More snow in Jerusalem!

Snow in Jerusalem!

A Thanksgivukkah Manifesto

A Thanksgivukkah Manifesto
By MISHAEL ZION (Hartman institute, Jerusalem) A once in a century holiday is upon us. The menurkey will soon sit at the table with thepumpkin pie and the latkes. Let us not underestimate this moment for the American Jewish community. Thanksgivukkah is here. Jews have always loved Thanksgiving. Now that their favorite American holiday finds itself face to face with America’s favorite Jewish holiday – Hanukkah – the encounter can say an enormous amount about the American Jewish collective story. In other words, Thanksgivukkah tells us something important about what Jews are doing in America. It starts with good timing. When Hanukkah falls on Christmas, it highlights Judaism as a religion, a fair contender on the scene of American denominations. But Thanksgivukkah yanks the carpet from under the convenient Christmas-Hanukkah dichotomy. The Thanksgiving of today grew out of its religious roots. The same could be said of the Judaism of many Americans. Thanksgiving is about America, but not in a celebration of patriotic triumphalism. It’s about America as a promise, an idea, a project. If, any other year, most American Jews sideline Judaism and celebrate Thanksgiving simply as Americans, this year’s calendar demands owning up to the Jewish take on the American story. In Thanksgivukkah this generation of Jews might just have found their model holiday. Indeed, if there is an “American Project”, Jews have been some of its most avid contributors. As narrators, critics, troubadours and activists, they took care of themselves while making plenty of room for others. To be sure, America is far from the only contemporary Jewish story. Jews have not one, but two Promised Lands: Israel and America have become the yin and yang of the Jewish people. As Hillel might have put it: “If I am not for myself – who will be for me?” – such is the Israeli project. “And if I am only for myself, what am I?” – the American Jewish project. “And if not now, when?” Thanksgivukkah brings home some of the challenges of a Jewry so invested in America. For the most part, American Judaism has failed at being a homemade identity, outsourcing the task to synagogues, Hebrew schools, Bnai Brith or AIPAC. Yet Hanukkah leaves the synagogues orphaned. With all due respect to public square Menorahs, any halakhist will tell you it’s the Menorah in the home that counts. Thanksgiving is the same: it is a homemade celebration of Americanism; it convenes the family in a feast of gratitude. Pilgrimages by air, track and road attest to the home’s centrality. Thanksgiving is a much needed model for an increasingly secular American Jewry. Where “cultural Judaism” is often “soft” and “optional”, Thanksgiving has an undeniably “commanding” presence. Who doesn’t come home for Thanksgiving, from wherever that may be? Who doesn’t have a turkey at the table, even if it’s made of tofu? Thanksgiving is an unapologetic model for a cultural identity being a commanding presence in one’s life. But Hanukkah one-ups Thanksgiving – it turns family time into story time. When asking where the Bible commanded us to light the Hanukkah candles, the Talmud responds: “We learn that we must light candles from the Biblical verse: ‘Ask your father, he will tell you’.” The candles set the stage for a story. Yet in those rare moments where a family Thanksgiving allows for a discussion, it is often of a “here and now” gratitude. Hanukkah’s gratitude, on the other hand, is rooted. A Thanksgiving-style family meal with Hanukkah-style stories ask us to place the individual narrative on a longer trajectory – why did we come here, how did we achieve the things for which we are grateful, and where do we – individuals, community and country – go from here. That is what Thanksgivukkah should be. It should turn a generation of immediate gratification into one of rooted gratitude. It’s not about religion or musty history, but about the power oflocal family stories. America and Judaism each face severe struggles adapting to a flat world. Both are undermined by an increasingly divided base. They need their stories more than ever. Ask your mother; she will tell you. For an American Jewish community increasingly consisting of families of both Jewish and non-Jewish members, Thanksgivukkah is a moment that allows for a diversity of stories at the table. Hanukkah’s Jewish coat over Thanksgiving’s American jersey throws us back to the vision of America as a series of cultural pluralisms. Thanksgivukkah asks us to keep telling the stories that go beyond America. Thanksgivukkah is an invitation to celebrate the places where Jewishness enriches America, and where America enriches the Jewish people. Jews have always preferred stories to dogma and ritual to creed. This November American Jews are invited to sit down at the Thanksgivukkah table and tell stories of rooted gratitude. Let’s make sure this happens more than just every 70,000 years. Happy Thanksgivukkah.

