Rabbi Pruzansky's Blog

Published today on Israelnationalnews.com

     “And the land was quiet for forty years.” Three times that phrase appears in the book of Shoftim as a reminder that even temporary peace is valuable. Perhaps that is the most productive spin on America’s failed venture in Afghanistan that has ended in a disgraceful retreat. Was it worth the loss of 2500 American lives and the maiming of thousands of others? The answer is affirmative only from this perspective: the foray into Afghanistan bought the people there twenty (not forty) years of relative peace, freedom from barbarism, opportunities for women and a chance to emigrate.

     With the Dark Ages returning, with a vengeance, it is possible to look back with some pride on a military incursion that represented the best of American ideals, even after acknowledging the necessity after the Arab terror of September 11, 2001 of eliminating Al Qaeda and the Taliban that hosted them. Afghans were shown there is a different way. It was a two decade respite from the brutal treatment that women received before 2002 and unfortunately will be receiving again. Nancy Pelosi’s comment, vapid even by her low standards, that the international community must “do everything” to protect women and girls is as pathetic as the humiliating departure. “Everything” obviously does not include a powerful American military presence, which is actually the only “thing” that could protect them. Let’s see how well resolutions and hash tags do.

      There was never going to be a happy outcome in Afghanistan if we accept that not every society is suited for democracy. Indeed, Afghans are so tribal that it is a stretch to perceive them as even constituting a nation, perhaps one reason their army collapsed like a house of cards the moment American support was withdrawn. And it is difficult to argue with the logic that the US should not fight for a nation that will not fight for itself. Undoubtedly, a substantial portion of the population supports the Taliban either actively or tacitly. In a land that holds almost 40 million people, there weren’t 40 million people at the airport trying to flee. So bombing a land back to the 15^th century is not effective when they are already living in the 12^th century. And the poor souls who want to flee, many of whom aided American forces, deserve better.

      President Biden is a weak leader, whose most pronounced characteristic is that he is an anti-Trump. Whatever Trump did, Biden does the opposite, without regard to whether the decisions were good ones or bad ones. In fact, Biden seems to govern in the curious way that he reverses all of Trump’s good policies, regardless of their effect on the country (immigration, taxes, the Abraham Accords), while maintaining Trump’s bad policies (a targeted withdrawal date from Afghanistan, restrictive trade, massive deficits). Biden also has the modern man’s aversion to assuming responsibility for anything. It is hard to imagine that Trump would have presided over such a humiliation, aptly captured in the Wall Street Journal editorial: “Biden to Afghanistan: Drop Dead.” Trump’s withdrawal date was tied to certain conditions and never entertained the return to power of the Taliban, certainly not in the near future.

      What is done is done, and for Israelis a few lessons are in order.

     Most importantly, even Biden must realize his fecklessness. He has been fleeced by the Taliban, by Russia, and by China. He is looking for a foreign policy victory – some ceremony or good news for which he can claim credit and reverse his decline into irrelevance. Unfortunately for us, Israel provides for him the ripest opportunity. Biden won’t even say the words “Abraham Accords” and has done nothing to broker deals with the handful of other Arab countries anxious to make agreements with Israel. Worse, he has reversed Trump’s successful policy and again made the Palestinian “cause” the centerpiece of American diplomacy in the region.

      That is disastrous for Israel as no good will come of it. For that matter, it would be foolhardy for PM Bennett even to visit Washington in the coming weeks. He would be expected to prop up Biden with some concession, mouth support for the two state illusion or otherwise bolster Biden’s falling standing. Bennett should stay away from Washington at least through the holidays – blame the holidays, blame Corona, blame the quarantine. Blame something or someone – but only harm will result from a United States visit at this juncture.

