The Chief Rabbinate; A Blessing or a Curse? part 8

The Langer case was by no means the only one tackled by Rabbi Goren. Ironically, his very brave moves to ease the secular public's opposition to halachah, largely backfired. At the same time as the Langer case, another challenge was on the horizon. An American woman, with a Reform conversion, living with her Kohen husband on a secular kibbutz (a Kohen may not marry a convert), was suing to either have her conversion recognized, or else have the Israeli government accept the idea that one could be Jewish from a civil perspective, without being part of the religion. Many secular Israelis who observed almost nothing of Jewish law or tradition related strongly to the latter idea. The rabbinic establishment, realizing that Israelis would not comprehend the halachic differences between an Orthodox and non-Orthodox conversion, had always explained that Reform converts had insufficient knowledge to really be Jewish, and only an Orthodox conversion preparation could impart the necessary knowledge. But Rabbi Goren was determined to find a solution to this high profile crisis. He spoke with the lady privately for an hour. At the end of the hour, he took her for a quick Orthodox conversion, with full knowledge that she would be maintaining a non-observant lifestyle, as well as her halachically forbidden marriage. An earlier Chief Rabbi had ruled that it was acceptable to convert people who wanted to be Jewish even just for purposes of marriage, and this had been for twenty years the stance of the Chief Rabbinate, But Rabbi Goren went further. He believed that the very fact of choosing to live in Israel was sufficient to warrant conversion, no questions asked. The secularists were dumbstruck. If Orthodox conversion was supposed to be the "real deal", how can it require so little, and be done in an hour no less? Not deterred by criticism, he even went to the secularist kibbutzim, asking to see their non-Jewish volunteers (mainly Scandinavian women). Since he knew that cohabitation was fairly common between these volunteers and the members of the kibbutz, and foresaw that demands for marriage would certainly become even more common, he would take these volunteers for immediate conversion. Ironically, he would write on their certificates that their conversion was only valid as long as they lived in Israel, as the idea of residency in Israel was central to his criteria for conversion. His Sepharadic counterpart, himself a liberal on conversion, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, was infuriated by Rabbi Goren's actions. A ten year period of denunciation and counter denunciation had begun, which greatly diminished whatever public respect there had been for the Chief Rabbinate. On the Supreme Rabbinical Council of the Chief Rabbinate, one of the key figures was Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (1910-2012). Rabbi Elyahiv was a "gadol", a rabbinic "all star" in the Lithuanian tradition. Scandalized by Rabbi Goren's actions and ideas, he resigned from the Rabbinic High Court, and became an independent agent for the next forty years. Shortly thereafter, a very complicated inheritance issue came before the Supreme Rabbinic Council. Those kind of things were usually decided by Rabbi Elyashiv. But he would no longer "play ball" with that body. Up until that point, Israeli law had divided the authority of the rabbinic and secular courts very carefully. Criminal matters were for the secular courts. "Personal Status" (Jewish or not Jewish, single or not single, etc.) was firmly in the hands of the rabbinic courts. Economic issues could be decided by either system, depending on the desire of the litigants. The case under discussion had been brought to the rabbbinic court. Without Rabbi Elyashiv, they felt that their competency was insufficient to decide the case. The litigants went to the secular court system. The judges asked why they had switched systems. The parties involved said that the rabbinic court had declared itself not sufficiently competent. The judges asked that they get that in writing. When they did, the court ruled that since the rabbinic court had admitted its own incompetence, the rules of the division of powers between the two systems was null and void. In any conflict between the rabbinic and secular court systems, the secular would henceforth prevail. The liberalism of the Chief Rabbinate under Rabbi Goren, instead of strengthening Torah law, had actually resulted in the rabbinate "having its wings clipped". These two brilliant men, Rabbi Goren and Rabbi Yosef, had allowed their personal and ideological differences to become the topic of discussion and ridicule. One example of this was an order issued by Rabbi Goren that the caper bushes that grow out between the stones of the Kotel (Western Wall) were to be removed, as they were a sign of mourning. The geulah (redemption) had already taken place, and there was no longer a basis for mourning. Rabbi Yosef countermanded the order. Israel was NOT in a state of redemption. There was still a deep divide among the people, and enemies, seeking Israel's destruction surrounded them. The bushes must stay. Rabbi Yosef's ruling was eventually accepted, but not before weeks of personal attacks between the two great men filled the media. Even the observance of Tish'ah B'Av, the anniversary of the destruction of the Temple, became an issue. A paragraph describing the anguish of a destroyed Jerusalem, and praying for its restoration, looms large in the prayers of that day. Rabbi Goren revised the prayer, having it say that it USED TO BE that way, but is now redeemed. Nevertheless, we ask for the complete redemption, the in-gathering of the exiles, and the rebuilding of the Temple. Rabbi Yosef demanded the retention of the original formula. EVERYTHING became an issue. In my next post, I will deal with the aftermath of this era, and what lessons were learned...and what lessons were not learned.