Rabbinate's discrimination of Orthodox rabbis abroad prompts emergency Knesset meeting

Rabbinate's discrimination of Orthodox rabbis abroad 

prompts emergency Knesset meeting

Conservative and Reform movements increasingly demanding recognition of their 

conversions and marriages in Israel.

By Yair Ettinger | Nov. 13, 2013 | 

The Knesset’s Religion and State lobby will hold an emergency meeting on Tuesday on what it describes as the “split between Israel's Chief Rabbinate and the Jewish Diaspora,” which is worsening with the exposure of the Rabbinate’s policies against moderate Orthodox rabbis overseas.Rabbinate officials have, in recent years, questioned the Jewish legal authority of a number of these liberal

 Orthodox rabbis abroad, and refused to recognize the conversions they have conducted. The latest case,
 involving prominent New York Rabbi Avi Weiss, has fueled suspicions that the Rabbinate maintains a secret
 "black list" containing the names of Orthodox rabbis from overseas.
The Knesset meeting was preceded by letters and protests from rabbis and various organizations in Israel,
such as the Tzohar group of rabbis, the religious Zionist Ne’emanei Torah Va’Avodah, the Shalom Hartman
Institute and ITIM, an organization that helps people navigate the religious authorities’ bureaucracy in Israel.
It will take place amidst increasing demands of the Conservative and Reform movements abroad for
recognition of their conversions and marriages in Israel, a central issue on the agenda of the General
Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America, being held this week in Israel.
In the most recent case that sparked the anger of both Israeli rabbis and prominent American Jews, the
Rabbinate cast doubt on the authority of Rabbi Avi Weiss, a well known and influential liberal Orthodox
rabbi from New York. It rejected a letter by Weiss vouching for the Jewish credentials of an American couple
 seeking to wed in Israel (the Rabbinate routinely requires a letter from an Orthodox rabbi certifying one’s
 Jewish identity in cases of non-Israelis seeking to immigrate or marry in Israel). The couple was asked to
bring a letter from a different rabbi.
Weiss, the spiritual leader of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale and founder of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah,
 has been the subject of controversy in recent years for pushing the envelope when it comes to ordaining
Orthodox women as clergy. After learning that his credentials were being challenged by the Rabbinate,
Weiss penned an opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post earlier this month, calling on Israel to end the
Rabbinate’s “monopoly on religious dictates of the state.”
The case added to suspicions that the Rabbinate has a black list of Orthodox rabbis from overseas, whom
 they consider too liberal or improperly ordained - including rabbis who belong to mainstream Orthodox
 organizations such as the Rabbinical Council of America. Weiss left the RCA - some say he was forced to
 leave - after being criticized for ordaining the first woman as an Orthodox community rabbi.
Prominent law professor Alan Dershowitz asked President Shimon Peres to intervene in the case of the
 apparent blacklisting of Weiss by the Chief Rabbinate. Dershowitz, a practicing criminal and constitutional
 lawyer, wrote to Peres on Monday saying: “Rabbi Weiss is one of the foremost Modern Open Orthodox
rabbis in America and one of the strongest advocates anywhere for the State of Israel. As a person – I am
deeply saddened by the pubic shaming of my friend, Rabbi Avraham Weiss, the leader of a flagship
Orthodox congregation.
“As a Jew – I understand that today more than ever before there is a chasm between the Jews of the United
 States and the religious institutions in Israel. This is clearly expressed in the rejection of the most
elementary and fundamental testimonies and confirmations. I am disturbed by this, and by its
 ramifications, and call upon the leaders of Israel to first understand that there is a serious problem
which demands attention, and to understand that they mustn’t bend to baseless religious tyranny," wrote
Dershowitz.
“As a lawyer – I am forced to see yet again how basic rights, such as the right to marriage, the right to
self-definition and the right of religion, are trampled by none other than the Israeli democracy we value
 so. This is yet another result of the rather unsuccessful fusion of religious law and Israeli law, and the
problem seems to only intensify over time."

New civil marriage bill could land bride, groom and rabbi in jail for two years

New civil marriage bill could land bride, groom and rabbi in jail for two years

New bill expands existing clause barring ceremonies outside the Rabbinate, rendering hundreds of thousands of Israelis potential criminals.