     More ominously, but predictably, Israel has to recognize that America is not as reliable a friend and ally as it once was. This is not only due to its fractious politics and economic woes but especially now because of the decline of its global prestige and trustworthiness. For sure, Israel and Afghanistan are completely different countries with wholly different relationships with the United States. (It is interesting to note for those who complain about American aid to Israel – these days anyway it is a $3 billion grant that is almost entirely spent on American weapons – the United States poured into Afghanistan in twenty years an estimated 30-40 times what it has provided Israel in aid since its inception, and at least from Israel, the US has received benefit in return.) But America today is not the America of two, twenty or forty years ago.

      American and Israeli policies and interests do converge in many areas – but they also diverge sharply in some important ways. Israelis must recognize that and not live in the nostalgia of the past, similar to what Israel tried for many years to do with Turkey in conceding that Erdogan’s Turkey had changed. Former PM Minister Netanyahu was wise to cultivate ties with Russia, India and China and not subordinate Israel’s foreign policy to American wishes alone. That should be continued, and to the extent that Biden (or his aides) would pressure Bennett to reduce Israel’s ties with China or Russia, that alone would be a good reason to forego a summit until spring, year to be determined.

      The happy talk that such a summit will frivolously produce does not justify a freeze on settlements, renewed negotiations with the PA designed to further partition the land of Israel, the release of prisoners, or a stayed hand against terror from Gaza.

      To an American administration that is reeling, and will continue to be lambasted and mocked as pictures emerge from the Taliban’s Afghanistan of the horrors to come on which the US turned its back, an Israel deal on any level is considered low-hanging fruit. Israel must resist having this fruit plucked – certainly during the shemittah year. As much as any prime minister loves the Oval Office photo op and the legitimacy it confers, the consequences of such a visit now would be detrimental to Israel’s interests.

     A weakened America is no cause for rejoicing, as the free world suffers when America retreats and its (and our) enemies are thereby emboldened. We should beware as well some quick return to an Iran deal of any sort – but mostly the desire for a diplomatic victory at Israel’s expense. Similarly, it is appropriate to grieve over the loss of life and freedom that surely awaits the Afghan people.

 

     My theory  on the unforeseen Consequences of Intermarriage emphasized how decline in support for Israel among American Jews over the last half-century tracks neatly with the spiraling rate of intermarriage among American Jews. We are now in the second and third generation of the offspring of intermarriage, those who have weaker Jewish identities and thus a weaker attachment to Israel or anything substantively and objectively Jewish. My thoughts provoked some outrage, especially among the intermarried or their parents (inevitable but understandable), but also took predictable forms of protest.     

The usual arguments were trotted out. Opposition to intermarriage is “racist and bigoted.” A meaningless error (attributing one poll to the wrong pollster) was deemed to have discredited the entire piece. Typically, the Nazis invaded the discussion, one writer asserting that whoever the Nazis would have murdered as a Jew (a person with one Jewish grandparent) is therefore a Jew. Some interpreted the mere reporting of the facts as gloating when, on the contrary, the facts are depressing and worthy of copious tears. Straw men were constructed, as if my secret objective was to claim that non-Orthodox Jews are not really Jews or otherwise to prop up the “Haredi” Rabbinate.

     Oy. Nonetheless, each contention deserves refutation because each is constantly raised in any discussion of sensitive Jewish topics. To claim that the prohibition of intermarriage is “racist and bigoted” is to maintain that the Torah that bans it is “racist and bigoted.” Since, as Rav Saadiah Gaon declared almost twelve centuries ago “Our people is a people only by virtue of the Torah,” to negate the Torah’s view on the matter is to vitiate any sense of Jewish identity at all. The Torah’s ban on intermarriage is neither racist nor bigoted but rather perceives the purpose of Jewish identity as the repository of a set of divine ideas, values and practices that are the heritage of the Jewish nation to be taught to the world. The mandate of Jews marrying Jews is not designed to foster purity of our blood – that is insane and immoral – but rather to ensure that marriages build homes that propagate those ideals. To be sure, righteous converts in every generation, and certainly today, disprove those accusations, as we welcome wholeheartedly outsiders who embrace those ideas and practices.

