Q&A: Corruption of the Chief Rabbinate
Corruption of the Chief Rabbinate
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I have seen in many of your remarks, all over the site, that you accuse the Chief Rabbinate of corruption.
Do you mean religious corruption or moral corruption? Because at first glance I do not see religious corruption in their actions; appointing relatives, as far as I know, is not a prohibition in Jewish law.
Do you think the courts and other authorities do not suffer from the same degree of corruption?
Answer
Corruption is not a halakhic concept but a moral one. By the way, violating the law and desecrating God's name are indeed religious offenses.
In my impression, absolutely not. But beyond that, the Rabbinate is founded and exists in sin, because it is an unnecessary institution in itself, and therefore its corruption is even more problematic. Especially since it is a religious institution that represents me and the Holy One, blessed be He, which only sharpens this problem even if the degree of corruption were no different.
Discussion on Answer
Appointing relatives.
I’m surprised by that. If the committee decided to appoint one relative or another, why is that a violation of the law?
Could it be that you mean the rabbis’ intervention on behalf of appointing their relatives is what violates the law?
(Sorry for my ignorance in legal matters.)
You wrote that nepotism is not a halakhic offense, and to that I said that it is a legal offense and therefore also a halakhic one. I simply used the example you gave. That is not the main point.
As for desecration of God's name,
at first glance, from the perspective of people who observe the commandments, as long as the matter is done according to halakhic standards, there is no desecration of God's name involved.
And as for secular people, I have long been uncertain how much one must be concerned about desecration of God's name in relation to them; in their eyes, almost any religious act that does not fit their outlook is a desecration of God's name, so where is the boundary?
I think that from the Chazon Ish’s remarks regarding the use of electricity on the Sabbath—that even if there is no prohibition מצד מעשה שבת one should still forbid it because of desecration of God's name—there may be some bearing on what was said above, though his words are novel, and people have already commented on this point.
This reasoning is not relevant at all to the case at hand. Desecration of God's name applies even in relation to gentiles, and certainly to secular Jews. That reasoning was said only where what the gentiles or secular people condemn us for is the very observance of Jewish law—in that case there is no concern for desecration of God's name (they do not like that we keep the Sabbath or study Torah). But if they condemn us morally for an act that Jewish law does not require, and at most merely permits it (after all, there is no Jewish law obligating the appointment of relatives)—that is desecration of God's name according to all opinions.
And Maimonides and other halakhic decisors already wrote that a Torah scholar must be more careful in his conduct than the strict law requires because of desecration of God's name. About him people should say: "So-and-so, how pleasant are his deeds—fortunate is the woman who bore him and fortunate is his father who taught him Torah."
Indeed, how pleasant are his words; fortunate is the woman who bore him and fortunate is his father who taught him Torah.
Which violation of the law are you referring to?