The Non Halachic Part of Talmud Part 1

As I have discussed many times, the Torah consists of a Written and Oral element. One is meaningless without the other. I often give the analogy of the relationship between the U.S. Constitution and American law. All U.S. law is based on the Constitution. Yet, when one visits a lawyer, he turns to your State's laws. One cannot go before a judge and argue that one's speeding ticket should be thrown out, since there is no mention of speeding in the constitution. Yet, a State's laws and enactments cannot violate the Constitution. So, the Oral Torah consists of explanations of laws given to Moses, and case law based on decisions of courts (Deut. 17:8-13). It also consists of enactments of the Sanhedrin, in accordance with the statements in that passage from Deuteronomy. Yet, the Talmud, which is the main repository of the Oral Torah, contains much more. There are stories, ostensibly giving the background information on Biblical events. There are statements on science, medicine, astronomy, history, in short, every aspect of human interest. But are these statements to be considered part of Torah? If not, what are they doing in the Talmud? There has been a huge debate on this topic for the last 1300 years. Each side has its defenders and detractors to this day. Let's analyze these one by one.
In medieval Ashkenazic circles, the Talmud was seen as a unified work, which had been dictated to Moses on Sinai along with the Written Torah. As such, it is infallible. As science progressed, some turned their backs on the new discoveries, defending what they saw as the "G-d given facts" expressed in the Talmud. Today, the primary defender of this approach is Chabad. Some other groups and individuals also take this approach. However, many great Ashkenazic authorities disagreed with this approach. Maharal of Prague (1520-1609) opines that the facts discussed in the Talmud represent the best knowledge of the day, but are certainly not the final word. The Talmud is, after all, the work of many generations of scholars, determined to preserve and interpret the Oral Tradition. It is not a unified work, but is essentially the record of discussion, carried on in study halls over several centuries (between 200 and 600 years, depending on which historians we may believe). Side issues came up and were discussed, and became part of the notes on the topic at hand. In most modern Yeshivot, these sections are simply skipped.
In Spain and the East, a totally different approach was taken. Rav Saadya Gaon (882-942), who lived first in Egypt and then Iraq, saw the narrative parts of the Talmud as literal, unless they either violated observable facts, or were beyond reason. In this case, they needed to be understood as allegories. A generation later, in Spain, Rabbi Shmuel HaNagid wrote an introduction to the Talmud, which is still printed in scholarly editions. He explains the structure and methodology of the Talmud. He divides its material into three parts. The first is the laws that have been handed down carefully since Sinai. In this, the Talmud is equal in authority to the Torah itself. The second consists of the interpretations of the various rabbis, how they interpreted Scripture, and derived principles. This, according to him, was NOT given to Moses. But, as these were such great men, their words must be carefully studied, and at least taken into consideration. The third part consists of legends and folklore that can well be ignored by us. Needless to say, this was a very radical approach. A middle ground was proposed by RAMBAM. I will discuss that in my next post.