     And can be finally put to rest the polemical but offensive notion that Hitler decides who is Jewish? Perhaps for some it carries an emotional wallop but dig beneath the surface and it is quite repugnant. Hitler was a genocidal maniac, one of the most evil creatures who ever walked this planet. He is not a posek. He does not decide questions of Jewish law and to assign him that privilege gives him a posthumous victory. He would not only have destroyed millions of Jewish lives but the Torah as well. Note that Hitler also killed non-Jews who sheltered Jews. Their astonishing kindness, self-sacrifice and martyrdom did not make them Jews but righteous Gentiles, a most worthy status in its own right.

     Note further that non-Orthodox Jews born of a Jewish mother are as Jewish as any Jew. Despite the persistence of the counterclaim in the non-Orthodox world, I have never heard or read anyone who holds differently. A sinning Jew remains a Jew and even an intermarried Jew remains a Jew. That is not at issue.

       The contention that is most revealing is the ubiquitous reference to ethnic Jews as opposed to halachic Jews and it explains the confusion, perhaps even some of the discontent, of the intermarried. To illustrate the problem, think of a child of an Italian father and an Irish mother. That child rightly sees his heritage as Italian/Irish. If a naysayer came along and claimed that the child, for whatever reason, has forfeited his Irish background, he would rightly look at this as bizarre.

      But Jews have a dual identity – a nationality and a religion – the result of “I shall take you to be My people and I shall be a God for you” (Sh’mot 6:7). Both facets of that identity are crucial and neither can survive the disappearance of the other. Certainly, this is a major problem in Israel where the Israeli and Jewish identities are mostly conflated but for some conflict and are even antithetical to each other. In the exile, the Jewish ethnic identity alone deflates over time like a balloon that loses air until it becomes a caricature of true Judaism. Devoid of the Torah, it cannot endure, and thus demands that special accommodations be made for it.

      Are there intermarried Jews who feel a kinship with the Jewish people in a positive way? Of course, and there were prominent leaders of American pro-Israeli organizations who were intermarried. (Their children, of course, do not possess their fathers’ passion.) The same is true for converts. Daniel Chwolson, a 19^th century scholar, converted to Russian Orthodox Christianity to become a professor in St. Petersburg, and routinely interceded with Czarist authorities to protect Jewish interests, including shechitah. Nevertheless, one can hardly expect loyalty to the Jewish people from those who marry or convert out of the faith, and statistics (and common sense) bear that out.

     Finally, lest it be thought that criticism was universal, privately I received enormous support, mostly of the “duh!” variety, from rabbis and other Jews of all stripes. That includes people who asked me why I would write about something so obvious – “everyone knows” intermarriage is a disaster for the Jewish people. Alas, everyone doesn’t know, and as George Orwell put it, “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”

     Intermarriage is an ongoing catastrophe for the Jewish people. It has obliterated Jewish identity, weakened support for Israel among its practitioners, and drastically reduced the Jewish population. There is no short-term solution, not least because so many Jews insist on seeing it as desirable. Jewish education is an obvious bulwark against assimilation, even if it is not a panacea. What we can do, though, is stop pretending that the intermarried and their offspring are the same as all Jews, with the same affinity for Israel, Torah and Jewish values, whose views matter in the grand drama of Jewish history, and therefore are a boon to the Jewish people.  Even the loudest protesters know that is not true.

      Perhaps rabbis and parents should again raise this issue, even in the Orthodox world where intermarriage is rare but increasing. And all Jews should begin to reckon with the ultimate question: why be Jewish? If being Jewish means nothing or whatever anyone wants it to mean – essentially the same thing – then why? More than anything else, the failure to answer that question satisfactorily has engendered the explosive growth of intermarriage in the past half-century.

First published at Inn.co.il

לאחרונה, נאמר לנו שוב ושוב כי תחרות היא דבר טוב, במיוחד כשמדובר בשירותי הדת שמספקת הרבנות בישראל. יש טעם לטיעון זה. תחרות נוטה להוריד מחירים, לשפר את השירות ולהפוך את הספק להרבה יותר תגובתי לצרכן. אך מה קורה כאשר התחרות היא פחות מניע כלכלי ויותר ניסיון לערער ולהחליש את הספק המיועד של אותם שירותים? מה אם “תחרות” היא רק סיסמה שמסווה סדר יום ערמומי ומזיק יותר?

