“Who is a Rabbi?” – The struggle for state funding of non-Orthodox rabbis to receive renewed Supreme Court hearing on May 9th

Negotiations Stalemate; Supreme Court schedules new hearing regarding the status of non-Orthodox rabbis and their rights to state funding.

The Supreme Court has set May 9 as the date when they will hear arguments regarding the status of non-Orthodox rabbis and their rights to state funding. The original petition was brought by the Israel Religious Action Center (IRAC) which is the legal arm of the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism (IMPJ), on behalf of Rabbi Miri Gold of Kibbutz Gezer’s congregation Birkat Shalom in 2005. This petition focused on approving a permanent rabbi’s position in the Gezer regional council’s budget along with appointing the Reform ordained Rabbi Miri Gold to that position.  In addition, the petition argued that the current situation illegally favors the Orthodox and prevents pluralistic Jewish citizens from receiving liberal religious services from the State – thereby discriminating against the many liberal rabbis in the country, not only because they are not Orthodox, but also because many of them are women. Furthermore, the IMPJ and IRAC requested that each community’s religious needs and desires be included in the primary considerations for appointing them a rabbi, thereby allowing them the freedom of choice regarding who their State subsidized spiritual leader will be.

After the June 2006 deliberations, the court ordered the IMPJ and IRAC to conduct out-of-court negotiations with the governmental committee on religious affairs in order to reach a mutually agreeable set of criteria for determining funding of State appointed non-Orthodox rabbis. After many delays and versions of the document, in March 2012 the State finally submitted its reply. However, this document is highly problematic for the following major reasons:

• The ministry responsible for such services would not be the Ministry of Religious Affairs, but rather the Ministry of Culture and Sport. Transferring this responsibility to the Ministry of Culture shows contempt for non-Orthodox rabbis by the State. These rabbis would not be considered to be giving religious services, but rather acting as mere cultural attachés, whose funding will depending on the generosity and whims of the government.

• The document eliminates the obvious term “non-Orthodox rabbis” from the criteria and uses instead the vague term “community leaders”. Re-titling the position in this way sends a harmful and offensive message to the thousands of non-Orthodox rabbis serving both within Israel and throughout the Jewish world. The term “community leaders” is also factually incorrect (since this is a very different position than a rabbi, and therefore requires a different set of criteria for funding). In addition, due to the fact that the type of work that a community rabbi performs is not discussed, the prerequisite criteria for the rabbinical position are also not included. This is essential for ensuring that funding would be solely for the purpose of religious services.

• No permanent mechanism for financing non-Orthodox religious services was offered. Instead, those in these positions would have to submit yearly applications for funding, and be subject to various restrictions based on policies which are not applicable to financing rabbis. This is opposed to Orthodox rabbis who are offered State funded stable and permanent employment from the Ministry of Religious Affairs.

This unsatisfactory document has forced the IMPJ and IRAC to declare the failure of these negotiations with the State, and have requested further deliberations with the Supreme Court. The Court has agreed to this and set May 9^th as the date for a new hearing in front of Judges Rubenstein, Meltzer and Fogelman.

The Supreme Court has set May 9 as the date when they will hear arguments regarding the status of non-Orthodox rabbis and their rights to state funding. The original petition was brought by the Israel Religious Action Center (IRAC) which is the legal arm of the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism (IMPJ), on behalf of Rabbi Miri Gold of Kibbutz Gezer’s congregation Birkat Shalom in 2005. This petition focused on approving a permanent rabbi’s position in the Gezer regional council’s budget along with appointing the Reform ordained Rabbi Miri Gold to that position.  In addition, the petition argued that the current situation illegally favors the Orthodox and prevents pluralistic Jewish citizens from receiving liberal religious services from the State – thereby discriminating against the many liberal rabbis in the country, not only because they are not Orthodox, but also because many of them are women. Furthermore, the IMPJ and IRAC requested that each community’s religious needs and desires be included in the primary considerations for appointing them a rabbi, thereby allowing them the freedom of choice regarding who their State subsidized spiritual leader will be.

