So much has happened since I attended the Chief Rabbi's induction back in September, I'm not even sure if he is still in office. If he is, OH DEAR. Anyone who thinks the Big Bang has already happened has heard nothing yet.
According to the Giluy Daas that appeared in the Lech-Lecha JT, attending the Limmud Festival and calling oneself 'orthodox' cannot go together. But the Chief, who believes himself to be an Orthodox Rabbi of Anglo-Jewry, has vowed to attend Limmud this year. Where on earth does this leave the average orthodox yid who follows rabbinic edicts to the end of the world?
My reading of this edict is that orthodoxy has (once again) tightened its chastity belt in the face of ever-increasing threats to halachic Judaism. Modern approaches to modern problems went out of the window when the Enlightenment first surfaced, and we have been living a reactionary Judaism ever since.
In order to blot out the Reform approaches, we have closed our minds to MODERN yet still ORTHODOX approaches to halachic issues of our day, some of which probably need not be issues at all without us being any less loyal to orthodoxy; we have imposed ever greater stringencies on how we practise our halachic yiddishkeit; and we have gone overboard with our defensive attacks on mixing with people who hold wider views and values. But we have not been able to stem the tide of Reform Judaism. It has taken hold despite the best efforts of the rabbis.
Now there is a happy union of Reform and Orthodox coming together, NOT to throw eggs at and to lambast one another but to celebrate what they have in common. It will be the nearest thing to a hippy convention that Judaism can offer. Real Achdus. Except that the right wing will not be participating because our rabbis don't want us hearing about modern solutions to problems like agunah, driving on shabbos, family purity vs. multiple wives and numerous other contemporary issues. They don't have the answers, but they know Reform is not the solution.
It follows that Limmud poses a serious threat to rabbinic Judaism and along with denim skirts, trousers for women (permitted by R. Ovadia Yosef I understand) and unsupervised milk it must be shunned on pain of no shidduchim for our kids and similar threats.
Poor old us - threatened not only by Reform influences but by our own rabbis holding us over a barrel. Personally, I blame Hillel and Shamai for encouraging debate in the first instance.
The willingness to attend the Limmudfest was a pre-requisite for the position of Chief, if not actually included in the job specifications it was certainly made known that a candidate not willing to commit to attend, would (and in practice did) fail to be selected.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Rb Mirvis wanted the position and was prepared to compromise. Maybe he is of a different opinion to the rabbis who signed the giluy daas. Those rabbis were well aware of the pressures being placed upon the candidates to agree to attend, yet only decided to publicise their opinion many months later, and long after that commitment was made. Those Rabbonim - a number of which signed an earlier giluy daas about a local rov - seem to think that they can publish a gd and they have done their bit, irrespective of the timing or consequences.
Whilst I readily admit that each of the signatories are far greater in me in chochmoh, halocho and yiras Shomayim, a gd is not an halachic tool, it does not constitute affirmative action and publishing one is not a release from taking action.
Quite aside from the issue of timing, the lbd could have decreed that it is forbidden to attend, which would be a court ruling which encompasses the actions of the Chief Rabbi.
Unfortunately the Rabbonim feel that a gd is sufficient and calls for no further action. And that is one of the reasons that our little community is in such a turmoil.
Actually the Chief Rabbi is the Head of the BD. How can his dayonim issue a GD with which he does not agree?? That would be a constitutional impossibility. (Otherwise known as a 'farce'). The more serious question is how the LBD comes to have dayonim who are so right wing that the CR cannot do his job without first considering their extremist positions every time. They are in the wrong organisation, dancing to a different tune and with a band leader who is a moderate. Explain this!
DeleteI beg to disagree. Much like the Queen, the chief rabbi is a titular position. Whilst the Queen is theoretically above the law but in practice must obey the law, so to the Chief Rabbi is in theoretical terms head of the beis din but in practice would be required to follow its rulings.
DeleteWhilst untested to date, it would make for an interesting legal precedent should the chief defy a beis din ruling.
PS
ReplyDeleteWelcome back Mrs Blogs. I for one missed you.
Thank you. You are probably going to pay dearly for your loyalty, but kol zman there is not edict against reading this blog you are a free agent I suppose. Mr. Blogs (Rabbi B.) has asked me to accept a Get, but he won't pay enough so not only is he an Agun (???), he 'gets' to hear me read all this aloud every night. . . .