By Tomer Persico | Nov. 5, 2013 | 1:34 PM

Family law in Israel is a bit like Frankenstein, constructed in a patch-like manner, limb by limb, with a law here and a High Court ruling there. Before one realizes it, the impressive legal entity we are faced with is an entire body. The facts speak for themselves – ever-increasing numbers of Israel’s Jewish citizens opt to wed outside the rabbinical framework. While running for the chief rabbi’s office, Rabbi David Stav warned that one third of secular couples today find other ways of getting married. The subsequent election of two conservative chief rabbis will presumably strengthen this growing trend.

Last week, a flash of light flickered in the darkness. A law calling for the expansion of registration zones and easing up on restrictions was passed by the Knesset, and every citizen will now be able to choose the religious council in which his marriage will take place. Theoretically, this will allow one to find more tolerant officials, such as ones who won’t insist on the bride producing a note confirming her dipping in a mikve. This is a positive development, making things easier, but it doesn’t really solve the problem. We are still bound by law to get married exclusively by Orthodox rabbis. We can console ourselves with the hope that we might find a nice rabbi.

However, this wasn’t the only change to the law that was enacted last week. In addition to increasing the number of registration offices, there was a change to the clause which penalizes those who marry outside the Chief Rabbinate. While the original law stated that anyone "who does not register a marriage or divorce at the Rabbinate will be charged according to the amendments to clause 99 of the Ottoman criminal code," the new amendment stipulates that in addition to the couple getting married the officiating rabbi will also be charged. Instead of the breezy reference to the old Ottoman law, the new legislation stipulates that both husband and wife and the rabbi performing the ceremony will be subject to two years’ imprisonment.

Don’t rub your eyes in amazement. You read it correctly. Anyone who dares to get married outside the official framework of the Rabbinate will end up in jail for two years. It should be noted that the law in its previous form was never enforced, and couples marrying outside the fold were not prosecuted. However, there is no valid reason for turning hundreds of thousands of Israelis into criminals.

One should remember that among those who wed outside the Rabbinate there are many who do so for lack of choice. There are currently more than 300,000 people in Israel, mainly veteran immigrants from the former Soviet Union, who are not considered Jews according to Orthodox Jewish law, preventing them from marrying within the rabbinical framework. The new law adds to this injustice. The fact that they cannot marry in their own country is scandalous enough. Now, if they hold a ceremony not through the Rabbinate, which in any case will not be recognized by the state, they are breaking the law and are liable to be imprisoned for two years. Maybe they have to stay single forever.

In addition to this group, other people who are ineligible for marriage by Orthodox Jewish law, such as ‘bastards’ born out of wedlock (mamzerim), divorcees, Cohanim, will all become fugitive criminals if they try and arrange a chuppa (wedding canopy) for themselves, after being rejected by the state. Israel is the only democracy in the world in which family law is subject to a religion. It is now taking a fundamentalist step forward by joining the small number of states in which transgression against a religious law is punished by a jail sentence. Indeed, a light unto the nations!

The process is as clear as it is pitiful. In its attempts to maintain an orthodox monopoly in the public sphere, the state of Israel must run faster and faster just to stay in one place. The ancient phobia directed at assimilation and bastards is creating ugly hybrids of religious law and bureaucracy, monsters of religious coercion roughly put together, presenting an ugly visage. There is nothing like the threat of imprisonment that emphasizes the bankruptcy of the Chief Rabbinate in its values and image, no better sign of its impending collapse.

After I got married three years ago I joined a group that arranges civil, secular wedding ceremonies as part of the ‘Havaya’ organization. I wanted to join the effort to establish an alternative to marriage within the Rabbinate for two Israeli populations: those hundreds of thousands who are forbidden from getting married in their country, and those hundreds of thousands who are permitted to but for whom the last thing they wish for is a ceremony conducted by an Orthodox rabbi who doesn’t share their values.

I’ve conducted several ceremonies since then, which I obviously did not register at the Rabbinate. I and my friends will continue with this sacred work, from now on specifically challenging this law, which uses the power of the state for religious coercion, and which stands in contrast to democratic principles.

The writer is a researcher of contemporary religions at Tel Aviv University.

No skullcap will cover this gaping gash in our collective act

The sorry incident at the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum reflects an exceptionally unfortunate mishmash concocted by Israeli culture.