      לדוגמה, עיין ברפורמות הכשרות המוצעות. הצהרת אידיאל ה”תחרות” כל כך מטשטשת את ההצעות עד שקשה לברר מה בדיוק מוצע. דו”ח אחד טוען שהרבנות הראשית תישאר המשגיחה על הסטנדרטים גם כאשר יחידים, קבוצות או רבנות מקומיות ינהלו את התקנים הללו. נראה שזה תרגיל נכון של תחרות, אם כי אם כולם מיישמים את אותם סטנדרטים, מה מוסיפה הרפורמה?

לפיכך דיווח אחר מגלה כי הרבנות הראשית תישאר המשגיחה על התקנים – אלא אם כן סוחר או ממסד מסוים יבחר אחרת. במקרה זה, הסטנדרטים אינם קיימים עוד.

      מה שיתפוס את מקומו הוא הצורה המצערת והאומללה של פיקוח הכשרות שהיה קיים שנים רבות בארצות הברית, בה רבנים בודדים נתנו את השגחות – מקומיות או לאומיות – ורבנים שנשאלו על ידי חבריהם באמינותם של המפקחים הללו הצטרכו לחקור את אלה אנשים, אחד אחד. לעתים קרובות התשובות היו “אני לא יודע”, “לא מומלץ”, “אני מכיר אותו, הוא בסדר” או “מעולם לא שמעתי עליו”. לתודעה הדיוטה,  לעתים קרובות הכל היה תלוי כסף, אבל כסף אכן קונה רמה מסוימת של שירות ואמון. זה אכן נכון שאתה יכול לשלם הרבה פחות ל”מפקח “כשרות שמבקר פעם בשנה או לפחות אפשר לשלם לו פחות ממה שישולם ל”מפקח” שמבקר מספר פעמים בשבוע או משגיח במקום בכל יום. אך הצורך לחקור כל רב או קבוצה ואת אמות המידה שלה היה מייגע, לא יעיל ולא מספק.

בנוסף, הסטנדרטים של הכשרות עשויים להיות שונים זה מזה. חלק מההשגחות השפלות או הרודפות בצע יותר משתמשים בקולות (דעות יחידים מובחנות) שרוב צרכני הכשרות לא היו מסתמכים עליהם. ורוב המאמרים מצטטים תלונות של סוחרים על ההשגחה, העלות, המשגיחים וכו ‘, ולעולם אינם מביאים את רגשות המשגיחים או הרבנות או דרישות הכשרות. הסוחר והמפקח על הכשרות הם לא אויבים, בוודאות, אך לכל אחד מהם אינטרסים אחרים שיתנגשו מדי פעם. כמו שהמשגיח לא תמיד צודק, כך גם הסוחר לא תמיד צודק.

        במהלך העשורים, הכשרות באמריקה התאחדה לארבעה ארגונים עיקריים שהסטנדרטים שלהם דומים למדי, ולוועדים מקומיים העומדים בדרך כלל בסטנדרטים של אותם ארגונים. הכשרות הפכה מרוכזת יותר, יעילה יותר ומועילה יותר לצרכן. יש אפילו התאחדות של ארגוני הכשרות שמתכנסת באופן קבוע כדי לפתור בעיות מצטיינות ולדון במדיניות. זוהי הכשרות באמריקה כיום, והמוסדות שמשתמשים בהשגחות פרטניות או בוטיקיות בדרך כלל עושים זאת מסיבה מסוימת, וסיבה זו היא לעתים רחוקות לשפר את רמת הכשרות. כמה מוזר אם כן שמדינת ישראל תרצה לחזור למערכת המפוזרת הישנה האמריקאית-יהודית שהיתה כל כך כאוטית ומבוכה שהיא ננטשה! והכל, לכאורה, בשם התחרות.

