly correlates to the epidemic of out-of-wedlock births, but it is considered uncouth and offensive even to use the term “out-of-wedlock,” as if there is some benefit to births that occur within a marriage as opposed to outside a marriage. News flash: there is a benefit, both moral and financial.

And couples who marry and stay married are more successful financially than those who do not. While we cannot impose love on those who do not love each other, we can encourage people to think long and hard before marrying and divorcing, especially if they have children together. Some communities have more of a safety net than others, but children – and the single parent who raises them – do tend to wind up on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder.

It is easier just to raise taxes on the rich. It sounds like the problem will soon be solved, but only fools believe that money is somehow conveyed to the poor. The poor are useful to the politicians for their votes, and the rich as the cudgels by which those votes will be extracted from the poor. But a true leader would not play the envy game. Instead, he would lead a campaign – not just give a speech – to revive traditional values in American life – of education, family, faith, stability, hard work, industriousness, and contentment with one’s lot in life. The true leader would also encourage many wealthy people to lose their obsession with material acquisitions, and certainly not to define their moral worth by their assets. In fact, what they give to others is a greater indication of their moral standing than what they spend on themselves.

Within a short time, “income inequality” will occupy no one’s time or thought. But because that canard has legs and votes, this approach is easier said than done. The effort alone would transform society in untold positive ways.

12 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events

The Real Story?

Posted on January 26, 2014 | 59 comments

     The controversy du jour deals with the high school girls and their tefillin, and it has prompted the usual litany of responses. Once again, what passes for psak in the Modern Orthodox world is little more than cherry-picking the sources to find the single, even strained, interpretation of a rabbinic opinion in order to permit what it wants to permit or prohibit what it wants to prohibit. The preponderance of poskim or the consensus in the Torah world matters little; fables – like Rashi’s daughters wearing tefillin – carry more weight.

     No honest reading of the sources could ever give rise to a statement such as “Ramaz would be happy to allow any female student who wants to observe the mitzvah of tefillin to do so.” Happy? Tell it to the Rema or to the Aruch Hashulchan. And what about the prohibition of lo titgodedu ­– of not having contradictory practices in the same minyan (e.g., some girls wearing tefillin and others not)? And what of the statement being made to the traditional girls – that their service of G-d must somehow be inferior to that of their peers who are on a “higher” level, or the statement being made to all of them – women’s spirituality can only reach its peak when it mimics the religious practices of men? I would not want my daughters to be exposed to either sentiment.

Frankly, it is unsurprising that many young students in high schools text on Shabbat, observe half-Shabbat, and the like. If the Mesorah can be manipulated to permit girls to do what they want, why can’t it be manipulated to permit what boys want? Clearly, the subtleties are being lost in translation. Would that the schools focused on enhancing the commitment of the boys and their tefillin than broadening it to include others who are not within the purview of the mitzvah.

And, like night follows day, the secular Jewish press – besides praising the courage of the administrators – have trumpeted this story as another sign of the feminization of Orthodoxy – a triumph of women’s rights in an age when those are considered some of society’s most cherished values. They perceive it as another sign that Orthodoxy is modernizing, getting with the times, and catching up with the non-Orthodox movements, to the chagrin of the troglodytes on the right who insist on impeding progress.

But what if that is not the story? It is quite possible that we – and especially the media – might have missed the essence of this unfolding tale.

One question needs to be asked: do the girls here even define themselves as “Orthodox Jews?” Upon information and belief, they do not, and I do not write this to impugn them in the least. The fact is that in these day schools, anywhere from 10-30% of the student population consists of children from non-Orthodox homes. These families are proud members of non-Orthodox temples, and are certainly among the more dedicated. After all, they are sending their children to day schools under nominally Orthodox auspices. Some may even be the children of non-Orthodox rabbis, both males and females. When one girl explained that she has been wearing tefillin since her Bat Mitzvah, she is likely telling the truth. She has been wearing tefillin because that is part of the egalitarianism that is the most dominant value in the non-Orthodox world. If these girls – as it seems – are from non-Orthodox families, then the narrative has nothing at all to do with the so-called modernizing tendencies in Orthodoxy, but something else entirely.

