Chief Rabbi David Lau

Responses to Chief Rabbi Lau’s publicly disdainful anti-pluralism

Friends, we assume you are aware of the public rabbinic debate that ensued following Chief Rabbi Lau’s admonishment of Minister Bennett for visiting a Conservative day school in Manhattan. Rabbi Uri Regev has written about it in the Jerusalem Post and the LA Jewish Journal, and many other responses to Rabbi Lau have been coming out on a nearly daily basis. Below, you’ll find listed some of the key arguments that this encounter has raised.

We believe that you may be interested in seeing actual rabbinic pronouncements on both sides of the issue, which may not all be readily available to you in the USA. These are available to you on this website, including:

  • Rabbi Ya’akov Ariel, Chief Rabbi of Ramat Gan & former President of Tzohar,
  • Rabbi Gilad Kariv, Executive Director of the Israel Movement for Reform and Progressive Judaism,
  • Rabbi Benny Lau, Rabbi of Jerusalem’s Ramban Synagogue,
  • Rabbi Mordechai Neugroschel, popular ultra-Orthodox lecturer,
  • Rabbi Uri Regev, Head of Hiddush,
  • And others…

As you read through these responses, you may consider the following:

  1. The contradiction between Lau’s message, which delegitimizes Conservative and Reform Judaism, expecting Ministers in the Israeli Cabinet to be guided by the religious prohibition, per the Chief Rabbi’s view, that granting legitimacy to non-Orthodox Judaism is forbidden; and PM Netanyahu’s recent statements about his inclusive approach to the Diaspora’s diverse Jewish scene, along with his commitment to ensuring that all Jews, regardless of denomination, feel at home in Israel.
  2. The chief rabbi, as an official of the State of Israel, disregarded the limitations set by Israeli law and the civil courts, which forbid interference by the chief rabbis in the conduct of state officials. This raises the larger issue of the lack of compliance and respect on the part of the state rabbinate towards civil law and the courts that officially empower it, threatening serious erosion of the rule of law in Israel.
  3. Lau’s hypocrisy in attempting to make a distinction between a religious prohibition, per his view, regarding the presence of Israeli officials at Reform and Conservative institutions due to their deviation from Orthodox norms and traditions, while at the same time visiting pluralistic day schools himself, where egalitarian prayer services and non-Orthodox rabbis among the faculty are celebrated. How can Lau expect the public to assume that
read more