מה שבטוח, ישנן רפורמות האפשריות שכן ניתן לשפר כל מערכת, אך היזהרו מחוק  “תוצאות בלתי רצויות.” לדוגמא, זה מגוחך שיש השגחות מרובים על אותו מוצר כמו שזה מגוחך לספק פיקוח כשרות על מים – אבל שניהם כנראה בלתי נמנעים. השגחות מכופלות ומרובות מיותרות ללא ספק, עד שאנו מבינים כי סוחרים משתמשים בהם ככלי שיווקי לקהילות קטנות יחסית מסוימות. זהו פרסום, במהותו, עבור הסוחר ומוצרו או הקמתו לקבוצת משנה של צרכנים. לא היינו מזלזלים בעסק, או מתייחסים ברצינות לתלונות של בעלים, שתוהה מדוע עליו לפרסם בערוץ 12 ובערוץ 20 במקום לפרסם רק בערוץ 20 בלבד. זה עסק, לא תורה, ולסוחר יש את הזכות המוחלטת לומר שהוא משתמש רק בהשגחה אחת, גם אם היא עוקלת את הרחבת בסיס הצרכנים שלו. באופן דומה, הצרכן – מכל סיבה שהיא – יכול להצהיר שהוא ירכוש רק מים עם השגחה מסוימת (מיותר). שיהיה ככה

       עלינו להיות מודעים לחוויה האמריקאית שבה רבות מההצעות הנוכחיות נוסו ולא הצליחו. הגיוני לנסות לשכפל את מה שעובד ולא לשכפל את מה שלא עבד. הגיוני יותר, כאן כמו בתחומים אחרים, אם חוקי שירות המדינה היו מתוקנים כדי לאפשר פיטור ביורוקרטיםמגעילים  או שאינם כשירים. לציבור מגיע יותר טוב, בכל שירותי ציבור.

אותו תרחיש נוגע לגיור, שממשלה זו מבקשת גם לפזר ולהסיר מרשות הרבנות הראשית. באמריקה, “היית שם, עשה את זה”, וגם זה נכשל. היא נכשלה עד כדי כך עד שלפני למעלה מעשור, מועצת הרבנים של אמריקה, בפעולה היצרנית וההשלכותית ביותר שלה בחצי המאה האחרונה, הקימה את “מדיניות ותקנים של גרות” שהפכו את תקני הגירות לאחידים ופיקחו על רשת של עשרות בתי משפט לגיור ברחבי צפון אמריקה. (במשך שבע שנים עמדתי בראש בית דין לגיור בניו ג’רזי והסביבה.) זה עבד מצוין, ועדיין עובד. למי שאינו משתתף ברשת זו בדרך כלל (אך לא תמיד) יש סטנדרטים נמוכים יותר שמטילים ספק בגירות שלהם.

      אי סדר בגירות  אפילו יותר גרוע מאי סדר בכשרות, כי התולדות הן חשובות יותר. אף אחד לא רוצה ליצור מצב שבו הגירות הן צבועות ולא הגונות באופן שגרתי, אינן דורשות קבלת מצוות ומקדם דחיית זהותם היהודית של “גרים” על ידי רוב ציבור התורני מכיוון שהסטנדרטים לא היו מספקים או שהשופטים אינם מקובלים. זה גם לא עבד באמריקה, וגם זה השתנה לטובה. מדוע ישראל תיישם כאן מערכת ישנה שנכשלה שם?

      עם כל הכבוד, איש לא אישר למתן כהנא או לכנסת לקבוע מיהו יהודי. הם בהחלט יכולים לפסוק מיהו ישראלי, אך “מיהו יהודי” הוא עניין של דיני תורה שייקבע על ידי פוסקי ההלכה, ולא על ידי פוליטיקאים.  לפוליטיקאים יש סמכות באותה מידה לשנות את הגדרת היהדות על ידי שינוי תקני הגיור כמו שיש להם סמכות להעביר את שבת מיום שביעי ליום שלישי.