The Chief Rabbinate; A Blessing or a Curse? part 14

 There have been, in recent years, movements that have challenged the status quo in the Chief Rabbinate, as well as their American proxy, the RCA. While receiving much criticism, and even threats of violence in some cases, they have, nevertheless, made some important advances. When the Chief Rabbinate passed from the hands of the Religious Zionist camp in 1993, a group of Zionist, inclusive rabbis formed a counter rabbinate, called Tzohar. Two official community rabbis, Rabbi David Stav of Shoham, and Rabbi Shlomo (Steven) Riskin of Efrat, organized many Zionist rabbis into a formal alternative for those seeking a return to Jewish observance, or at least a connection with it, without having to change everything they have been raised with. Rabbis were offered for weddings and other life cycle events who spoke good, colloquial Modern Hebrew (Several Chief Rabbis when interviewed on Israeli TV would have subtitles under the picture as they spoke), who had done military service, and were generally part of the "Israeli experience". Numerous people responded positively. Soon, they began to do "illegal" conversions. They were illegal in that they were not approved of by the Chief Rabbinate. But they were completely in line with halachah. Recently, the Chief Rabbinate ruled that Tzohar converts may not marry Jews (!!!)The Chief Rabbinate was, and is, vehemently opposed to this group. They saw it as a threat to a  central halachic authority. One periodical called it "Reform with a skull cap". But the community support was much too wide for this group to be pushed into oblivion.  Recently, the Chief Rabbinate announced that they were certifying twenty new dayyanim (rabbinic judges), half of whom would be from the religious Zionist camp. Is this a partial surrender to public demands, or an attempt to conscript these rabbis into the old system? Only time will tell.
In the United States, one remarkable man has caused an earthquake. His name is Rabbi Avi Weiss. He was for many decades the rabbi of a large New York congregation, while serving as a professor in the Yeshiva University system. He was long known for political activism, especially regarding Soviet Jewry and Israel. Although connected with the RCA, he was always his own man. Although a product of institutions inspired by Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik, he incorporated many other ideas from Hasidism, especially Rabbi Nachman. In 1999, he founded his own Yeshiva "Chovevei Torah", coining a new term "Open Orthodoxy". He resigned his position at YU. Critics claimed that "Open Orthodoxy" is essentially what the Conservative movement was in the 1920s and '30s. In 2009, he opened a rabbinical college for women, called Yeshiva Maharat. Shortly after, a woman, Sara Hurwitz, was ordained with the title "Rabba". (I met her once, and I must say I was greatly impressed). Rumors spread that Rabbi Weiss had been ousted from the RCA (which does not recognize his ordination of rabbis, male or female), and more right-wing organizations branded him as no longer Orthodox. For the sake of peace, he gave over the operation of his yeshivot to associates, as he remains in the RCA, pushing for liberalization from within. He has recently retired, but, like the Tzohar people in Israel, his influence remains and grows. A more open/user friendly  Orthodoxy seems inevitable. As Rabbi Weiss has always been active in dialogue with Non-Orthodox rabbis, this leaves me with hope for greater unity, without compromising integrity.
Next, we shall look at challenges to the Chief Rabbinate from the secular camp.

The Chief Rabbinate; A Blessing or a Curse? part 13

The new Chief Rabbis who were elected in 1993, were heavily under the influence of Hareidi rabbis. Around that time, the main Hareidi rabbis, especially in the Lithuanian Yeshiva sector, had adopted the very stringent approach to conversion, that had been formulated by Rabbi Yitzchak Shmelkes in 1876; that no one can be converted unless they are totally committed to observance on the highest level. This standard was imposed on the conversion courts in Israel, which were all under the auspices of the Chief Rabbinate. At first, the new Chief Rabbis published a list of which rabbis in America would be acceptable to them for conversion purposes. Unfortunately, many of these rabbis were already deceased, which can be a big drawback for one seeking help with a conversion. The old formula of accepting anyone converted by an Orthodox rabbi was no longer valid, as standards differed widely between rabbis. As protests to this narrow list mounted, a new policy was adopted. Only two rabbis, both heads of the RCA, and on the top faculty of Yeshiva University, would be recognized. Rabbis in outlying areas, hundreds of miles from New York, had little ability to send prospective converts for training and conversion. Eventually, a compromise was reached, in which RCA rabbis, approved by the two originally approved rabbis, would be set up in major population centers around the United States and Canada, operating under the authority of these two rabbis. Many Orthodox rabbis were incensed. Their communities had chosen THEM as the halachic decisors. They were members of an organization, not vassals. True, in Israel, every rabbi with an official position is legally a representative/employee of the Chief Rabbis. But this was never the case in the United States. Orthodox rabbis who were not members of the RCA were simply not recognized (with few exceptions). Chabad had conversion classes and facilities at many Chabad houses. They were persuaded to cease and desist, and refer all to the Batei Din of the RCA. (My personal belief is that the day is not far off when Chabad will replace the RCA as the major Orthodox organization in the United States). This can be seen as a cynical power grab by the RCA. But it can also be seen as a sincere desire to bring uniformity to the American rabbinate, with a consensus of action at the HIGHEST common denominator. Rabbi Marc Angel (a man for whom I have great respect), a former President of the RCA, protested this policy vehemently and openly defied it. A non-Jewish spouse of a Jew wants to convert, and is willing to accept the basic framework of an Orthodox lifestyle, is to be turned away, leaving an intermarriage in place, with the resulting problems for future generations? Aren't these the type of things a rabbi is supposed to have the discretion to decide? For sure, some rabbis were still doing non-approved conversions, but these would not be recognized beyond his own community. Intimidation was employed against Orthodox schools that hired these converts. This policy was in place from the mid 1990s until 2012. Two events changed the situation drastically., First, sanctions were planned against those RCA members who were bucking the system. Rabbi Avi Weiss, a close associate of Rabbi Angel, had formed his own seminary, that taught a much more liberal form of Orthodoxy. Attempts by the Chief Rabbinate and the RCA to discredit him, were met with huge protests from admiring colleagues. At about the same time, a scandal was revealed in which the head of one of the RCA's Batei Din had been exposed (no pun intended) as a voyeur, who placed hidden cameras in the women's mikveh in Washington, D.C.. The pressure was on both the RCA and the Chief Rabbinate to relax their grip. A new compromise was reached that any RCA rabbi could do conversions, but would only be recognized in Israel with a letter of approval from the RCA leadership. But it was still limited to the RCA. One of the current Chief Rabbis has hinted that it might be extended to include others, especially where there is no RCA Beit Din. I am waiting to see this. Now, I must admit that I have strong feelings in this area. I am very pro-convert. People whom I converted back in the 1970s are recognized in Israel. While I lived there, I was on one of the Rabbinate's Batei Din for conversion. Since returning to the States, any conversion I do would remain unrecognized, as I am not a member of the RCA. I feel great resentment over this. On the other hand, charlatans who convert for money are vanishing from the scene. It is getting harder and harder for uncredentialed rabbis to function. Americans tend to value independence and individuality. Israelis tend to value organization and officialdom. The truth is probably at an elusive place in between. In my next part of this series, I will discuss current protest movements in this area, and what they may lead to.

