The Halakhic Tragedy of Our Time: The Chief Rabbinate and the Appointment of Women Rabbis (Column 648)
Following a piece I read a few weeks ago about yet another decision by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel (those whom government officials consult for rulings in the laws of decay, nepotism, and corruption—always good to learn from the very best) to appoint women to the body that elects the two heads of this sorry institution. This raised a question about appointing women as rabbis, which I also wish to address here, after providing some background.
To those who know me: the cynicism here expresses bitter pain. When the verse is fulfilled among us, “Your princes are rebellious and companions of thieves; every one loves bribes and follows after rewards; they judge not the fatherless, neither does the cause of the widow come unto them,” and no one speaks up; when Torah girds sackcloth in the public square and its representatives trample it underfoot with haughty pride, sated with self-satisfaction—naturally, one turns to cynicism. Lest there be misunderstanding: this is not a Purim drosha but one for the approaching Tisha B’Av.
Background: The Electing Body and the Supreme Court’s Decision
The body that elects those two who, through no fault of their own, are called the “Chief Rabbis of Israel,” includes 80 rabbis. The law states that these will be “rabbis to be appointed by the Chief Rabbis of Israel, in consultation with the minister and with the approval of the government.” You can understand what that means. The two Chief Rabbis—appointed thanks to their fathers who were themselves Chief Rabbis (according to those decisors who hold that a rabbinate is inheritable even when the candidates are unworthy)—personally see to the continuation of this glorious chain and “restore the crown to its former glory”: ensuring that those next in line will be their sons, brothers, friends, or simply their loyal beneficiaries (for example, those who will continue to look after the profitability of the “Beit Yosef” kashrut). All of this must be done in consultation with the minister (of religious affairs), who of course is always an independent figure from… Shas. This is, after all, their registered property, and they do well to preserve it lest, Heaven forbid, we transgress the prohibition of diverting an inheritance; as is known, the sin of theft dances at the head, God spare us…
Now then, about five months ago, the Supreme Court heard a petition by various organizations to require the Rabbinate to include women among those 80 rabbis. The Supreme Court, with characteristic vigor and activism, decided that the Chief Rabbinate must consider appointing women to the body that elects the Chief Rabbis. Note well: they ruled that the term “rabbis” in the election law does not exclude appointing women. The Court did not even order them to appoint women, but rather held that the language of the law allows their appointment. This is a terrifyingly activist innovation, and no wonder it outrages all the great lights of the generation.
Needless to say, this is a bizarre ruling. I think they are a bit confused up there. The Rabbinate did not ask the Court’s permission to appoint women. Had it wanted to, it would have done so on its own. Believe it or not, I have no doubt that the High Court of Justice would not have stopped them due to some conservative reading of the law’s language, nor would it have built a dam standing firm against the Chief Rabbinate’s rampaging liberalism. The Rabbinate has refrained from doing this not because it interprets the law as applying only to men, but because it is chauvinistic and monopolistic—plain and simple (and perhaps simply because those illustrious families lack enough women to populate the electoral body). After all, the cat must somehow guard the cream. If we don’t safeguard it, Heaven forfend, we might see appointed to head this family estate rabbis who are not from the Yosef, Lau, or Deri families (and, bediavad, the Eliyahu or Shapira clans), and the like. As noted, this would be a clear prohibition of diverting/ transferring an estate and encroaching upon the border set by the first ones (namely, their father). See here for a brief review of how the owners conduct themselves on their estate. Legally, the petition sought to require the Rabbinate to do this. That it is legally permitted and possible—they know that themselves. And if we discuss the halakhah, the Supreme Court cannot issue halakhic directives to the Rabbinate (though in my opinion their halakhic abilities sometimes surpass those of the Rabbinate). So what exactly did the justices intend in this bizarre ruling? I have no idea.
Justice Daphne Barak-Erez reasoned that the electoral assembly is not a halakhic forum, and therefore there is no justification for not appointing women to it. That is, it is clear to her that women cannot be appointed to a halakhic body, but she argues this is not one. That strikes me as odd: if women can fit within the statutory language as “rabbis,” then why can’t they integrate into a halakhic body? And if they cannot be part of a rabbinic body because they are not rabbis, how can they be considered “rabbis” for purposes of the electoral body? True, one could contort her words with tongs upon tongs, and they might harmonize in toto, but just now I found yet another contradiction in this ruling—though today we put person against person. Justice Barak-Erez writes that the term “rabbis” is not limited to those certified by the Chief Rabbinate (which of course stubbornly refuses to certify women even without appointing them to rabbinic positions, thereby neatly closing the monopolistic circle). She adds that, in fact, in the past, men who lacked such certification were chosen for the electoral body. Her conclusion is that a “rav” in this context is “a teacher, one who instructs his student” (say, a rebbe in the cheder, or the “sports rabbi” or “geography rabbi” in a religious junior high). If such luminaries can be appointed, then why should women be excluded?! Are they not capable of teaching geography or reading and writing in a cheder? Oops—actually, not even that. Perhaps this excuses my earlier difficulty (why they cannot integrate into a halakhic body): they may indeed teach the Torah of geography to students, but certainly not as learned scholars and decisors. Certainly not on the exalted level that characterizes the members of the aforesaid electoral body, and even less so with the requisite pedigree (a great-grandchild of our teacher, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, of blessed memory, or our master Aryeh Deri, may he live long—before whom no secret can remain hidden).
