Q&A: Reduction, Not Abolition.
Reduction, Not Abolition.
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Your views about the necessity—or lack of necessity—of the Chief Rabbinate are well known and widely publicized. I more or less agree with you, but despite that, I think there is benefit in the Rabbinate also in matters of marriage and also in matters of kashrut, because it is good to have some sort of oversight. Therefore, in my opinion, the Rabbinate should not be abolished but rather its power should be greatly reduced. For example, regarding marriage, every couple that gets married—whether in a Jewish wedding or a civil one—should have to register with the Rabbinate so that there will not be mamzerim, non-Jewish children mixed in, and the like. But that should be only for the sake of oversight, not so that the Rabbinate can prevent them from marrying. And the same applies to conversion and kashrut, and so on.
Answer
I completely agree. I’ve written more than once that there should be regulation and there should be registration. I oppose the monopoly, and even more so the mixing of the regulator with the service provider itself. Everyone should be allowed to do what they want, and the regulator’s role is to ensure transparency—that is, when someone says he is doing something, to make sure that this is indeed what he is doing. Exactly like the supervisor of banks or insurance: no one would even think that they should also provide banking or insurance services.