By Avirama Golan | Oct. 13, 2013 

An embarrassing incident happened at Yad Vashem last week during a visit by the Prime Minister of Greece, Antonis Samaras. Like every state leader who visits Israel for the first time, Samaras took a tour there — and surprised his hosts by refusing to cover his head with a skullcap.

His hosts chose to let it go, but their reservations and humiliation at the act were evident. The Greek prime minister’s refusal to wear a skullcap at Yad Vashem was seen as a show of contempt for the honor, or the sanctity, of the place and for the Holocaust in general. Israeli officials responded the same way in 2005 to the absolute refusal of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Only the significance of the relations between Israel and Turkey prevented a scandal then, as well.
It is hard to assume that Samaras, who arrived here several days after outlawing the Greek neo-Nazi movement Golden Dawn, and who is interested in stronger relations with Israel, intended any insult. Actually, it is not clear what was unreasonable about his behavior. With all due respect to the countless number of world leaders who were photographed wearing the black skullcaps of yeshiva students from Brooklyn, or the white skullcaps of bar mitzvah boys in Kfar Sava, the ceremony of having guests put on a skullcap at Yad Vashem is odd, and mainly uncultured.
What sort of skullcap are they thinking of? Jewish law does not explicitly require men to wear a skullcap, which is a fairly new custom. The custom of covering the head in public goes back to Rabbi Joseph Caro’s ruling in his work, the Shulhan Arukh, that “a man should not walk four cubits bareheaded,” but aside from covering one’s head in the synagogue or during prayer there is no ruling on the matter. Any rabbi who is asked about it over the past few years answered that it is an “attribute of piety” — in other words, it is a personal choice motivated by one’s own conscience. In addition, it is a symbolic act that expresses identification with the religious way of life.
More than anything else, the skullcap — whether black or crocheted in all sorts of colors and sizes — is the identifying mark of a particular religious community, just as the streimel, or fur hat, is the identifying mark of another Jewish community. Why, then, should Antonis Samaras, the head of a country for whom the Greek Orthodox Church is one of its main national and cultural symbols, have to dress up as a group leader of the Bnei Akiva youth movement?
The justifications offered for why the guests must wear skullcaps are just as bizarre. According to Yad Vashem officials, since the ashes of Jews who perished in the Holocaust are buried there, Yad Vashem has the status of a cemetery, and the army rabbinate even sanctified the place. It’s true that in the past few decades everything sounds logical, but what on earth does the military rabbinate have to do with the victims’ ashes, and what authority does it have to “sanctify” the museum commemorating the Holocaust? Even if we say that Yad Vashem has the status of a cemetery, what obligates anyone to wear a skullcap there except during prayer services (an act that obligates only observant Jews, while others are invited to wear it out of respect for the service, not out of respect for the place)?
That being the case, the story of the skullcap reflects the moral mishmash concocted by Israeli culture, in which the memory of the Holocaust mixes with national feeling and the army, and the only thing gluing them together is a hollow, ignorant, ceremonial religiosity. It seems that Israel has completely lost confidence in the story of its life and existence. If that were not true, it would not engage in a schmaltzy, Hollywood-style mourner’s prayer, and force its guests to play a role in it that detracts from their honor. It certainly would not do this at Yad Vashem, that absolutely unsanctified but impressive place, whose importance is second to none.

It’s time to get over ourselves: The lessons of the Pew survey

Facts rarely shape or change our opinions. We prefer to select the facts that mirror and justify that which we already hold. The release of the recent Pew survey, A Portrait of Jewish Americans, with its treasury of facts and figures, has caused a tsunami among Jewish leadership and social media as we all scramble to locate the facts that can serve our preexisting individual or institutional purposes and cherished “truths.” 

This process has a celebratory and self-congratulatory feature. For example, many Israeli voices find in the survey the proof that they have been searching for to justify the Zionist claim of the unviability and unsustainability of Diaspora Jewish life. Some within Orthodoxy find evidence to the unviability and unsustainability of a liberal Judaism. Many voices within other denominations find evidence proving the superiority of their approach. The discourse around the survey invariably takes on a form of “I told you so.” When one frees oneself from one’s ideological and institutional loyalties, however, the survey provides important information and insight into the nature of our people and future directions which may warrant consideration.