The Chief Rabbinate; A Blessing or a Curse? part 12

To understand how the Israeli Chief Rabbinate essentially commandeered American Orthodoxy, we must look at some history first. Although Jews began arriving in America already in the seventeenth century, few rabbis, or even mediocre scholars, did. The situation was very similar to that of internet "rabbis" today. Someone with a bit of knowledge, but a big agenda, makes it sound like their view is "the" view of Judaism. No credentials are offered. Those who are knowledgeable, of course, can immediately spot a phony; by misquotes, inability to use Hebrew expressions correctly, or by inappropriately wearing sacred garments, intended for worship, while giving a talk for the camera. Similarly, anyone with a smattering of Jewish knowledge could, in nineteenth and early twentieth century America, pass himself off as a rabbi, with no one knowing the difference. Anyone with access to a sign maker, could put a shingle in front of his house. At one point in the early twentieth century, there were two signs on the same New York street. One claimed that the occupant was the Chief Rabbi of New York. Down the block, was the Chief Rabbi of America! As there were no Orthodox seminaries, those who wished to be rabbis would either be self ordained, or seek ordination from a visiting European rabbi. In the 1920s, things began to get more organized. In 1886, what was to become Yeshiva University started as an elementary school. By 1928, it had expanded to not only a full University program, but also a rabbinical seminary, called the "Rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan Theological Seminary".. While Orthodox, it was run like a University; secular studies were mandatory, and students could choose between a wide variety of subjects to study. Although similar in many ways to German seminaries, it was radically different from what was known to East European Jews, who at this time comprised the great majority of the American Jewish community. It was so similar to the Conservative Jewish Theological Seminary, that a merger was proposed in the late 1920s. It failed, not because of ideology, but because of different systems of Talmudic study. Modern Orthodoxy was thus born. However, since that term has a connotation of being wishy-washy, the term "Centrist" came in in the 1970s. More right-wing rabbis were scandalized by the new seminary. Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, the Sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe, famously said in the 1940s "It is hard to imagine how Rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan (a prominent Lithuanian rabbi) could have sinned, that such an institution was named for him". But they were producing rabbis for a new kind of Jewish community. The classical model was not that of a pastoral rabbi. He was the community authority on Jewish law. There might be many synagogues in his town, but he was responsible for all. Sermons were given twice a year; the Shabbat between Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur, and the Shabbat before Passover. In America, every synagogue was independent. Each sought its own rabbi, who could respond to the needs of that constituency. Yeshiva University was producing THAT kind of rabbi; fairly knowledgeable in halachah, but who also was trained in psychology, and could even quote Shakespeare. An association of congregations was formed simultaneously, which became known as the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, more commonly known as the Orthodox Union, or the OU. The OU congregations were provided with rabbis who were graduates of YU. An association of these rabbis came into being, known as the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA). Eventually, these three institutions came under the same auspices, and are essentially one. By this time, there were other seminaries, run by both Lithuanian and Hasidic groups. But the latter's students were generally not interested in the pulpit rabbinate. They were interested in Torah education at various levels; from elementary to advanced. They certainly had no desire to bring their families into the "boondocks" of middle America. As a result, nearly all Orthodox congregations became affiliated with the OU and the RCA. Feelers were put out by the RCA for merger with some of the more right-wing organizations, but these were rebuffed by those who considered the RCA rabbis as barely Orthodox. Any rabbi ordained at YU is automatically a member of the RCA. Graduates of other yeshivot must apply for admission, which is not easy to receive. As a result, rabbis from the prominent yeshivot; Lakewood, Torah V'daas, Mir, Telz, had little chance of being hired by an Orthodox synagogue. Ironically, the Young Israel Movement, which began as sort of a bridge between the Orthodox and Conservative movements, hired rabbis from the more right-wing yeshivot, and, as a result, is now quite a bit to the right of the OU synagogues. (Many now belong to the OU as well as Young Israel). The chaos of the beginning of the twentieth century had yielded to a powerful and efficient organization. Some would say a monopoly. However, other groups made inroads, and ran their own institutions. It is, after all, a free country. But then in the 1990s, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate officially recognized the RCA as its sole representative in America. At that point, things become messy. More next time.