After the June 2006 deliberations, the court ordered the IMPJ and IRAC to conduct out-of-court negotiations with the governmental committee on religious affairs in order to reach a mutually agreeable set of criteria for determining funding of State appointed non-Orthodox rabbis. After many delays and versions of the document, in March 2012 the State finally submitted its reply. However, this document is highly problematic for the following major reasons:

• The ministry responsible for such services would not be the Ministry of Religious Affairs, but rather the Ministry of Culture and Sport. Transferring this responsibility to the Ministry of Culture shows contempt for non-Orthodox rabbis by the State. These rabbis would not be considered to be giving religious services, but rather acting as mere cultural attachés, whose funding will depending on the generosity and whims of the government.

• The document eliminates the obvious term “non-Orthodox rabbis” from the criteria and uses instead the vague term “community leaders”. Re-titling the position in this way sends a harmful and offensive message to the thousands of non-Orthodox rabbis serving both within Israel and throughout the Jewish world. The term “community leaders” is also factually incorrect (since this is a very different position than a rabbi, and therefore requires a different set of criteria for funding). In addition, due to the fact that the type of work that a community rabbi performs is not discussed, the prerequisite criteria for the rabbinical position are also not included. This is essential for ensuring that funding would be solely for the purpose of religious services.

• No permanent mechanism for financing non-Orthodox religious services was offered. Instead, those in these positions would have to submit yearly applications for funding, and be subject to various restrictions based on policies which are not applicable to financing rabbis. This is opposed to Orthodox rabbis who are offered State funded stable and permanent employment from the Ministry of Religious Affairs.

This unsatisfactory document has forced the IMPJ and IRAC to declare the failure of these negotiations with the State, and have requested further deliberations with the Supreme Court. The Court has agreed to this and set May 9^th as the date for a new hearing in front of Judges Rubenstein, Meltzer and Fogelman.

The Supreme Court has set May 9 as the date when they will hear arguments regarding the status of non-Orthodox rabbis and their rights to state funding. The original petition was brought by the Israel Religious Action Center (IRAC) which is the legal arm of the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism (IMPJ), on behalf of Rabbi Miri Gold of Kibbutz Gezer’s congregation Birkat Shalom in 2005. This petition focused on approving a permanent rabbi’s position in the Gezer regional council’s budget along with appointing the Reform ordained Rabbi Miri Gold to that position.  In addition, the petition argued that the current situation illegally favors the Orthodox and prevents pluralistic Jewish citizens from receiving liberal religious services from the State – thereby discriminating against the many liberal rabbis in the country, not only because they are not Orthodox, but also because many of them are women. Furthermore, the IMPJ and IRAC requested that each community’s religious needs and desires be included in the primary considerations for appointing them a rabbi, thereby allowing them the freedom of choice regarding who their State subsidized spiritual leader will be.

After the June 2006 deliberations, the court ordered the IMPJ and IRAC to conduct out-of-court negotiations with the governmental committee on religious affairs in order to reach a mutually agreeable set of criteria for determining funding of State appointed non-Orthodox rabbis. After many delays and versions of the document, in March 2012 the State finally submitted its reply. However, this document is highly problematic for the following major reasons:

• The ministry responsible for such services would not be the Ministry of Religious Affairs, but rather the Ministry of Culture and Sport. Transferring this responsibility to the Ministry of Culture shows contempt for non-Orthodox rabbis by the State. These rabbis would not be considered to be giving religious services, but rather acting as mere cultural attachés, whose funding will depending on the generosity and whims of the government.

• The document eliminates the obvious term “non-Orthodox rabbis” from the criteria and uses instead the vague term “community leaders”. Re-titling the position in this way sends a harmful and offensive message to the thousands of non-Orthodox rabbis serving both within Israel and throughout the Jewish world. The term “community leaders” is also factually incorrect (since this is a very different position than a rabbi, and therefore requires a different set of criteria for funding). In addition, due to the fact that the type of work that a community rabbi performs is not discussed, the prerequisite criteria for the rabbinical position are also not included. This is essential for ensuring that funding would be solely for the purpose of religious services.

• No permanent mechanism for financing non-Orthodox religious services was offered. Instead, those in these positions would have to submit yearly applications for funding, and be subject to various restrictions based on policies which are not applicable to financing rabbis. This is opposed to Orthodox rabbis who are offered State funded stable and permanent employment from the Ministry of Religious Affairs.

This unsatisfactory document has forced the IMPJ and IRAC to declare the failure of these negotiations with the State, and have requested further deliberations with the Supreme Court. The Court has agreed to this and set May 9^th as the date for a new hearing in front of Judges Rubenstein, Meltzer and Fogelman.