In any case, I saw that Justice Mintz, in dissent, argued against Barak-Erez that only someone with certification can be appointed to the electoral body (otherwise how will they ensure he belongs to one of the dynasties with title to the estate?!). But if Barak-Erez is correct that in the past men without certification were appointed, I do not understand how one can advance that claim. Well, I missed something again. Perhaps in the distant past the Rabbinate was in violation—though I find that very hard to believe about them—but good that at least now they have mended their ways, and where penitents stand… is due to crowding (duchka de-kallah).
But our saga is only beginning. Now comes the Rabbinate’s handling of this activist ruling of the Supreme Court. Don’t go anywhere.
The Rabbinate’s Decision
At its last meeting under Maran Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, may he live, before he formally goes on to serve with splendor as the head of Shas (which he has done informally until now—unlike his father, who did so formally during his tenure until rebuked by the High Court and forced to resign from the bench), the Rabbinate discussed the matter substantively, as is its way, and decided that… it is impossible. Tell me something new. In a report on this revolutionary and surprising session, I saw wondrous things that would shake every heart; I address them below. But before reading, please contemplate the picture above to fulfill “and your eyes shall see your teachers,” in the spirit of “Listen, you rebels, shall we bring forth water for you from this rock?”—and “water” means Torah. From these rebellious “teachers” no Torah issues forth—not even by chance.
For the benefit of the holy public, I must bring the quotation in full, for it is full of all good things:
| Regarding the Court’s demands to consider appointing women as members of the electoral body, the Council of the Chief Rabbinate decided as follows:
1. The Council of the Chief Rabbinate hereby clarifies that according to halakhah there is no halakhic possibility of appointing women to the position of rabbi; likewise, even consideration of appointing a woman to the position of rabbi is forbidden, as it acknowledges that a woman can bear a rabbinic position—something contrary to the position of halakhic decisors and the greats of the generations and the Chief Rabbis through the generations. I don’t know if the garbling is the reporter’s or in the original, but this passage is rather hard to read. See more below. 2. The Council of the Chief Rabbinate calls on the government to act to reverse the Court’s decision, including by legislative amendment, so that there not be a breach in the vineyard of Israel \[“the vineyard of Israel,” i.e., that private estate of the aforesaid family syndicate. We have learned that apparently this is a vineyard, not an irrigated field]. 3. The Legal Department of the Chief Rabbinate will contact the legal authorities and clarify the halakhic position of the Chief Rabbinate that appointing a woman to the position of rabbi is halakhically forbidden, and therefore one must labor to find a solution consistent with Jewish law \[= that is, consistent with the interests of the aforesaid family syndicate in its estate; may their inheritance never be diverted]. Incidentally, the legal problem that so troubles them actually has a rather simple solution: the Rabbinate’s Legal Department should approach the legal authorities to change the law and allow appointment of someone who is not a rabbi, and Zion will be redeemed. How did geniuses like these not think of that themselves?! It was further stated that “the Council of the Chief Rabbinate was taken by complete surprise by the Justice Ministry’s decision to end immediately the tenure of several city rabbis without sufficient notice \[= after all, they need time to find other employment at age ninety. How many positions can one hand out in the ‘Beit Yosef’ kashrut or the ‘El Hama’ayan’ network?! Moreover, the Haredi Independent Education Network has gone bankrupt. But fear not, they’re on it.] and despite having been elected for an unlimited term \[did we not already say: the inheritance shall not be diverted?!!!] and after decades of service and dedication to the public \[= indeed]. The Council hereby calls on those responsible in the Justice Ministry to cancel the decision to end unexpectedly the tenure of rabbis elected before the year 5734 and to act immediately to restore them to their positions. They do this while the office of Chief Rabbi passes by heredity within the illustrious families and their cronies, and while the appointments just now made suffer from severe nepotism—all, of course, for the benefit of the public \[= indeed], now being litigated in court (just now it was sent to me that Justice Elyakim Rubinstein wrote as much this morning, albeit gently, as is his way). It is worth recalling that Rabbi Ovadia ran against Rabbi Nissim while the latter was in office, and when his own term ended after ten years (under a law advanced by Moshe Nissim, the son of… Rabbi Nissim) he suddenly remembered that a rabbinic tenure is for life and one may not remove a rabbi from office while he yet lives. To his chagrin, he was nevertheless forced in the end to resign (see details here). And let me add the decision not to extend Rabbi Aryeh Stern’s tenure in Jerusalem because he reached age seventy. For some reason, there, “Jewish law” (i.e., the interests of the illustrious families) is what took us all by complete surprise. In closing remarks to the session, Rabbi Yosef said to the Council members: ‘We stood up to the task \[translation: we safeguarded the estate, thank God]—there were many affairs concerning conversion and kashrut, and we stood up to the task \[i.e., we protected our corrupt monopoly] and all thanks to the rabbis, members of the Council; there was always cooperation among the rabbis and all decisions were adopted unanimously; all were of one opinion and counsel \[how lovely. Well, it seems when everyone is appointed by the same authority and comes from the same family or its cronies and looks after the same interest, decisions are indeed unanimous. It is the way of the world that a self-interested monopoly reaches decisions thus. Too bad that under the Jewish law I know (as opposed to the “Jewish law” of the Chief Rabbinate), unanimous decisions are actually grounds to invalidate them—at least in capital cases]. Fortunate are you and your portion; continue \[should read: begin] further to sanctify \[should read: to desecrate] His Name in public and \[thus perhaps] you will merit \[someday, in the future, when you repent—as it is said: “Let sins cease”—not sinners] commandments, and to magnify and glorify Torah.’ He added: ‘We pray, in the name of the Council of the Chief Rabbinate, for all the soldiers on the front in the north and the south \[poor soldiers. Before this, the Holy One, blessed be He, thought to save them; but after such a prayer, He surely reconsidered]; every day we hear of tragedies; we are in sorrow; every day soldiers are killed, every day soldiers are wounded; we were at a prayer rally at the Kotel with wounded soldiers and saw terrible sights of soldiers without legs or without arms; the soldiers are giving their lives; we must strengthen the people of Israel with prayer and Torah \[but Heaven forbid with conscription, God spare us. Let that thought never be spoken—otherwise we will all flee abroad]. In our synagogue, we recite chapters of Psalms daily for the soldiers’ success. I call on all rabbis to lead the recitation of Psalms for the success of Israel’s soldiers.’ \[And I, the least of men, beg them not to call. I very much want my children and sons-in-law to return home safely. M.A.] The Council session concluded with the recitation of Psalms, led by the Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi David Lau, together with the members of the Council, for the success of the security forces, the recovery of the wounded, and the speedy return of the hostages \[= it must be “speedy,” so they can all arrive before we receive the Israel Prize and flee abroad]. Now I understand why we are failing in this war at every turn: simply, the Chief Rabbinate prayed for our success. Not even the Holy One, blessed be He, can stand with them (otherwise they will depose Him too. And the a fortiori holds: if a sitting Chief Rabbi can be deposed in his lifetime, how much more so the living God while He still reigns!). |
Before I turn to discuss the (so-called) halakhic “ruling” on appointing women rabbis, one more historical note.
Precedents and Predictions: The Shakdiel Case and Women’s Suffrage
It is impossible not to recall a strikingly parallel case concerning appointing women to the “rabbinic” office on a local religious council. As is well known, members of religious councils throughout the land are all blinding Torah luminaries who dim the sun’s light. One fine day, a brazen woman named Leah Shakdiel (full disclosure: a friend of ours) from Yeruham dared to apply to the religious council in her town. There arose an uproar, and not for nothing is the case remembered to this day in the annals of our blood-soaked nation (as it is said: “Then for the rite…” etc.). The land quaked and trembled. How could a woman be appointed to so exalted a public office as membership in the Yeruham religious council?! Heavens, listen—and earth, give ear—for the donkey has spoken. The Chief Rabbinate of course “ruled” that such a thing could not be considered. A wall-to-wall rabbinic consensus across all shades decreed that this was a case to fight, for it meant the destruction of halakhah handed down to us from our rabbis generation to generation. I still remember that amusing consensus as if it were today. Note: we are not talking about appointing a woman to a rabbinic position, or even appointing a “rabbi” as part of the chief-rabbinate electoral body (as in our case). Here we spoke of appointing a woman to an organ providing religious services to the people of Yeruham. It’s like appointing a female religious liaison in a battalion to distribute wine for Shabbat. Has such a thing ever been heard?! What, in Heaven’s name, could be problematic about that? Our “Torah of truth” has the answers.
Happily, the Supreme Court did not buy this tall tale, and in a panel that included the (then only) religious justice, Menachem Elon, it unanimously held that these were nonsense and that there was no legal—and not even halakhic (!)—bar to appointing a woman to this exalted religious position. At long last there was someone in the judiciary who understands halakhah. Apparently the Chief Rabbinate has few such people.
And behold, immediately thereafter the noise died down and the world fell silent. No bird chirped and no swan swanned. Women were appointed to religious councils across the universe, including Yeruham, and the world did not collapse. What’s more, not only was there acceptance of the reality—the terrible “prohibition” itself vanished. To this day no one remarks upon this grave prohibition that has been brazenly trampled by all the faithful of Israel who appoint women to religious councils, Heaven forfend. Years later, when I was already in Yeruham, the Haredi community there supported the appointment of a traditional woman to the religious council against a religious man!!! And I was left astonished: where did that “prohibition” go? And what became of the damage to the vineyard of Israel? I must note that the statements back then were far harsher than the drivel I quoted above. It begins with a grave prohibition of “be killed rather than transgress” and cries of damage to the vineyard of Israel, and within a day everything fades into thin silence as if it never was. Well, at least we tried! Someone else will now hoe the vineyard of the House of Israel.
I have no doubt the same will happen here. Soon, with God’s help, the electoral body will be suffused with light as the noble women of the Yosef, Lau, and Deri families take their seats, and all will return to its place in peace. You will surely ask: why from those families in particular? After the “women” correction, won’t this be corrected too? Absolutely not. We may overcome the stumbling block of women, but the inheritance will not, Heaven forbid, be diverted. There is halakhah, and there is “halakhah.” Some things can be compromised; some things—whose sanctity surpasses all—cannot. Women—acceptable, but only from the right families. “And I saw the entire people sitting by their families.” Truly, how splendid was the sight of the High Priest.