The Chief Rabbinate; A Blessing or a Curse? part 11

The Chief Rabbinate elections of 1993 represented a complete change of direction; not only for Israel, but for world Jewry. The Rabin government had been voted in the previous year. Its two major coalition partners were the ultra Left, vehemently anti-religious Ratz party, and, ironically, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's Shas party. As the National Religious Party had taken a solid stand for " Complete Eretz Yisrael" and Settlements, and Ratz had insisted on a very anti-settlement policy, as well as extensive territorial concessions, there was virtually no influence left to the National Religious approach. Shas was more interested in legislation that would enhance religious observance in the country, and provide equal opportunity for Sepharadic Jews. (A study conducted at that time showed that a far larger percentage of Israeli Arabs completed university studies than did Sepharadic Jews). Shas was not terribly interested in the territorial issue, but insisted in coalition talks that any major territorial compromise would be dependent on a national referendum. Rabin acceded to that demand. This was a reversal of the historic relationship between the secular and religious political camps. The National Religious Party had always aligned with every government in power, whether Right or Left, as it put the welfare and unity of the country ahead of its particular concerns. The Hareidi parties were held at arm's distance, with their agenda seen as alien, or even threatening, to most Israelis. Now, the National Religious camp seemed like the enemy. The Hareidim could be bought out with more money for schools and outreach. This was reflected in the 1993 Chief Rabbinate elections. Two Hareidi rabbis were selected by the Knesset committee that was charged with making the decision. The Sepharadic rabbi, Rabbi Eliyahu Bakshi Doron, was essentially a Shas appointee. The Ashkenazi rabbi, Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, was hand picked by the leadership of the Lithuanian, hareidi Degel HaTorah party. Both were, to say the least, qualified rabbis. But neither was considered a "gadol", a great scholar whom other scholars could contact for in depth analysis of situations in the light of sources. Former Chief Rabbi Goren declared "if these are the Chief Rabbis, it's time to do away with the Chief Rabbinate". Certain rabbis in the settler movement, openly said that they did not recognize them as the Chief Rabbis. The new Chief Rabbis' view of Israel was positive; they saw it as the national home of the Jewish people. But neither saw it as the prophesied Messianic Kingdom, which Rav Kook had declared it to be; a view taken up by the National Religious Party. They were both eloquent and in touch with the Israeli public. On the positive side, they cleaned up much corruption. They took the authority of conversion away from local rabbinates that were found to be extorting money from converts (according to most halachic opinions, it is forbidden to charge for a conversion). They neutralized rabbis who were giving false kashrut certifications in exchange for bribes. On the controversial side, they imposed a uniform conversion standard. Some rabbis were converting candidates with zero requirements. Some were demanding no less than a total commitment to Torah observance. Many were in between. The new Chief Rabbis set the standard to the right. There had long been conversion seminars, in which people attended several months of classes, and were then converted; no questions asked. These were closed down, and the people running them forbidden from further dealings in conversion. This angered some, pleased others. In any case, this was clearly in the realm of the authority of the Chief Rabbinate. But they went further. They examined Batei Din all over the world, recognizing some, and removing recognition of others. Surprisingly, no one on Rabbi Doron's staff was knowledgeable in English. His personal secretary asked me to come in every other week to translate correspondences. Many were anguished letters from Batei Din around the world that had been recognized by previous Chief Rabbis, but no longer were. The Chief Rabbinate of Israel had, for all intents and purposes, made itself the Chief Rabbinate for the world. Nowhere was this more evident than their approach to the American rabbinate. That will be my next post.