One interesting fact exposed by the survey is the scarcity of movement from less to more observance. People leave their denominations to become increasingly Jewish without religion, but rarely increase their commitment to tradition with its consequent faith and required practices. The fundamental lesson to be learned is that we all have to get over ourselves. Whether our denomination or belief “fares better” in the commitment of its adherents to Judaism, raising children Jewishly, and to the State of Israel, it is simply irrelevant. The less or differently observant are not going to change, if change means accepting religious presuppositions and categories which are at present alien or absent in their lives.

Diversity is not the product of failed education or the lack of exposure of one group to the truth and beauty of the other. We differ Jewishly because as people we have different notions regarding the essence of our tradition, and different approaches to what makes a life, a life of value. The plurality of Judaisms which are evident, are the result of an ideological gap and not a lack of knowledge.

The fundamental challenge we face regarding the future vitality of our people’s Jewish identity and commitment is how to create ideas and experiences internal to each conceptual and ideological framework which are capable of garnering greater excitement and depth of commitment. In the end, “victory” will not be achieved through the withering away of those who disagree with me nor through the proven sustainability of my approach. As I said above, we have to get over ourselves. Victory will be attained when ever-increasing numbers of Jews, regardless of their affiliation or lack thereof, will feel more deeply connected and committed to their Judaism.

In this process, it is critical to distinguish between that which is a core and essential feature or reality of a particular Jewish ideology, denomination, or sociological classification and from that which is a current manifestation and expression alone. The facts which shed light on the latter provide insight for educational responses and new programmatic possibilities; the facts that shed light on the former obligate us to reshape our definitions of ourselves as a people.

Thus, for example, even if living in Israel, being Orthodox, or not intermarrying increases the chances of one’s children being Jewish, this is merely a statistical fact as to the new reality of contemporary Jewish life and not one with educational or programmatic significance. North American Jews on the whole are not going to move to Israel, abandon their liberal sensibilities, nor stop marrying fellow Americans who embrace them and want to marry them. These are not current manifestations of 21st century Jewish life, but ongoing and core features of this reality. The key question for the future of Jewish life is not whether one can change this reality, but what one must do to change the seemingly detrimental consequences of this reality for the future of Jewish identity. Accepting this is one of the greatest challenges of leaders and ideologues – to work within a given reality in order to improve it instead of fantasizing about shaping it in one’s image.

An interesting, important, and as yet open question is whether the move away from institutions and denominations as identified in the survey, is a new reality or merely a current manifestation. That Jews see Judaism and Jewish identity increasingly in terms that are less religious, I suspect is a reality. Here, paradoxically, North American and Israeli Jewry are becoming similar. The religious-secular divide of Israel is increasingly an appropriate lens with which to view North American Jewry as well. But as we have been learning here in Israel over the last decade or so, the categories of both religious and secular are neither monolithic nor one-dimensional.

For example, secular does not mean less Jewish but differently Jewish. While most secular Israeli Jews believe in God, the essence of their secularity is not determined by their faith but by the fact that they do not see in the worship of God and the rituals it entails, an essential part of their Judaism. Jewish secular Israelis can have a robust Jewish life which entails commitment to Jewish values, observance of the Jewish calendar and lifecycles, participation in Jewish culture and learning, and loyalty to the Jewish people and their well-being. Many of these features are or can be defining aspects of a future, vibrant, “less religious” North American Jewry.

The open question is whether Jewish institutions and denominations can adapt and continue to serve as important vehicles for deepening Jewish identity and connections. It is my hope that what we are seeing is merely a contemporary manifestation and not a new reality. Our institutions will require new thinking as they reimagine their roles, but I believe we will do a huge disservice to our future if we believe that we will be better served without them. The human being is still a social animal in need of community, particularity, and individual connections. We are still in need of partners, friends, services, assistance, guidance, and leadership at different moments of our lives. We still experience moments when a connection to our past is a source of strength and inspiration. An innovative and courageous educational, religious, and lay leadership are capable of providing the above, so long as we are open to rethinking the way we approach our tasks and define our goals.

One of the important features of our tradition’s understanding of Jewish identity is that it is a national one and not merely a religious one. One becomes Jewish through birth, conversion, or marriage and remains so regardless of faith and practice. Consequently, sociological data about the Jews are not merely descriptive but definitive as to who we are. Modernity and in particular, life in Israel and North America have changed the rules of the game. The question is how we are going to play.

By Rabbi Dr. Donniel Hartman - President of Hartman Institute, Jerusalem