The real story is not that Orthodox girls are wearing or want to wear tefillin, but that non-Orthodox children (or their parents) are essentially dictating to day schools how they want non-Orthodox practices incorporated – in school – in their children’s education. It is as if Conservative Judaism and its customs must be acknowledged much like schools have been known (and properly so) to allow children of the Edot Hamizrach to have their own minyanim and adhere to their own customs. And the schools are willing accomplices. Will they next remove their mechitzot to allow an egalitarian minyan, or is that too great a departure from the Orthodox brand?

There was a time when non–Orthodox Jews were thankful that yeshivot accepted their children, but correctly assumed that the curriculum, standards, practices and ideology taught would conform to Torah. They knew it would differ from what they were being taught at home – but they wanted that.
There was a time when a yeshiva administration had the authority and the courage to insist on those standards. Times have changed. In the competition for the tuition dollar of the non-Orthodox – and the fact is that SAR and Ramaz are competing for the same students – accommodations have to be made. And that is a travesty. Masquerading under the convenient narrative that this is a war for the soul of Modern Orthodoxy is the inconvenient reality: the inmates are running the asylum. The administrators are either unable or unwilling to maintain a complete fidelity to Jewish tradition, for at least some of their constituents are demanding otherwise.

Does a boy in such a school then have the right to say: “I do not feel that my divine service requires me to wear a kippa. My father doesn’t, not even in the house. I am against your religious coercion”? Should a school tolerate that? Or, an even better question: could a boy say that he rejects wearing tefillin until all the girls do? I.e., he is such an advocate of egalitarianism that it would be unconscionable for him, coming from his background, to continue to propagate the school’s antiquated, misogynistic, patriarchal attitudes that discriminate between males and females. I can hear it now: “There is only one G-d. He created all of us, and so there should be one law for all of us!” I wonder how the administrators would respond to that; probably, quite uncharitably, but on what grounds?

As one male SAR student asked me this week: if girls can be obligated when they are really exempt, why can’t he be exempt when he is really obligated? The logic is not impeccable – he is only 16 years old – but begs the question: if the Mesorah is so ephemeral that it can change on a whim, why can’t any rabbi make any change that he wants to make? Why can’t a layman?
Add to this one other point. I personally have met a number of graduates of these schools who are children of non-Orthodox female converts who were never informed by the administrators that the conversions were not acceptable according to halacha. In effect, they went through high school thinking they were Jews like all their classmates only to discover – years later and often on the verge of marriage – that they were not considered Jewish. The tragedy is heart-wrenching, because these young men and women are pure innocents. But there are halachic ramifications as well even while they are in school: Did the son of such a female convert lein in school? Was he motzi the audience with his Chazarat Hashatz? Did he count for the minyan?

Take a more tragic example: what if a young girl, child of a non-Orthodox converted mother, meets and falls in love with a male classmate (perhaps, her chavruta in Gemara class), and that young man is a kohen? What would have been a beautiful relationship is now marred forever and their life plans have to be altered. Perhaps, G-d forbid, the couple might then even turn away from Torah observance entirely because the young woman in question also needs to convert according to halacha, but now cannot marry this young kohen. Is the unequivocal acceptance of non-Orthodox converts and their children the norm in these schools? Is any attempt made to have them – if possible – convert according to halacha? I wonder.

On some level, the policy makes internal sense. For a day school appealing for non-Orthodox students in a very competitive climate, questioning the legitimacy of non-Orthodox conversions would be a turn-off to parents – just like denying these girls their tefillin would displease future applicants as well.

But the bottom line is that the story here might not be at all about “Orthodox” girls wearing tefillin but about non-Orthodox children seeking an accommodation of their religious practices, and about day school principals reluctant to insist on adherence to Torah standards. And that is the opposite of courage.

59 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Halacha, Machshava/Jewish Thought, Minhagim

Open Season

Posted on January 23, 2014 | 3 comments

     “There were heretics among the Jewish people who burdened Moshe [with their carping]. If Moshe left home early, they would say ‘he must be having some trouble at home,’ and if Moshe left home later they would say: ‘Why has the son of Amram tarried at home? What do you think? It must be because he is sitting and scheming against you’” (Rashi, Devarim 1:12). Whatever Moshe did – it didn’t matter – the whiners found some fault with it. No wonder that at one low point, Moshe exclaimed to G-d: “Master of the Universe! There are seventy independent empires in the world – and You had to command me to go to the Jewish people?!” (Vayikra Raba 2:4)

    It is impossible not to think of the way the Jewish people treated the great Moshe – he who brought us the Torah from Heaven and is characterized as G-d’s “confidante,” so to speak – if we hope to gain some perspective on the open season – the hunting season – currently underway against Israel’s Chief Rabbinate. The attacks, the slurs, the wholesale disparagement, the demands that the institution be torn down and replaced (with what, no one seems to suggest) or simply torn down, period, are relentless.