The Chief Rabbinate; A Blessing or a Curse? part 10

The Chief rabbinate, under Rabbis Goren and Yosef, is generally deemed a failure. Time and energy were dissipated on internal disputes. After they left office, Rabbi Goren continued as the head of a Yeshiva, occasionally speaking his mind on one issue or another. He became very politically active before his death in 1994, in opposing he policies of Yitzchak Rabin. As one of the founders of Israel, a former chief rabbi, and terminally ill with cancer, he knew that he could say and do things that would have otherwise resulted in a prison term.Rabbi Ovadia Yosef essentially BEGAN his activities after retiring from the Chief Rabbinate. Unlike Rabbi Goren, who was a staunch Zionist, he was not, but believed in cooperating with the State for the sake of the Jewish people.The dismal situation of Sepharadic Jews in Israel, especially the North Africans, led him to found a Sepharadic political party, called Shas. It had, at its beginnings, the support of the main Lithuanian, ultra Orthodox leader in Israel, Rabbi Eliezer Mann Shach. At that time, Shas maintained an ultra Orthodox stand, in line with the Ashkenazi "gedolim" (rabbinic greats), while urging and helping to bring back to observance the great masses of Sepharadic Jews who were no longer observant, primarily due to the policies of David Ben Gurion (no work until you register your children at a secular school). Eventually breaking with Rav Shach, he took a much more vocal position on the superiority of Sepharadic tradition over Ashkenazi (a stance I heartily agree with). In public statements, these ideas were worded diplomatically, but there were many private statements that were secretly recorded, and got into the media. When I went to see him in 1991 to inquire if it was possible for me and my family to become Sepharadic as my studies lead me to the conclusion that this was imperative, he not only agreed, but spoke of it on television!, Politically, he managed to bring non-observant and minimally observant people to vote for his party on an ethnic basis.. At one point, his party was the third biggest voting block in the Knesset. The National Religious party lost ground to Shas. In another decade,it would lose its crown jewel; the Chief Rabbinate, that would fall into non Zionist hands. He was close to the Rabin government, approving, and helping to pass, the Oslo accords, which he later regretted and opposed, and blamed his right hand man, Aryeh Der'i for misleading him..
In the meanwhile, two new Chief Rabbis were selected; Rabbis Shapiro and Eliahu. They were good men, as well as staunch Zionists. Since the rabbinate had suffered so much from infighting, they publicly declared a "Covenant of Love" between them, and were careful not to contradict each other. They also divided the responsibilities of the rabbinate between themselves, rather than having two men doing essentially the same job. Both supported and encouraged the nascent settler movement, which earned them the ire of the secular Left. They attempted to heal wounds in society by solving the problem of the Ethiopian Jews. Rabbi Yosef had declared many doubtful communities as being full-fledged Jews. The Ethiopians were an exception, as their connection to the Jewish people, if any, was lost in the mists of time. The new Chief Rabbis sought, and found, a solution. The Ethiopians, they opined, had a fairly good claim to being Jewish. They would only be required to perform immersion, no questions asked, in order to remove any doubt. While this was a very liberal stance, it was attacked by the Left as racist. Why weren't white Jews being required to do this? Most Ethiopians did not accept the offer to immerse. In fact, many Ethiopian women who had always immersed after menstruation, ceased doing so, lest it be perceived as conversion. The chief rabbis were also side swiped by Rabbi Yosef, who now reversed himself, declaring the Ethiopians Jewish without conversion. All this has led to many of the difficulties the Ethiopians are experiencing in being integrated into Israeli society. Although the new Chief Rabbis publicly accepted the long standing policy of Orthodox conversions only, behind the scenes, they were also accepting Conservative conversions on a case by case basis. They sought to de-politicize the Chief Rabbinate, and largely ignored their beholdeness to the National Religious Party. When their term was up, they asked the National Religious Party to try and make legislation to extend their term. The response? What have you done for us? This was a grave error, as the chief Rabbinate was henceforth lost to that sector, and became Hareidi (ultra-Orthodox). The effects of this on not only Israel, but on world Jewry, will be the topic of my next post.