DeleteAccording to the JC, US rabbis have been put in a difficult position by the stance taken by their right-wing colleagues. Why should this be so if they are US rabbis?? It is because they are actually two-faced rabbis: they belong with the ultra orthodox, but for the sake of a job and a pulpit they have availed themselves of the US (which has a lack of its own type of rabbis). Thus their divided loyalty. I would have thought their first loyalty is to the US and their members, not to Dayan Krausz or R. Winegarten etc. It should be mandatory on them to attend Limmud.
ReplyDeleteThe JC is a publication that relishes all opportunities to belittle anyone and anything which is even remotely connected to religious observance.
ReplyDeleteLimmud is an initiative of the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC) an organisation that was established because of the orthodox dominated Board of Deputies' refusal to permit any conservative/liberal/massorti/reform etc., representation or recognition. (Ironically, UOHC would only allow an informal alliance with the BoD but refused all offers to have any representation or formal affiliation with the Board).
Setting aside the halachic discourse on how much association, if any, a torah observant Jew or organisation may have with the variety of alternative Judaism groups. The JLC was setup to represent all of Anglo Jewery irrespective of the affiliation or observance of the individual/organisation. It is hardly surprising that the JLC has a large constituency of alternative or non-observant organisations. It is more surprising that the United Synagogue is a constituent.
As the US is now led by lay people, the rabbis of the synagogues nor the dayanim of the beit din have any say about policy and direction. The board & management of the US is run by people who have a high level of commitment to the organisation but a very secularised outlook on religion and orthodoxy.
The US joining the JLC was sharply criticised by its rabbis and beit din, yet continues to date. The emeritus Chief Rabbi was more than keen to attend Limmud, but refrained due to pressure exerted by - allegedly - the then senior, currently emeritus, dayan of the LBD.
in the selectioneering for new Chief, it was made pretty clear that the chosen candidate will ignore the "right wing" objections, and will attend Limmud. I also guess - though this is totally unfounded supposition, and not an allegation of any impropriety whatever, purely my ramblings of a fictional hypothesis - the lack of any signatories of current employees of the US could indicate that the risk of displeasuring the paymasters could result in a shortened term of employment. (It could just as easily indicate that no current employees were asked to sign, or were asked but don't concur with the statements and refused to sign).
The bottom line is that UK Rabbonim are/were too weak or disinterested to halt the US from joining the JLC. The current leadership of the US is 1) keen to show that it is modern and inclusive, and open to all Jews. 2) scared of losing control of the BoD, o, a far greater disaster, the downgrade of the BoD from sole representative to the UK establishment or even from being removed as any form of representative.
The alternative groups have been seeking for a foothold in the national representation market, and for minimalising the orthodox voice.
In my opinion, the US has given them this one on a silver salver bedecked with all possible fineries. They have also placed Mirvis between a rock and a hard place. He will be damned if he attends and damned if he doesn't.
It is also due to the charedi rabbis who make a mountain out of molehill issues, that alienate the public from taking them seriously when it comes to genuine alpine matters.
ReplyDeleteThe fuss over women praying at the kotel, with or without talit, tefillin & sifrei torah, is laughable were it not so sad. Equally a recent edict by the Federation, banning women from dancing with sifrei torah on simchat torah is indicative of the petty mindedness of the rabbinates.
Whilst not being a pre-war European custom, and in spite of the references to back the ban, there's no genuine grounds for the ban other than an unfounded history of it not being customary.
Even more amazing, one of the signatories to the giluy daas against attending Limmud was far less militant and nowhere near as specific when signing a letter earlier this year concerning a certain local rabbi and allegations of his improper behaviour, verbal, by phone and physical, towards girls and women - many married - who were sent to him for counselling. Or does RPR consider attending Limmud a far greater evil than protecting the public from a close colleague?
And I think some of this is a matter of personality, not principle. Some buyers of sacred books will only be comfortable buying them in a bookstore which handles only such works, others will buy them in Foyles if they are cheaper there. Some people only wish to participate in an event in which everything complies with their standards, others will attend parts of the event with which they are comfortable. I doubt if the new chief rabbi of the United Synagogues of the British Commonwealth wishes to attend sessions at which david Wolpe is speaking (he has discussed his eagerness to perform same sex weddings in his California congregation), but he might be eager to hear James Kugel's historical observations. James Kugel has spoken in many orthodox synagogues in the USA, and was perfectly respectable in his positions. Would there be any objection to him listening to Jeffrey Saks lecturing about responses to loss of a child? I think anyone should go and listen to programs of interest, and I suspect that the backing of Rabbi Mirvis might swing the balance of power in Limmud from conservative and reform imports to orthodox but creative rabbinic personalities. Alternatively, let the united Synagogue create an alternative Limmud -type prorgram through Tribe
ReplyDelete