It is worth mentioning here the matter of women’s suffrage (and here on the situation in Israel and in Judaism). As is known, most rabbis vehemently opposed granting such a right to women. For some reason, I do not hear today Haredi or Hardal voices (Rabbi Kook also opposed) or the Chief Rabbinate calling on righteous women to act according to the tradition of our forefathers and the rulings of our rabbis on this grave matter (and thus, of course, to give up half their electorate and power in the Knesset). To be elected they still cannot, of course, in the Haredi parties to this day—but their votes they do not forgo. Interesting, isn’t it? Apparently the holy tradition and the grave prohibitions of heresy that we received from our luminous sages occasionally tolerate change—when needed. The only question is: for what need? (Preventing diversion of the inheritance or amassing political power—yes. Preserving halakhah and preventing desecration of God’s Name—most certainly not.) To be clear, I do not criticize the rabbis back then—well into the twentieth century this was the accepted norm even among gentiles. I do criticize the fools who cling to archaic norms long since obsolete, claiming this is the tradition of our fathers and presenting it as settled halakhah even though that is utterly false—yet doing so selectively, only when it suits them.
Appointing Women Rabbis and Women’s Qualification
The Rabbinate’s decision is quoted in the article, and these are their pearls (section 1):
The Council of the Chief Rabbinate hereby clarifies that according to halakhah there is no halakhic possibility of appointing women to the position of rabbi; likewise, even consideration of appointing a woman to the position of rabbi is forbidden, as it acknowledges that a woman can bear a rabbinic position—something contrary to the position of halakhic decisors and the greats of the generations and the Chief Rabbis through the generations.
As I noted, this passage is quite hard to read (I do not know if these manglings are in the original or only in the article). I am not speaking only of the odd redundancy that “according to halakhah there is no halakhic possibility” to do something. I cannot make sense of the sentence about “consideration of appointing a woman to the position of rabbi.” Who considered, and where? Perhaps they mean that the Council is forbidden to comply with the High Court’s request and even to try to consider appointing a woman as a rabbi, because the very consideration is heresy against the position of decisors and greats of the generations, etc. But who asked them to consider appointing a woman as a rabbi? The issue is appointing a woman to the electoral body. The law speaks of “rabbis,” but nobody asked them to appoint her as a rabbi. On the contrary, we saw in the Court’s ruling that, in the justices’ view, the term “rabbis” in this context is not a halakhic term and this is not about appointing women as rabbis. The Rabbinate apparently has a different interpretation of the law—and they are the legal experts, not the Supreme Court justices. And altogether, did this very meeting not deliberate whether to do so? So did they consider—or not?
But let us leave aside the silliness of terminology and phrasing, the misunderstandings of the Court’s ruling, and the limping arguments they splashed on paper. Let us turn to the bizarre rationale they offered. The deep halakhic reasoning was that this “contradicts the position of halakhic decisors and the greats of the generations and the Chief Rabbis through the generations.” That’s it—that’s the reasoning. I have never heard such a halakhic rationale. Is there any source that forbids it? Why was it not brought? A prohibition must be grounded in halakhah, not in the opinion of this or that rabbi, however great. Once there is a source that forbids, one may bring the interpretations of great authorities. If the greats of the generations did not like pickled herring, does that make it a prohibition one must not transgress? The greats of the generations also did not agree that women study Torah—not even Ḥumash and Mishnah. Why is it permitted to deviate from their view there? Why does a change in circumstances in our era justify changed norms there—at least ones that have not a shred to do with halakhah? And that is precisely the case here as well, just like women’s suffrage and their service on religious councils. I hope and predict this is a rearguard battle, and in the end they will retreat from this “grave prohibition” as they did from its predecessors.
Another problem—beyond the inherently bizarre, corrupt, and desecrating position—is their taking God’s Name in vain under the banner of halakhah. They declare a neutral matter to be halakhically forbidden without any rationale—and then retreat and do it in practice. This turns halakhah into a laughingstock and itself causes a great desecration of God’s Name—and rightly so. Both because it has nothing to do with halakhah, and because if some ignoramus in the Chief Rabbinate thinks it does, then he ought to be consistent and refrain even when inconvenient or contrary to his interests. Do not forget: we adhere to the position of the greats of the generations and the Chief Rabbis through the generations. Let me remind that the first Chief Rabbi (Rabbi Kook) opposed women voting (and also opposed Ashkenazim praying with a Sephardi accent).
I have written before that the policy of decisors to describe something not recommended as a halakhic prohibition—a prevalent practice in our circles, sadly—is very serious. Beyond the halakhic prohibition of “bal tosif” (adding to the Torah), it breeds contempt for halakhic determinations generally. Everyone sees this is a cynical use of halakhah, easily changed when convenient. So why should anyone take genuine halakhic claims seriously? For example, that homosexual relations are halakhically forbidden—or any other halakhic claim. No wonder the public treats that as a caprice of conservatives who misuse the crown. After all, the rabbis do here whatever they wish.
This is the message of the well-known midrash Rashi cites about Eve and the serpent (Genesis 3:3–4):
“Nor shall you touch it”—she added to the command; therefore she came to detract, as it is said (Prov. 30:6), “Do not add to His words.” “You will not surely die”—he pushed her until she touched it and said to her: just as there is no death in touching, so there is no death in eating.
Eve told the serpent that God had commanded not to touch the tree (whereas He had commanded only not to eat of it), and the serpent pushed her; she touched the tree and nothing happened. From this the serpent proved there is no prohibition and one does not die thereby, as Eve said. And what was the end? Consequently, Eve ate of the tree as well; that is, after she expanded the front, even what truly was forbidden no longer commanded trust. She came to transgress what God had indeed commanded. This is the cost of expansions of the front of the sort I described.