תחרות אינה טובה בכל הקשר. ואם זה היה, ואנחנו מאוהבים בקלישאת “התחרות”, להלן דוגמאות נוספות שבהן עשויה להיות תחרות בשירותי הממשלה.

      מדוע רישיונות נהיגה צריכים להינתן רק על ידי משרד התחבורה? לעתים קרובות, ישנן תלונות על אופן ניהול הבדיקות, על העלויות הכרוכות בכך ועל האקראיות שבהן עוברים או נכשלים. גם את זה אפשר להפריט, הכל בשם התחרות.

      מדוע אין תחרות בהנחיות הממשלה בנושא התמודדות עם נגיף הקורונה? מדוע עלינו לשים לב ל”מומחים” של הממשלה אשר גורמים לנו לזגג ולזגזג כשהם אינם דורשים שנרוץ במעגלים מבולבלים לגמרי, שעצותיהם משתנות מדי שבוע, מדי יום ולפעמים מספר פעמים ביום? תהיה לנו תחרות גם בתחום הזה. יש לי הרבה מומחים שיכולים להדריך אותי. אני לא מעריך את מונופול המומחים של הממשלה.

       כשחושבים על זה, מדוע עלינו להסתמך על משרד הפנים שיפקח על כניסתם של קרובי משפחה מדרגה ראשונה לישראל במהלך משבר זה? הטיפול בעניין זה היה בלתי כשיר להחריד – מפותל, שרירותי ולא יעיל. החוקים והטפסים ממשיכים להשתנות (שלושה משרדים שונים כבר השתתפו והטפסים השתנו חמש פעמים), וגם זה ייהנה מתחרות מהמגזר הפרטי. ארגון “ידלעולים” שלהרב  דב ליפמן עשה עבודה נפלאה בכדי להגיע למקום בו הממשלה נפלה, וכך גם ארגון “עמודים”. שניהם יעשו עבודה טובה יותר באישור אישורים שהממשלה עושה. והכל בשם התחרות.

יתר על כן, אנשים רבים אינם מרוצים מההחלטות של בית המשפט העליון בישראל או ממדיניות החוץ של ישראל. מדוע על הממשלה לשמור על מונופול בענייני חוץ, במיוחד כאשר לא ברור שהיא מייצגת אפילו את רוב האוכלוסייה? מדוע בית משפט שבכלל לא מייצג את האוכלוסייה צריך להיות מוסמך באופן בלעדי לקבל החלטות המשפיעות על חיינו? ישנם אנשים רבים בעלי רעיונות נפלאים אשר אינם מורשים כיום לדבר למען מדינת ישראל או לדון בתיקים. אפילו תחרות קטנה תועיל גם כאן.

     היינו עונים שלממשלה תמיד יש מונופול על מתן שירותים מסוימים. זה מפני שהאלטרנטיבה למונופול ממשלתי מכונה אנרכיה. ואולי בו טמון המפתח. אנשים היו מתייחסים בחיוב לאנרכיה רק  באספקת שירותים שלדעתם לא חשובים – או אם הם רוצים לפרק את הישות המנהלת את השירותים האלה.

      הניסיון להסיר את ניהול הכשרות והגיור (ומי יודע מה עוד?) מהרבנות הראשית הוא מאמץ סמוי לפרק אותה לחלוטין. הוא מגלה חזון של יהדות כישות תרבותית גרידא חסרת מהות, מנדטים, אלוהות או כל חשיבות אמיתית, ותדלל את עצם הרעיון של מדינה יהודית. בדרך כלל מעודדים תחרות כאשר העניין בעניין אינו נחשב לחשוב כל כך.

כל מחלקה ממשלתית יכולה להפיק תועלת מתחרות, אך איננו מאפשרים זאת כאשר אנרכיה תביא לכך והשירות הניתן נחשב קריטי לתפקוד החברה. אז חיזקו את הרבנות הראשית במקום לערער אותה. צריך לתת דין וחשבון לבירוקרטים ולא לנפח עוד יותר את הבירוקרטיה. לקדם את קיום התורה וההלכה במקום להשקות אותו. אל תיצור אנרכיה בכשרות, גיור, נישואין או גירושין – אפילו בשם הערך המפוקפק של תחרות.