    The recent kerfuffle is a case in point. A noted American rabbi, as detailed here, temporarily had his authorization suspended to submit attestation of Jewishness letters on behalf of his congregants allegedly because his credentials as an Orthodox rabbi are being widely questioned. Another American rabbi – an educator, and a fine person known to me – also had his letters rejected allegedly on the grounds that only pulpit or community rabbis can submit letters to the Rabbanut. Should the Rabbanut – or some other organization, such as the RCA – vet prospective letter signers? Of course. In matters of marriage, divorce, or conversion, we are dealing with Kedushat Yisrael, the sanctity of the Jew and membership in good standing in the Jewish people that affects the nation, not just individuals. And that vetting will necessarily involve regulations, standards, and policies that must be navigated. Perhaps some light can be shed by reference to my own personal experience.

My letters have been routinely accepted by the Rabbanut for many years already – except for three occasions when they were summarily rejected. When they were rejected (one, just two months ago), I didn’t immediately run to the media or hire PR firms, or lawyers. Instead, I laughed, and turned to one of my colleagues for assistance.

What happened? The first letter rejected was when I affirmed the Jewishness of my parents for the Rabbanut, the second when I affirmed the Jewishness of my oldest daughter and her children when they made aliya several years ago, and the third was when I affirmed the Jewishness of my youngest daughter and her children as they plan their aliya this summer. How could it be that my letters were rejected? Because the Rabbanut does not accept attestations from family members, and these were my closest relatives. But…but…but, aren’t I a reliable informant? Am I not trusted to certify other people? Yes. So what sense does it make that I can’t now certify my own family? Because that is the policy.

Does the policy make sense? Not really, until we recognize that the policy is rooted in halacha, not secular, political or emotional logic. For example, I have served as a witness to marriage well over 100 times – but I was not qualified, according to Torah law, to be a witness at my own children’s weddings. How could that be? The Torah says so. It is a categorical exclusion, not based on lack of credibility.

The Rabbanut’s logic is actually quite sound in this instance. I accept the policy (even as I keep trying to flout it, hoping it has changed!). In each case, one of my colleagues (actually, the same one) drafted the necessary letters. Indeed, Rabbi Berel Wein tells the story of having his own credentials as a rabbi rejected by the Rabbanut because he had to have another rabbi certify him – even though his name appeared on the registry as recognized by the Rabbanut to certify others.

Every bureaucracy has rules, and those rules usually have some internal logic. Regarding the second case mentioned above, it seems clear that the Rabbanut does not accept attestation letters from educators. Does that make sense? Well, yes, although I can see both sides. In truth, whenever an educator has a question about the Jewishness of a child, he/she generally turns to the pulpit rabbi to ascertain the requisite information. That is why the Rabbanut relies on pulpit/community rabbis. The rejection was not personal; simply, the affiant was not qualified to make such an attestation under current rules.

The first case has already been addressed, but is the Rabbanut’s categorical exclusion of the affirmations of non-Orthodox rabbis unreasonable? Consider this bit of news: the Wall Street Journal (January 18, 2014) reported on the newly-elected rabbi of the prestigious Reform temple, the Central Synagogue of Manhattan, one Angela Warnick Buchdahl, heralded as a “pioneer.” And she certainly is. Born of a Korean Buddhist mother and an American Jewish father, she has diverse experiences, qualifications, and talents – and is even a cantor. Alas, the new “rabbi” is not Jewish according to Jewish law, apparently a trivial detail to her electors. Should her testimony regarding the Jewishness of her members be accepted by the Rabbanut? Of course not.

Anyone who maintains that the Rabbanut – or Israeli society – should accept the conversions performed under non-Orthodox auspices lacks a complete understanding of both Jewish identity and the catastrophe unfolding in American Jewish life. Anyone who wants to tear down the Rabbanut and replace it with something “that mirrors the diversity of modern Jewish life,” as one writer put it, is obviously hostile to Torah, whatever their personal practices might be. And anyone who thinks that the Rabbanut blundered here because of unfamiliarity with American Judaism should think again; perhaps they know it too well, but we just don’t like what they see.