The greats of the generations’ opposition to appointing women as rabbis also lacked a halakhic basis. It was the social norm of that era (as with the right to vote and be elected)—and nothing more. Opposition to appointing converts to positions of authority seems to me similar to the alleged prohibition on appointing converts to office (see my essay on the matter, where I show this is a social norm, not a prohibition). Regarding women as judges, there are even Tosafists who wrote it is permitted (from Deborah the prophetess, who judged Israel. See column 70). But in the State of Israel today such a position is surely absurd—for women can serve as judges, prime ministers, ministers, and police and army officers—yet in the electoral body of the Chief Rabbinate, or in the Yeruham religious council, this is an exalted authority and thus halakhically forbidden to women. Any sensible person understands that a woman can be prime minister—but not a member of the Yeruham religious council. One might perhaps argue it on grounds of modesty, but such a consideration is surely circumstance-dependent. Why, then, under our new circumstances, must we cling to it? Shall we also refrain from driving cars because the greats of the generations did not drive? Perhaps we should use the remedies recommended in the Talmud because the greats recommended them?
On the margins, I must add one more anecdote (see it discussed in column 485): Prof. Halivni Weiss left the Conservative movement over a dispute about appointing women as rabbis. I wrote there that this is bizarre, for the Conservatives do things that flatly contradict accepted halakhah, and he leaves them over a policy that entails no halakhic prohibition (only runs contrary to longstanding practice). In this he shared the Rabbinate’s view that what has been customary since time immemorial must be preserved even when circumstances have changed.
This is a primitive and childish conception of halakhah. If we are speaking of custom—indeed, custom has significance, but custom is not halakhah. Customs, by nature, change as circumstances change. Just as a custom is born ex nihilo and altered the prior status quo, so too can a new custom arise and alter the current state. And certainly when that custom harms people and groups, and when harms flow from preserving it (a desecration of God’s Name, among others), there is no reason in the world to preserve it. And to present it as a halakhic prohibition is a lie that also involves the prohibition of “bal tosif”—and, of course, it is simply harm to women and to all of us and a terrible desecration of God’s Name. But the Chief Rabbinate’s main contribution to Judaism and to religious life in the State of Israel is precisely the desecration of God’s Name. So who says they have no successes?!
In conclusion, I return to Tisha B’Av and Lamentations (5:8): “Slaves rule over us; none delivers us out of their hand.”
Discussion
Indeed.
Thank you, Rabbi Michael, for your words, which are so important, and in general for the courage to write the truth without fear.
All this connects in a wonderful and sad way to the farce and mockery that recently took place with the rabbis' committee for choosing the Religious Zionist candidate for the Chief Rabbinate. There too, politicians hungry for power have their hands stirring the pot.
Alas. Look and see our disgrace.
Alas, what has become of us.
Let us not forget the last committee for appointing dayanim; nepotism was celebrated there far more.
We have only the Written Torah; the Oral Torah is a human creation, and as the human material deteriorates, so does it.
You have no Written Torah without the Oral Torah.
This was brought up in the column.
No courage is needed. I pay no price for this because I am not dependent on them. One only has to free oneself from childish dreams about a Chief Rabbinate that will represent Judaism in the state. People who do not join me are not lacking courage but lacking vision and imagination. They cannot imagine a state without a rabbinate, in which Judaism would be in a much better condition.
I object to calling two different concepts by identical names and different adjectives. For example, one could say that the IDF is physical protection and Torah study is spiritual protection, and there is no physical protection without spiritual protection.
The Torah that was given to Moses is the Torah. What is called the Oral Torah is the interpretation, but to define it as Torah is to place the two things under the same authority, and then, for example among the Haredim, it becomes simple that what the gedolim say is more binding than what is written in the Torah.
I completely agree that they are corrupt.
But regarding changing the policy toward women, it is a bit more complicated, since the status of women in the Haredi/Hardali public still has not moved, so they do not really understand that option.
One must remember that being conservative is not corruption but a strategy for how to work with a public.
It is not so clear to me what desecration of God's name there is here. If I observe halakhah and it doesn't look good to a secular person, am I desecrating God's name?
Even if they do not change the policy, they must honestly say that this is policy and not halakhah. Therefore their claim is a lie.
The corruption is the lie and the desecration of God's name, not necessarily the conservatism (although when it is baseless, there is also desecration of God's name in that).
The desecration of God's name is the lie (presenting what is not halakhah as halakhah), especially since this is bound to become known, as happened in the past regarding religious councils and voting rights.
As far as I know, I am not secular. Desecration of God's name is in my eyes, not only in the eyes of a secular person.
One of the Thirteen Principles is that the Oral Torah was given to Moses at Sinai.
All of Judaism is built on the Oral Torah; it is very interesting how you know what tefillin are without the Oral Torah…
And the laws of Shabbat…
And more and more.
You are confusing the Oral Torah that was transmitted from generation to generation with the interpretation of it.
Look at the rabbi's previous column; he touches on this point there. Very highly recommended.
How would the state of Judaism be better without them? Do they not help by ensuring that masses of the House of Israel eat kosher food? By preventing assimilation? By burying Jews? There is more corruption in the government; does that mean the government should be shut down?
Thank you very much, Rabbi, for the column.
Honestly, I want to know: do you not think that without the rabbinate there would be many breaches in the halakhic world? Assimilation, kashrut, and more?
I am trying to imagine the State of Israel without the rabbinate, and it is a bit hard to imagine a world we have not seen. Maybe one day you could write a column on how you do see the State of Israel, from a halakhic standpoint, in the ideal form? What is your vision?