     Recently, we have been told repeatedly that competition is a good thing, especially when it comes to the religious services provided by the Rabbinate in Israel. There is merit to that argument. Competition tends to keep prices down, improve service and make the provider much more responsive to the consumer. But what happens when competition is less of an economic driver and more of an attempt to undermine and weaken the designated provider of those services? What if “competition” is just a slogan that masks a more devious and damaging agenda?

      For example, look at the kashrut reforms being proposed. Trumpeting the ideal of “competition” so obscures the proposals that it is difficult to ascertain what exactly is being proposed. One report claims that the Chief Rabbinate will remain the overseer of standards even as individuals, groups or local rabbinates will administer those standards. That would seem to be a proper exercise of competition, although if everyone is implementing the same standards, what does the reform add?

       Thus another report reveals that the Chief Rabbinate will remain the overseer of standards – unless a particular merchant or establishment chooses otherwise and has the support of three rabbis. In which case, the standards no longer exist.

      What will take its place is the execrable form of kashrut supervision that existed for many years in the United States in which individual rabbis gave hashgachot – local or national – and rabbis asked by their congregants as to the reliability of these supervisors would have to investigate these people, one by one. Often the answers were “I don’t know,” “not recommended,” “I know him, he’s OK,” or “I never heard of him.” To the lay mind, it often came down to money but money does buy a certain level of service and trust. It is indeed true that you can pay much less to a kashrut “supervisor” who visits once a year or at least less than would be paid to a “supervisor” who visits several times a week. But the need to investigate each rabbi or group and its standards was tedious, inefficient, and unsatisfactory.

       Additionally, kashrut standards could widely diverge as well. Some of the more indolent or mercenary hashgachot utilize leniencies (distinct minority opinions) on which most kashrut consumers would not rely. And most of the articles cite complaints of merchants about the hashgacha, the cost, the mashgichim, etc., and never cite the sentiments of the mashgichim or the Rabbinate or the demands of kashrut. The merchant and the kashrut supervisor are not enemies, for sure, but each has different interests that will occasionally clash. Just like the mashgiach is not always right, so too the merchant is not always right.

        Over the decades, kashrut in America coalesced into four main organizations whose standards are quite similar, and local vaadim who usually follow the standards of those organizations. Kashrut became more centralized, more efficient, and more beneficial for the consumer. There is even an association of the kashrut professionals that meets regularly to resolve outstanding issues and discuss policies. That is kashrut in America today, and those establishments that utilize individual or boutique hashgachot usually do it for a reason, and that reason is rarely to improve the level of kashrut. How odd, then, that Israel would want to revert to the old American-Jewish decentralized system that was so chaotic that it was abandoned!

      For sure, there are reforms that are possible as any system can be improved, but beware the law of unintended consequences. For example, it is as ridiculous to have multiple hashgachot on the same product as it is to provide kosher supervision for water – but both are probably unavoidable. Multiple hashgachot are obviously redundant, until we realize that merchants use them as marketing tools to niche communities. It is advertising, in essence, for the merchant and his product or establishment to a sub-group of consumers. We wouldn’t castigate the business, or take seriously the complaints of a proprietor, who wonders why he has to advertise on Channel 12 and Channel 20 instead of just Channel 20 alone. That is business, not Torah, and the merchant has the absolute right to say he uses only one hashgacha, even if it forecloses expanding his consumer base. Similarly, the consumer – for whatever reason – can declare that he will only purchase water with a particular (unnecessary) hashgacha. So be it.

       We should be mindful of the American experience where many of the current proposals have been tried and have not succeeded. It is sensible to try to duplicate what works rather than duplicate what did not work. It would make more sense, here as in other areas, if the Civil Service laws were amended to allow for the termination of bureaucrats who were incompetent or nasty. The public deserves better.

