The Knesset Finance Committee held a session to discuss the state’s recent decision to grant limited recognition to religious leaders affiliated with Israel’s Reform and Conservative Movements.
During the session, Minister of Religious Services (Shas) Yaakov Margi accused justices on the case of being personally involved; citing one of the judges has been a recipient of a honorary title from the Reform Movement. Committee chair (Yahadut HaTorah) Moshe Gafne informed his colleagues he will thoroughly investigate Margi’s allegations and report his findings. Margi added that one of the judges was married by a Reform Movement rabbi, which is illegal.
Gafne is also calling upon government officials to explain who is empowered to authorize budgetary allocations in matters that lack government approval, both in Knesset and the cabinet, explaining this was such a case. Gafne is also questioning just who empowered the state attorney general to render a decision that is binding in the case of the Reform Movement.
Gafne points out that Attorney General Weinstein acted on his own, independent of the Knesset and the cabinet.
“There is no Knesset or government decision. If they want pluralism then why just with the Rabbinate? Why now regarding the Transportation Ministry. Why should there only be a single vehicular licensing bureau? Let’s have pluralism and establish a number of licensing agencies with competing rates. Why just one Health Ministry? Let’s establish a number of ministries that can address public health. Let us establish numerous offices. I don’t accept the attorney general’s position and I believe he has a personal agenda”.
(YWN – Israel Desk, Jerusalem)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
11 Responses
The decision clearly stated that the funding to the two umbrella groups for the conservative and reform rabbonim was in their role as ‘cultural” leaders of a segment of the Israeli population who pay more in taxes (on a per capita basis) than the Chareidi population. They are entitled to having their mosdos funded on a comparable basis. There was no element of recogniton of these groups as being able to do kiddush, gittin etc.
Better off Orthodox Judaesm should be seperate from their State. Saying that Torah rules over a certain part of things meaning the Rabbinate is denegrating our Torah and G-d.
The Torah is to dominate ALL the affairs of the Jewish people. A State that does not run itself according to the Torah IS NOT A JEWISH STATE!
Imagine if a State in the U.S. would decide that it would ALLOW parts of the State to be obligated by Federal Laws (that are to obligate the entire U.S.) Would we as loyal citizens of the U.S. be allowed to cooperate with such a State???
How much more so when it comes to G-d and his Torah which obligates the Jewish people in every sphere of their lives.
Dear #2 – Halevai that all aspects of the state should be run in accordance with the Torah and Halakha, but Orthodox Jewry were not involved it would create tremendous problems for the achdus and kedusha of Am Yisroel. Think of this, every Jew in Israel is bound legally by the halakhot of Kedushin and Gittin no matter what their denomination or affiliation; if the Orthodox were to chas veshalom leave the Rabanut post of the state to Conservative or Reform “rabbonim” then it would create serious problems of mamzerus and would possibly re-institute the ancient need to check the kashrus a person’s family. Because Orthodox rabbonim have and are baruch Hashem involved every Jew must by law have a halakhic kiddushin to get married and a halakhic get to divorce so all of klal Yisroel in Eretz Yisroel are all kosher in that respect because we have saved at least that much. May we merit to see the beis din hagadol in Yerushalayim bimheira beyameinu!
GadolBe’einav, the C and R clergy (not “rabbonim”) lead a tiny segment of the population that pays almost nothing in taxes. Why are they entitled to anything? But the real question is where Weinstein, the government’s legal advisor (not the Attorney General, that is a gross mistranslation), gets the authority to dictate budget allocations.
“They are entitled to having their mosdos funded on a comparable basis.” !!! Quote from a Gadolhadorah,above.
No. There is no “ entitlement” in the real world for people who pretend to teach Judaism to get funding. If you are aware of even one of the things they teach (things which we are not allowed to think, believe, teach or repeat) you would reach for a paper bag, no exaggeration. Calling their haunts “mosdos” is not just a misnomer, it has the effect of assigning credibility where no credibility exists. They are not mosdos.
You have to put the title “rabbi” in quotes when referring to these people who actively encourage others to sin.
They are citizens of Israel, notwithstanding Millhouse’s feeble attempt to marginalize them as not “entitled” to anything. If he was able to read, he would note the comment that they pay higher taxes on a PER CAPITA basis than most of his chevrah who probably rely on government subsidies to some degree. They ARE entitled to share in the benefits of government programs on a comparable basis and whether you like it or not, the courts and the government just made it happen.
#3 people do what they want regardless of that “rabanut”. We are not aloud to give recognition to something that is against the Torah, and to let them be representatives of the Jewish people. This is not adding to the achdus and Kedusha of Klal Yisroel; it is decreasing it. It gives the false notion as if there’s something else that bonds us besides Torah. Would it be permissible to provide a hechsher for food given in a missionary’s event? We have to stop perpetuating this big lie of a “Jewish” State.
We should always check for Yichus and in Eretz Yisroel too there’s plenty of intermarriage. Better deal with reality, then fall naively into pits.
#2/#8/oldfashionedjew – having a state is not against halakha. It is true that the Satmer Rebbe zt”l was of the opinion that the shalosh shevuos forbid a Jewish state but this is not a majority view. The main problem with the state of Israel is that it is largely run by people who are not shomer Torah but not in the fundamental existence of a Jewish State. Our gedolim have instructed us to be involved on different levels and to influence, without recognizing the non-Torah aspects of the state. The Chazon Ish zt”l and the Steipler zt”l innstructed that we should vote in elections, an Orthodox rabbanut ensuring that gittin and kedushin are properly done and that the army has kosher food is not accepting non-Torah ideas, it is successfully spreading them. The Rosh yeshiva of Ponovezh came out earlier this year and stated that any israeli soldier who dies for klal Yisroel R’l even if he is not shomer Torah unMitzvos has the highest share in Olam Haba based on Bava Basra 9-10.
Criminal enterprises often pay taxes because they don’t want to end up like Al Capone. They’re still not entitled to anything. Reform and Conservative are no better.
#9 Having a State is indeed against Halacha. The Satmar Rov’s position is the position which is derived directly from all our classical sources. There was no other Godol who penned a refutal to his proofs.
The Chazon Ish and the Steipler were both of the opinion that the establishment of the State was prohibited. The Steipler writes in KARYANA D’IGARTA #205 that surely the establishment of the State was against the Torah. But, he disagrees with the Satmar Rov that it should be prohibited to vote once the State already exists. His reasoning was that just like Jews participated in the Polish parliament and no one suspected that they believed in Christianity although Poland was a christian State, so it is with the State in Eretz Yisroel that just because frum Jews vote for their own rights no one will suspect that they support the State.
Dovid Baer, you and many others like you provide the best answer for the Satmar Rov. The participation of the Frum parties in the so called “Jewish” State has confused you and so many others to think that Gedolim like the Chazon Ish and the Steipler, who participated with those parties out of what they felt was a lack of choice, were in favor of the State and saw it as a “Jewish” State. Nothing can be further than the truth. They did not feel that Zionists represented Klal Yisroel. In the words of the Steipler the State was as far from Klal Yisroel as the Polish Parliament was.
The Olom Haba of a Jew who sincelrely gave his life for what he perceived as what is saving the Jewish people is not related to subject under discussion.