By Rabbi Dovid Markel
There have been many articles written about the recent Riskin controversy, of which the Chief Rabbinate wishes to review his tenure.
Articles entitled, “Firing Riskin will Cross a Redline,” by Avigdor Liberman declare that doing so runs contrary to the ethos of Judaism for millennium, saying:
“The very nature of Judaism is being hijacked in a political turf war.The Judaism that sustained our people for thousands of years is now a pale of shadow of itself in official 21st Century Israel and those of us who care deeply about it should have their voices heard.”
“There will be no more “70 faces of the Torah,” as the Midrash teaches us. Rather, there will be one uncompromising, illiberal and, dare I say it, unauthentic mirage of Judaism that will be enforced on all.”
The author would have us assume three fallacies:
1) That Rabbi Riskin is being fired from his post. He isn’t. The question is about renewing his contract not about firing him.
As their employer they have the right to assess whether or not he it true to the ideals that they wish to be upheld and refuse to rehire him
The fact that rabbis are often merely “rubber stamped” and rehired is completely irrelevant. Most of these Rabbis do not question the authority of the Rabbinate to begin with or say the many questionable statements that Rabbi Riskin has made throughout his tenure.
I don’t see why it is not in their right to discontinue his salary or his official tenure as Rabbi in a government position.
While the claim is that “Judaism is being hijacked in a political turf war,” the fact is that the Chief Rabbinate is an elected position. In this case it is actually the democratic process that has expressed what should be the dominant expression of Judaism in Israel not vice versa.
Which leads to the second point:
2) All this rabble rousing about firing Rabbi Riskin would have us believe that–to paraphrase various articles–“a few old men in Jerusalem are silencing a valid voice in Judaism.”
Essentially they are equating his losing his official government position to placing him under cherem and excommunicating him from the rabbinate.
This is untrue as well. Rabbi Riskin is essentially free from continuing as Rabbi of Efrat, albeit without the government position.
When the late Rabbi Mordechai Shmuel Ashkenazi was pushed out of his position as Chief Rabbi of Kefar Chabad and the Lud Valley region, the inhabitants of Kefar Chabad declared that they would not hold reelections for the the position as they all accept him as their rabbi.
The community of Efrat has the right to do the same. No one is being silenced. The Chief Rabbinate has the right not to renew his tenure as he clearly does not comply with their ethos and the community of Efrat has the right to rehire him and supply him with a salary if they so chose.
No voices are being silenced, but the Chief Rabbinate like any other corporation can decide whether his voice should represent their body.
3) Perhaps the greatest fallacy perpetrated in these articles is that Judaism is open to multiplicity and quieting dissenting views of normative Judaic thought run contrary to the spirit of Judaism.
Any brief look in Jewish history would illuminate the plain reality that throughout our long history as a people greater halachik authorities have been completely excommunicated for much smaller infractions than Rabbi Riskin.
Who greater than one of the greatest rabbinic minds of all times–Rabbi Eliezer the great–was excommunicated by the chief rabbinate of his day (Talmud 59b) for the seemingly minor infraction of questioning their ruling.
The Talmud states that G-d accepted their ruling as it was done for the continuity of Judaism rather than personal honor.
The Talmud declares when Rabbi Gamliel was set to be punished for his actions he declared:
“‘Sovereign of the Universe! Thou knowest full well that I have not acted for my honor, nor for the honor of my paternal house, but for Thine, so that strife may not multiply in Israel! ‘At that the raging sea subsided.”
By his parties own admittance they are Liberal Orthodoxy, Progressive Orthodoxy, Open-Orthodoxy and a many number of other conjured up terms.
In a recent post by Ysoscher Katz his sentiment as well as the sentiment of his commentators is that they are indeed at war with standard orthodoxy.
To quote one Feivel Sommers:
“We don’t believe that someone who accepts the scientific point of view over that of the Talmud, or who accepts the Documentary hypothesis is a heretic, and we would save the life of such a person on shabbos, whereas someone who is in keeping with the views of the Shulchan Aruch MUST let the person die.
We, as Mod-Orths, believe that a woman is much more than a “barrel of excrement”, and that they do not “only possess the wisdom of knitting” (both statements about women which are in the Talmud), and that the Talmudic writers were primitive. The classical tenets of Judaism (even the Rambam) would classify us as absolute heretics, but that’s ok, we have decided that it isn’t enough for us to break rank with historical Judaism, we have devised an entire system of law, the mechanisms of which allow for us to believe as we do and practice as we do….”
By his own admittance he agrees that a 1000 years of Jewish scholarship would define him as a heretic…and that he is alright with that!
It is against this zeitgeist where a war is being declared against the ethos of Judaism for millennium that the Chief Rabbinate is warring against.
If these factions themselves admit that they are at war with the standards of Judaism, they cannot cry that they are the victim when their are casualties.
Keeping in mind the stated intentions of “Progressive Orthodoxy,” the response of the Rabbinate is relatively mild, whereas throughout most generations such detractors would be banished from Judaism.
I would venture to say though that history will do its part and eventually open orthodoxy will one day be remembered as just another group that dared to challenge true rabbinic Judaism.