       The same scenario pertains to conversion, which this government would also like to decentralize and remove from the authority of the Chief Rabbinate. In America, “been there, done that,” and that too failed. It failed so miserably that well over a decade ago, the Rabbinical Council of America, in its most productive and consequential act in the last half-century, instituted the “Gerus Policies and Standards” that made conversion standards uniform and oversaw a network of a dozen conversion courts throughout North America. (For seven years, I headed the Bet Din that oversaw New Jersey and environs.) It worked splendidly, and still does. Those who do not participate in that network usually (but not always) have lower standards that correctly call into question their conversions.

      To have disorder in conversions is even worse than disorder in kashrut because the stakes are greater. No one wants to create a situation where conversions are routinely insincere, do not require an acceptance of mitzvot, and promote the rejection of people’s Jewish identity by most Jews because the standards were insufficient or the judges unacceptable. That also didn’t work in America, and it was changed for the better. Why would Israel implement here an old system that failed there?

      With all due respect, no one authorized Matan Kahane or the Knesset to determine who is a Jew. They can certainly adjudicate who is an Israeli, but “who is a Jew” is a matter of Jewish law to be determined by the decisors of Jewish law, not politicians. They have as much authority to change the definition of Jewishness by altering conversion standards as they do to move Shabbat from Saturday to Tuesday.

      Competition is not good in every context. And if it was, and we are enamored with the “competition” cliché, here are additional examples where competition in government services might pertain.

      Why should driver’s licenses be granted only by the Ministry of Transportation? Quite frequently, there are complaints about how tests are administered, the costs involved, and the randomness of passing or failing. That too could be privatized, all in the name of competition.

      Why isn’t there competition in the government’s guidance on dealing with the Coronavirus? Why must we heed the government’s “experts” who have us zigging and zagging when they are not demanding that we run in circles totally confused, whose advice changes weekly, daily, and sometimes several times a day? We should have competition as well in that sphere. I have plenty of experts who can guide me. I don’t appreciate the government’s monopoly of experts.

       Come to think of it, why must we rely on the Ministry of the Interior to oversee the admission of first-degree relatives to Israel during this crisis? The handling of this matter has been appallingly incompetent – convoluted, arbitrary and inefficient. The rules and forms keep changing (three different ministries have already become involved and the forms have changed five times), and this too would benefit from competition from the private sector. Dov Lipman’s Yadlolim organization has done wonderful work stepping in where the government has fallen short, as has the organization “Amudim.” Both would do a better job in approving permits that the government is doing.

     Furthermore, many people are displeased by the decisions of Israel’s Supreme Court or Israel’s foreign policy. Why should the government retain a monopoly on foreign affairs, especially when it is unclear that it even represents a majority of the populace? Why should a Court that is unrepresentative of the population be exclusively authorized to make decisions that impact on our lives? There are many people with wonderful ideas who are not currently authorized to speak for the State of Israel or adjudicate cases. Even a little competition would be beneficial here as well.

     We would answer that government always has a monopoly on the provision of certain services for the alternative to government monopoly is known as anarchy. And perhaps therein lies the key. People would only countenance anarchy in the provision of services that they deem unimportant – or if they wish to dismantle the entity that administers those services.

      The attempt to strip the administration of kashrut and conversion (and who knows what else?) from the Chief Rabbinate is a thinly-concealed effort to dismantle it entirely. It betrays a vision of Judaism as a purely cultural entity that lacks substance, mandates, divinity or any real importance, and will dilute the very notion of a Jewish state. Competition is encouraged usually when the matter at hand is not considered that important.

      Every element of government could benefit from competition but we do not allow it when anarchy would result and the service provided is considered critical to society’s functioning. So strengthen the Chief Rabbinate rather than undermine it. Hold the bureaucrats accountable rather than further bloat the bureaucracy. Promote the observance of Jewish law rather than water it down. Don’t create anarchy in kashrut, conversion, marriage or divorce – even in the name of the dubious value of competition.