Could the bureaucracy be streamlined, improved and made more user-friendly? Of course, and that applies to all bureaucracies whose weakness is not usually policy but that the consumer is at the mercy of indifferent clerks who get paid whether or not they are pleasant or efficient. And that could be true of the Rabbanut bureaucracy, as it certainly is of the motor vehicle bureau, the utilities companies, the cellphone companies, the passport office, etc. – and in any country on earth.

Other writers, conflating their opinions with reality, have accused the Rabbanut of being anti-woman (and thus opposed to Rabbi Weiss), or being on a power trip (a projection that could be equally applied to rabbis who unilaterally try to change the mesorah simply because they want to), and even of struggling to retain their power in light of the coming changes in curriculum or conscription (risible, as the Rabbanut is not involved in those areas at all).

Among recent screeds, one writer viciously castigated the Rabbanut for opposing women’s service in the IDF. In that, of course, they deviated from the opinion of their predecessors not one iota. The Rabbanut has always opposed women’s service in the IDF, and instead encourages National Service. Even the previous IDF Chief Rabbi, Rav Avichai Ronsky, openly opposed women’s service while at the same time vowing to protect their interests if they chose to serve. So this was another baseless accusation.

For sure, I have my own complaints. I wish the Rabbanut would be more outspoken on issues relating to Israeli society. I wish they would have been more forceful in opposing the Oslo madness. I wish the Rabbanut would be the address for the government of Israel not only for technical halachic issues but on public policy issues – on how the Torah addresses the variety of challenges a modern state faces. And I wish the election procedures were more dignified, the electorate much smaller, and was comprised only of people who value Torah and the Rabbinate. It is permissible to wish.

It has become commonplace that any discussion of today’s Rabbanut must include a lament about how it has never met expectations as an institution, and how all successors pale before the great Rav Avraham Yitzchak Hacohen Kook, the first Chief Rabbi. And for sure Rav Kook was a giant among men, a genius in Torah, a lover of all Jews, and a fascinating blend of Hitnagdut and Chasidut. That lament will always include a reference to the fact that Rav Kook endeavored to bring all Jews closer to Torah, as opposed to today’s Rabbanut “that drives Jews away from Torah.” And yet, for all his greatness, I do not recall reading that all Jews in Eretz Yisrael in Rav Kook’s day were Shomrei Mitzvot; in fact, relatively few were, unlike today. I do recall reading of Rav Kook’s frustrations when his opinions were not sought or not followed by the Histadrut, the Jewish Agency or other official bodies. His opposition to a Biblical Criticism department at the new Hebrew University was ignored. He admonished Jews – with limited success – not to pick up their mail at the post office on Shabbat or Yom Tov. Rav Kook’s Rabbanut, notwithstanding his greatness, was a constant struggle against the establishment and the widespread indifference to Torah in the general population. We should lose the nostalgia. The main imperative of the Rabbanut of Rav Kook – to ensure the kashrut of marriages and divorces – is what is now being challenged by today’s critics. In any event, we “only have the judge in our time” (Rashi, Devarim 17:9). We don’t live in the past.

I have met Rav David Lau on numerous occasions. He is an honorable person, a talmid chacham, a mentsch, a patriot who served with distinction in the IDF’s Intelligence Corps, and a leader who is spending long hours trying to rectify the weaknesses in the bureaucracy – and who still teaches Torah daily across the country in as many settings as he can reach. He doesn’t deserve the “Moshe” treatment, except, perhaps, in this sense: “And what are we? Your complaints are not against us but against G-d!” (Shmot 16:8).

The Chief Rabbinate is enduring the same slings and arrows as did Moshe and as are rabbis across the globe. They are the prime targets of modern man who resents authority, resents being told what they can or can’t do, and resents (and chafes under) any limitation on his autonomy. It is as if we will decide how we worship G-d, not G-d (memo to teenage girls wearing tefillin, the latest act of self-absorption, self-worship and mimicry of men masquerading as piety). That is the real problem.

There are many Jews, even some nominally Orthodox or neo-Conservative, who scour the sources to permit themselves to do what they want to do, who are uncomfortable with the Mesorah, who want validation for every deviation, and who therefore rail against any source of authority. They will not want any Rabbanut or any rabbinical authority, except as the verbalizer of platitudes and officiant at ceremonies. We hear that “the Rabbanut does not speak to the modern Jew!” Perhaps it does, but the real problem is the modern Jew chooses not to listen because he doesn’t like what he hears.