The Chief Rabbinate; A Blessing or a Curse? part 9

Before we can talk about the after-effects of the debacles of the Rabbinate of the '70s., we must address the profound changes in Israel at that time. The Six Day War of 1967 was followed by a remarkable euphoria; no one had expected Israel to survive. But she had, and new territory was added, which had been the main centers of Jewish life in ancient Israel. Many saw this as a great miracle. It was later revealed that there was a huge abyss of mistrust between the government and the army on the eve of the war. Moshe Dayyan, the hero of the 1956 Sinai Campaign, was called out of retirement. But why? It was reported that Lt. General Yitzchak Rabin felt that PM Levi Eshkol was mishandling everything. He had a breakdown, and reportedly spent the first days of the war in a drunken stupor. (This was later used by his political opponents in campaign ads; Rabin's image with a liquor bottle and glass shown over his head.) The Jerusalem Municipality had ordered the preparation of 10,000 graves for the expected civilian casualties.The PM's address to the nation at the beginning of the war was recited in a stammering, fearful voice. There had been fear that the Soviet Union would, at some point, intervene on the Arab side. For a realist, things looked bleak. Six days later, an amazing victory, which no one had expected, was in their hands. Many young, hitherto secular Israelis, as well as young Jews around the world, had the feeling that Divine intervention had been seen, and the coming of Mashiach was imminent.This was the beginning of the "Teshuvah (Repentance) Movement" which saw a massive return to religion. The secularists were furious. "The victory was a victory of the secular State!". Many snickered at that, considering the relative helplessness of the State at that juncture. But, at the same time, the secular Left was uncomfortable with holding on to the newly conquered territories, as the occupation of another people was contrary to everything they believed in. They were also alarmed by the growing numbers of the religious minority.They saw Democracy, as they envisioned it, under threat. In the early '70s, the issue of "who is a Jew?" became, as we have seen, a major divisive factor in Israeli society. Secular Israelis wanted a secular definition, with no reference to religion. The religious, of course, objected strongly. PM Golda Meir, who took over after the death of Levi Eshkol, imposed a compromise that pleased few. She famously said "Judaism is above Zionism and above the State". This infuriated the secular. But she went on to advocate, and gain passage, for the formula "A Jew is one born of a Jewish mother, or one who has converted". She deliberately did NOT say "converted according to halachah". This opened the way for Conservative and Reform conversions to be recognized for purposes of immigration, but not for marriage, as this was still under the jurisdiction of the Rabbinate. In fact, non-Orthodox conversion as validation for immigration was to wait thirty years for full implementation in practice. Then came October, 1973. A "surprise" attack (which should have been no surprise, as Egyptian and Syrian troops were amassed at the border for weeks), was launched against Israel on the morning of the solemn day of Yom Kippur. Most of the soldiers at the front were yeshiva students with little training, who had volunteered to relieve soldiers for the holy day. Some 1,000 were killed in the first wave of attack. All in all, 2,688 Israelis died in that war, which lasted nineteen days. Considering the population of Israel at the time was 3,000,000, that is a huge percentage of the population. In the post mortum of the war, it was seen that the coming of the war should have been obvious, but there had been a "contzeptzia" (working concept) in the government and military that the Arabs would not risk another war with Israel. A controversial side note is that Golda Meir was informed a few hours before the attack that one was imminent, but decided to absorb the blow, rather than risk angering Nixon and Kissinger. This essentially ended her political career. She even contemplated suicide.Although many regard her with great admiration, others (including yours truly) regard her as one of the greatest failures in Jewish history. The mood of the country changed. Faith in the government and the military plummeted. The traditional Israeli confidence (overconfidence?) was dead. The Zionism of the '50's and '60's was no more. Israelis no longer sought land or power. Most wanted peace at any price. There was only one exception to this rule. The religious Zionist community saw the near defeat as an opportunity to settle the Land of Israel in a new way. In Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and the Golan, settlement must take place; not based on the ideals of Marx, but on the Torah, and on Zionism as had been envisioned by Rav Kook. The Chief Rabbinate became, at this stage, more of an observer than a facilitator. After Golda Meir was removed from office, Yitzchak Rabin became the PM. He acceded to the requests of the National Religious groups to form settlements in the "territories", even giving generous government grants and incentives. He suffered a vote of no confidence in 1977, as the result of two scandals. Menachem Begin, the leader of Israel's Right, was elected PM, ending a twenty-nine year Socialist rule. Some of the religiously right parties now entered the governing coalition, something they felt they could not do under the anti-Torah policies of previous governments. (Begin personally was fairly observant). But now, there was more than one kind of religious Jew in Israel officialdom. The Chief Rabbinate, which had always represented the National Religious party, became much less influential. It is perhaps ironic that any move towards inclusivity and unity, tended to have the opposite effect That is one of the tragedies of Jewish history. It remains a problem. Where the chief Rabbinate went next, will be the topic of my next post.