I am Haredi and do not understand the logic of the institution of the rabbinate and the religion laws in Israel. What is the logic that a secular person would want to draw closer to Judaism because religious laws are imposed on him? It is supposed to cause the exact opposite, as it indeed does.
Also from a halakhic perspective, it adds more transgressions. If there is no public transportation, more people drive private cars. If there is halakhic marriage, there is much adultery and many mamzerim. What exactly does Judaism gain from this whole story?
One has to internalize the simple reality that the State of Israel is not a Jewish state at all. It is a gentile state with some Jewish markings that mislead people into thinking this is Judaism. The more Judaism is separated from the state, the better it will be for Judaism and for the state.
Interesting that the secular people, and especially the traditionalists, disagree with you and want to continue their connection to the historical Jewish people through the institution of the rabbinate (they are aware of its corruption but treat it less severely).
How many of them are interested in that? From polls I have seen, it appears that most prefer there not to be religious legislation and that each person choose his conduct independently.
The only issue on which there may be broader support for religious legislation is closing businesses on Shabbat. But that is not a religious law; it is a social one (creating the possibility of a day of rest without the pressure of business competition), and those interested in it are mainly not religious.
Much better. There would be privatized kashrut with a regulator, instead of the corrupt monopoly that exists and desecrates God's name. The state of intimate life and personal status would of course be much better than it is today, when half do not marry at all and the world is full of mamzerim, adultery, and concern about marriages between relatives that nobody knows about. All this is the handiwork of the rabbinate, to its glory. There is corruption in the government, but I am talking about the corruption of the rabbinate, which even exceeds that of the government.
Definitely far fewer breaches. See my reply above here to Yossi the Haredi.
That is a plainly baseless theory. Today, whoever wants to marry according to the law of Moses and Israel goes to the rabbinate, and it requires the marriage certificate of both sides' parents. If there were no rabbinate and every rabbi, or anyone who calls himself a rabbi, could officiate a wedding, there would be no oversight and no one would know whether the marriage of the other side's parents was valid and conducted halakhically, even if he wants to marry according to the law of Moses and Israel. This is a state of absolute chaos.
Clearly, the breaches have multiplied today, among other things because of certain rabbis (ahem) who breached this fence. It is not clear to me how one can be among the leading fence-breakers and then complain about the breach.
Regarding the government, the corruption there is many times greater, because their sphere of responsibility is many times greater. A finance minister who sat over the entire state treasury is in prison today because he stole from the state treasury. Did anyone think of shutting down the Finance Ministry because of that? The problems you raise are terribly true, but the solution of shutting it down is even more terrible. It reminds me of biblical critics who ask excellent questions about the sources of the Torah, but then jump to the conclusion that the whole Torah is an invention. The fact that there is a problem means that a solution can be found, not that the problem should be made to disappear.
Avot is the foundational lie of the Mishnah. People who invented laws, and then invented that the Oral Torah was passed down to them from Moses through Joshua, etc.
I am guessing you are not secular.
I am guessing you do not live among traditionalists. Allow me to reveal to you—there are no greater supporters of the rabbinate than the Bibi-ist traditionalists. And since, subtracting the Arabs, we get that two-thirds of the people of Israel supported the coalition of “horrors,” then the claim that the rabbinate does not represent the people of Israel is rather dubious.
And regarding secular atheists, some of them are nationalist and accept the rabbinate as part of the package deal, and some really do oppose every religious aspect.
The nicest thing was hearing the cries of joy on the Haredi websites when Havi Toker, from a respectable Haredi family, was chosen to be a judge.
And while we're at it, the Supreme Court justice Yael Wilner is the granddaughter of the author of Einayim La-Mishpat.
I fear that publicizing the fact that from the loins of the author of Einayim La-Mishpat there emerged a judge (and not even a Haredi one) may make it harder for his family's efforts to bring him under the wings of the yeshivot.
I was once at a lecture by Rabbi Mirvis, who was later appointed Chief Rabbi of England, about the Queen of England. He argued persuasively that the figure of the Queen of England—a balanced, kind, and courteous figure—has a positive influence on the public in England. That gave rise in me to the thought that perhaps (theoretically) a chief rabbi could have been such a figure, and I am not sure Rabbi Kahana is the most suitable person in the world, but he is at least wise, honest, and courteous, and for that mission he could have contributed (had he been chosen).
They have just sent me a short review of how the crime families from the aforementioned syndicate conduct themselves, and I am bringing it here in full for the benefit of readers who are not equipped with a subscription. Here you can see just how factual my description of this gang of criminals is. https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/politi/2024-06-19/ty-article-magazine/00000190-2c9f-d39e-a999-7edf2f290000
Under the patronage of the Netanyahu government, the Haredim turned rabbinic posts into a family business
Below
Benjamin Netanyahu and Aryeh Deri, last year. The terms of the chief rabbis were extended twice by personal legislation, in an attempt to postpone the problem. “The Bibi method” Photo: Ohad Zwigenberg
Dozens of rabbinic and judicial posts that recently became vacant and opened up have opened the door to masses of political deals and blatant attempts to promote people close to the Yosef, Deri, and Lau families. What until now was done quietly has become more conspicuous under the Netanyahu government — and the list of associates awaiting appointment keeps growing longer
Yael Friedson and Aharon Rabinowitz
06:00 • June 19, 2024
This was supposed to be the hot appointment season in Haredi and religious society. The committee for selecting dayanim was preparing to convene and choose new judges for the rabbinical courts, the emerging Shas law for appointing city rabbis was intended to add hundreds of new rabbinic posts, and at the same time preparations were under way for the election of the two new chief rabbis of Israel. Behind the scenes, the appointment processes opened the door to masses of political deals, which led to the intervention of the attorney general and the High Court alongside attempts by Likud Knesset members to avoid supporting the city rabbis law. At this stage it is unclear to what extent, if at all, the appointment moves will be blocked.