A Boston politician running for re-election used to say, “Don’t compare me to the Almighty, compare me to the alternative.” Is the alternative a Rabbanut without authority, or a Torah that speaks in the language of benign suggestions rather than absolute commandments? Is the alternative sought an Israeli society where anything goes, hefkerut reigns, where religion and state are as distinct as in secular countries? Such a state would not be a “Jewish state,” nor, if the Torah has any meaning, would it long survive.

In a Jewish state, one who wants to intermarry – or a kohen who wants to marry a convert or a divorcee – might have to go to Cyprus (better they not get married altogether). But if they have to go to Cyprus, so what? It is a small price to pay to maintain the integrity of a Jewish state. Indeed, individuals often pay a greater price to provide for the nation. Secular “coercion” (army, taxes, laws, etc.) seems to have more backers than religious “coercion.” But a Jewish state honors its Torah, its rabbis, its land and its people. It honors its Shabbat, its kashrut, its family purity and its ethical laws.

Those Jews – observant of mitzvot – who are calling for the dissolution of the Rabbanut and the separation of religion and state in Israel are trying to curry favor with the anti-religious, liberal left, thinking somehow they will make common cause in the future. But in so doing they have essentially given up on Israel as a “Jewish state” by divesting the phrase of all substance and meaning.

So, perhaps, before insisting that the “Palestinians” recognize Israel as a “Jewish state,” we should insist that Jews recognize Israel as a “Jewish state” – including prime ministers, rabbis and other public figures. Maybe then, at least for a brief time, they will hold their fire, and try to build rather than destroy.

3 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel

The Spinning Wheel

Posted on January 16, 2014 | 16 comments

 The Israeli Rabbinate has once again decided to accept the “attestation of Jewishness” letters of Rabbi Avi Weiss. That was a no-brainer, and I, for one, was not supportive of the initial rejection of those letters, of which I have written many. Let’s face facts: it is a real insult to be told that one has no credibility to state that “X” is Jewish because his mother is Jewish. That is like being told that you cannot be relied upon to ascertain that the sun has risen or set. Can an “Open Orthodox” rabbi be relied upon to state that someone’s mother was Jewish? I would assume so.

But even more was reported in the “Times of Israel:” “In the decision of the Chief Rabbinate, one can see recognition of the life work of Rabbi Avi Weiss in Yeshivat Chovevei Torah and Yeshivat Maharat, and of the halachic legitimacy of Open Orthodox rabbis, who are contending with the challenges of our generation within the limits of the halacha,” [Rabbi Weiss’ attorney, Assaf] Benmelech told JTA.

Actually, one sees nothing of the sort, with all due deference paid to the attorneys and public relations professionals hired to deal with the latest crisis that imperiled the Orthodox credentials of the self-styled “Open Orthodox.”

     The initial rejection was founded not upon the alleged lack of credibility of Rabbi Weiss on a personal level, but, I assume, on a simple, categorical judgment made by the Rabbinate: since the attestations of non-Orthodox rabbis are not accepted, they cannot accept the attestations of Rabbi Weiss because he is not to be construed as an “Orthodox” Rabbi, regardless of the protestations to the contrary. That preliminary decision by the rabbinate is one that, whatever esteem one (myself included) rightly holds for Rabbi Weiss’ legendary work on behalf of the Jewish people and his equally renowned love for all Jews, is increasingly shared by a growing segment of rabbis within the RCA, not to mention in the Haredi world which has long held that view.

It seems clear that the Rabbinate’s decision to reverse itself was not on the merits and entirely political. Whatever the publicity, do not believe for a moment it was a simple, straightforward restoration to the good graces of the Rabbinate, and certainly not the endorsement of “Open Orthodoxy” as depicted by the hired gun cited above. A decision on the merits would not have required the intervention of the distinguished Minister of Religions, Diaspora Affairs and Economics Naftali Bennett, who needed this contretemps like he needs to hold another Cabinet portfolio. It was entirely political – an attempt to defuse the controversy, call off the hounds threatening protests and boycotts of the State of Israel in these perilous times, and find some face-saving way for both sides to move forward. In Israel’s highly-charged religious environment, today’s Rabbinate lacks political clout and simply cannot compete with a PR onslaught.