The appointment season led to blatant attempts to promote associates — including an attempt to offer the position of rabbi of Jerusalem to Rabbi David Yosef, a member of Shas's Council of Sages, if he would agree to remove his candidacy for chief rabbi. Besides him, the brother of Chief Rabbi David Lau was also promoted, along with a long list of associates, sons, sons-in-law, and brothers-in-law who are candidates for judicial posts. It seems that the promotion of associates, which had always been conducted quietly, has become more conspicuous and blatant since the establishment of the current government, and more than anything else testifies to the way the religious administration apparatus has become a kind of private business of several families, while the list of relatives and associates standing in line for appointment just keeps growing longer.
Deri in a plenum debate, in February. The fact that he is in a clear conflict of interest does not bother anyone
Deri in a plenum debate, in February. The fact that he is in a clear conflict of interest does not bother anyone Photo: Noam Revkin Fenton
Related articles
The High Court ordered the work of the committee for selecting dayanim frozen because of suspicion of appointing associates | Aharon Rabinowitz
Censors protocols and answers phones during hearings: this is the candidate for the Great Rabbinical Court | Aharon Rabinowitz
With the authorities’ approval, a father meets his children unsupervised despite evidence of violence | Aharon Rabinowitz
The Chief Rabbis
The elections to appoint the chief rabbis were supposed to be held a little over a year ago. But Shas chairman Aryeh Deri could not decide whom to support — his brother, Rabbi Yehuda Deri, or Rabbi David Yosef, a member of Shas's Council of Sages and brother of the serving Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef. Because of this, the terms of the chief rabbis were extended twice by personal legislation, in an attempt to postpone the problem until a solution or compromise could be found. “The Bibi method.”
Deri
The fact that Deri — under whom those responsible for the process operate, namely the minister of religious services, Michael Malkieli, and the ministry director-general, Yehuda Avidan — is in a clear conflict of interest does not bother anyone. When it already seemed that the elections would take place on a new date, it turned out that Deri still had not decided. The law states that the elections should have been held at the beginning of the month — but in practice, at this stage it is unclear when they will take place.
One of the two posts is also being contested by Rabbi Moshe Haim Lau, the brother of the serving Chief Rabbi David Lau, and the son of former Chief Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau. The candidacies of the two brothers of the chief rabbis created another problematic situation — both have the authority to appoint ten of the 150 members of the body that elects the chief rabbis (which is composed of 80 rabbis and 70 public representatives — mayors and heads of religious councils), and now both are in a conflict of interest. The deputy attorneys general, Karmit Yulis and Gil Limon, wrote to the minister of religion forbidding the chief rabbis to appoint their representatives. The High Court issued an order nisi to the state and set a hearing on the petition for next week.
The Lau family
Officially, the reason for the delay in the elections now lies in the fact that the chief rabbis refuse to comply with the High Court ruling according to which they must consider appointing women halakhic scholars as part of their representatives in the electing body, since these are defined in the law as “rabbis.” Yulis and Limon demanded that the minister carry out the ruling, but this issue has not yet been resolved because, from the standpoint of the rabbinic establishment, appointing the women under the rabbis’ quota would be considered recognition of them as female rabbis. “They are forcing the rabbis to appoint female rabbis,” Minister Malkieli cried out in an interview with Kikar HaShabbat. “If the Chief Rabbinate does not recognize the concept of a female rabbi, I will not do something contrary to the Chief Rabbinate.”
Rabbi David Yosef was offered the position of rabbi of Jerusalem if he would agree to withdraw his candidacy for chief rabbi
Additional candidates for the positions of chief rabbis are the rabbi of Netanya, Kalman Bar; the rabbi of Safed, Shmuel Eliyahu; and Michael Amos and Eliezer Igra, judges on the Great Rabbinical Court. Their chances are considered lower. “Nepotism in the religious establishment is not only a Zionist and democratic failure, but also a real danger to public trust,” says Rabbi Dr. Seth Farber, chairman and founder of the ITIM organization, whose organization mapped the extensive family ties in the religious system. “Instead of addressing this issue, the political operatives flood the drama with Deri's choice of who will replace the Rishon LeZion, while ignoring the blatant conflict of interest. When several families enjoy hundreds of positions based on family connections, and not on qualifications or the will of the community, we lose the public.”
The City Rabbis Law
The city rabbis appointment law initiated by Shas transfers to the Ministry of Religious Services the authority of local authorities to appoint city rabbis, and includes dozens of changes to the existing law, which may also serve the family job arrangements. For example, section 13 of the law deals with rabbis of localities that were merged into one authority. Under the existing law, after a merger of authorities the rabbis serve in their role for one year — but the amendment cancels the limitation and preserves their salary rights. This is not a theoretical clause, but a question that will arise soon: for many years Chief Rabbi David Lau served as rabbi of the municipalities of Modi'in-Maccabim-Re'ut. After he was elected to his office, Rabbi Eliyahu Elharar — Deri's brother-in-law — filled his place.
The rabbi of Maccabim-Re'ut is Yaakov Tz'ikotai, a son-in-law of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. Even after the municipalities of Modi'in-Maccabim-Re'ut were merged, he retained his status as rabbi of the Maccabim-Re'ut quarters. Rabbi Lau will soon finish his role as chief rabbi, and apparently he aspires to return to his previous post in Modi'in — which creates a problem with the two serving rabbis. The amendment to the law is expected to help preserve the rights and authority of both rabbis if Lau returns to his previous role, and gives Minister Malkieli the authority to determine the division of labor between them.
Tali Gottlieb and Moshe Saada at a discussion in the Constitution Committee yesterday. The coalition is determined to pass the law, and removed the opponents from the committee
Tali Gottlieb and Moshe Saada at a discussion in the Constitution Committee yesterday. The coalition is determined to pass the law, and removed the opponents from the committee Photo: Olivier Fitoussi
The law also allows the minister to impose the appointment of rabbis in localities that are not interested in it. This means creating hundreds of new rabbinic jobs. In addition, the law lowers the standard for dismissing a rabbi convicted in a criminal proceeding and transfers discretion on the matter to a dayan appointed by the minister.
The salaries of city rabbis begin at 22,000 shekels (in localities with fewer than 5,000 residents) and can reach 34,000 shekels in large cities. This is a base salary to which seniority supplements and benefits are attached. Former minister Matan Kahana limited their tenure to ten years — and now Shas and the coalition are seeking to cancel the term limit. The powers of city rabbis are extensive — the rabbis grant kashrut certificates to businesses, approve marriage registration, and manage the city's religious services budget.
Today Netanyahu decided that the Constitution Committee would not, for the time being, discuss advancing the law, due to significant opposition among Likud Knesset members. The coalition was determined to pass it and removed those who opposed it, but in the meantime no date has been set for bringing it back for discussion in the committee.
Appointment of Dayanim
Last month the committee for appointing dayanim published the list of candidates for service on the Great Rabbinical Court and the regional courts, proving that the courts once again stand before a celebration of appointments of relatives, associates of committee members, and senior public figures. When it became clear that about a third of the 103 candidates on the list had family ties to committee members or to senior rabbis and politicians, a public storm arose, leading the attorney general, Gali Baharav-Miara, to examine the conduct — and the committee's work was halted.
From the published list it emerged that Deri intended to promote his son-in-law, Elkana Sananes, as well as the son of Rabbi Yehuda Deri, who is the father-in-law of Yitzhak Yosef.
Chief Rabbi David Lau in May. His family, like each of the three powerful families, holds a long line of public positions
Chief Rabbi David Lau in May. His family, like each of the three powerful families, holds a long line of public positions Photo: Oren Ben Hakoon
At the same time, Rabbi Lau — who is a member of the committee — promoted the appointment of his brother-in-law, Rabbi Mordechai Ralbag, to the Great Rabbinical Court, and the appointment of his son-in-law, Yehuda Man, to the regional rabbinical court. Also promoted were Yishai Salomon, the brother-in-law of Avraham Schindler, a committee member; Meir Amos — the son of Michael Amos; and Yisrael Meir Kook — the son-in-law of Yosef Efrati, who in the Degel HaTorah party is responsible for appointing dayanim on its behalf.
A family business
Already today each of the three powerful families — Yosef, Deri, and Lau — holds a long line of public offices, including judicial posts and city rabbinate posts. Thus, for example, the son-in-law of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, Rabbi Ezra Bar Shalom, served as a dayan, and two additional sons-in-law served as city rabbis — Yaakov Tz'ikotai (rabbi of the locality of Maccabim-Re'ut), and Aharon Butbul (regional rabbi of Modi'in). Rabbi Zion Cohen, Butbul's brother-in-law, serves as rabbi of the city of Or Yehuda. Another son of the Maran, Rabbi Avraham Yosef, served as rabbi of the city of Holon until he was convicted of breach of trust in 2015 following exploitation of his status as city rabbi to promote the family kashrut brand “Badatz Beit Yosef.”
There are family ties between the Yosef family and the Deri family. The two sons of Rabbi Yehuda Deri are married to the daughters of Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef and of his brother Avraham Yosef. His son-in-law is Ariel Atias, a former Shas minister and Knesset member, and one of the strongest people in the party. Atias's brother, Binyamin Atias, serves as the Sephardi rabbi of the city of Petah Tikva. Rabbi Mordechai Toledano, head of the rabbinical court in Jerusalem, is a son-in-law of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and a brother-in-law of Yehuda Deri.
Lau is the second generation in his family to serve in the role of chief rabbi. His father is Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, and his grandfather, Rabbi Yitzhak Yedidya Frenkel, was the chief rabbi of Tel Aviv. Lau's in-law, Rabbi Yitzhak Ralbag, was appointed last week as acting rabbi of the city of Jerusalem. As stated, his son, Mordechai, serves as head of the rabbinical court panels in Jerusalem and is a candidate for promotion to the Great Rabbinical Court. The bottom line of the endless network of appointments of relatives and associates is one thing: the people who hold authority and power, and decide on matters that affect the life of every citizen — marriage and divorce, kashrut, conversion, and burial — are appointed and promoted first of all according to family connections, and not necessarily thanks to their halakhic and legal qualifications.
I agree; this is one of the most corrupt institutions the state has ever known. My father once told me that there are so-called "rabbis" with whom you learn shechita and not shechitah.