A decision on merits would not have involved politicians, lawyers, and PR flacks but a meeting between Rabbi Weiss and representatives of the Rabbinate explaining why his innovations are within the boundaries of halacha and mesorah, and why he should therefore be construed as an Orthodox Rabbi like all others. Need we wonder why that was the road not taken?

Indeed, the movement that calls itself “Open Orthodoxy” has been dubbed here “Neo-Conservatism.” Consider: many of the novelties that Rabbi Weiss has produced, and  have been embraced by his disciples, come straight from the playbook of the Conservative movement, many of whose founders were quite Orthodox in practice: the female chazzan, the female rabbi, and the dilution of conversion standards. Others – the mixed church choir performing in shul, the enunciation by some of his cherished disciples of heretical ideas on Sinai, the mesorah, the halachic process, or the celebrations of same-sex marriage in defiance of Jewish law – tend to find him, at least, outside the Orthodox mainstream, if not Orthodoxy itself. The irony is the formal retention of the mechitza in shuls. That must stick in the craw of feminists and others but can’t be removed because it is so much a part of the Orthodox brand, and yet in many liberal shuls is often hidden from sight and barely noticeable. A partition that is barely noticeable hardly serves its purpose.

It would be unlikely and inappropriate for the Rabbinate to comment on any of this, as they relate to the American-Jewish experience and are quite foreign to Israel. But it should not be too surprising that, as also happened here, a rabbi who calls for the acceptance by the Israeli Rabbinate of Reform and Conservative conversions would not be perceived as “Orthodox” by other Orthodox rabbis.

You do make the bed in which you lie. A rabbi who adopts a steady progression of non-Orthodox practices and policies will be perceived as non-Orthodox, all the disclaimers to the contrary notwithstanding and not really relevant. Res ipsa loquitur.

Particularly disheartening is the spin – even the lies – that have emanated from the defense camp – claims that the RCA “rejected” the Rabbinate’s decision; that the RCA expressed its support for Rabbi Weiss; that the Rabbinate asserted that it had spoken to the RCA; that the Rabbinate is out-of-touch with the American Orthodox Rabbinate and been Haredized; and, as above, that the Rabbinate has somehow endorsed the objectives and practices of “Open Orthodoxy.” Not a single of those assertions are true: the RCA never officially spoke to the Rabbinate before the ban, the Rabbinate never claimed to have spoken to the RCA, the RCA never expressed its support for Rabbi Weiss in any of its statements, the Rabbinate reflects quite accurately the sentiment of a preponderance of the Orthodox rabbinate across the globe, and has certainly never endorsed “Open Orthodoxy.” That last claim especially – obvious, transparent overreach by an enthusiastic, paid partisan – is typical of the misinformation and disinformation that have been propagated here.

It needs to be reiterated, as was stated by many of his supporters, rabbinic and otherwise (few of whom actually addressed the relevant issues), that Rabbi Weiss is a giant of interpersonal relations, a lover of Israel and the Jewish people, a courageous fighter for causes (Soviet Jewry, Jonathan Pollard, anti-Oslo, and numerous others) before they were trendy, a person who has risked life and limb for the Jewish people, a role model for many, an enormously-gifted teacher, and a mentor with whom I enjoy, still, very warm personal relations. It is tempting to say that none of that is relevant to the matters at hand, but even that is not true. The respect he has deservedly earned has provided him in these struggles with enormous latitude – even cover, in a sense – from his fellow rabbis, many of whom, in deference to his character and accomplishments, have remained silent in public while castigating his activities in private.

For the Rabbinate, in the first instance and before the political flak and PR-tillery started raining down on them, such considerations were not widely factored. Personal observance and even personal virtues were not the focus of their research. This is business, not personal. Like the late Ariel Sharon, who built the settlements and then destroyed some, Rabbi Weiss – unabashed lover and conscious unifier of Jews – is wittingly causing a schism in the Orthodox world.

No amount of spin is going to change that reality. The reversal of the decision means that the matter was finessed, not resolved, and certainly not that the broader Orthodox community – here or in Israel – has accepted the positions of the self-styled “Open Orthodox.” Nothing has changed the perception that this is neo-Conservatism. This is not a battle of turf, money or power – but one of ideas. There are simply certain ideas, values, practices, and actions that are not part of Torah Judaism.

And all the lawyers, all the spinners and all the letter-signers in the world will not change that. Only one person can.

16 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Israel, Machshava/Jewish Thought