Rabbi's Blog 9/12/13

Drawing A Line

9/12/2013

I have stayed out of the Limmud debate thus far. My own attendance several years ago, in my capacity as chairman of the Rabbinical Council attests to my position on the matter. That many more of my colleagues are going this year, riding on the coattails of the Chief Rabbi, does raise the question, to paraphrase Vespasian in his retort to Ben Zakai: “If you believe it is right, were you until now?”

Of course the bigger question is, if indeed Chief Rabbi Mirvis believes it is correct to go, why hasn’t he gone until now? We’ve all heard the rumours about it being a condition of his Chief Rabbinate appointment, which, if true, only proves my arguments about the cabal who make the appointment and determine the agenda. How sad it would be if Limmud became the determining factor in rabbinic appointments. Alas, it is likely to become a key question for any communal ion committee looking to hire a new Rabbi, as though to go or not to go is what determines the potential Rabbi’s suitability.

Limmud is everything its proponents argue it to be; a marketplace of diverse learning opportunities. It is a potpourri of Jewish thought and culture – a pick & mix of diverse ideas. To have, as I have argued previously, a large percentage of United Synagogue attendees and deny them an Orthodox flavour to pick simply doesn’t make sense. And of course, if “outreach” is the modus operandi of the United Synagogue Rabbinate, then better an opportunity than at Limmud. If KLBD (the London Beth Din kosher licensing department) was offered an opportunity to promote kosher food at a food fair that would also be presenting other, non-kosher stalls, would they go? I think it is safe to say they will have done so. That is the fundamental basis for those arguing in favour of Limmud.

Then there are the people involved. By this I do not mean the many wonderful organisers or presenters, but other movers and shakers in the wider Anglo-Jewish community for whom pluralism is central to their agenda. I maintain that there are those who use Limmud to promote their own political cause. Take for example the one Reform activist who said he wants more of a United Synagogue presence in order to undercut the concerted Masorti presence which he deems a direct threat to his own organisation. Or the Masorti layman who was overheard saying he wanted an opportunity to stage a debate between United Synagogue and Masorti representatives. It is precisely those who have politicised Limmud that has sewn suspicion and made some within Orthodoxy react as they have. It is precisely because of this, I believe, that Chief Rabbi Sacks was reluctant to attend. He didn’t want to feed into those who may use Limmud as their own political football. It is also in spite of this that Chief Rabbi Mirvis is choosing to attend. He made transcending the politics part of his mission statement even as he will never cross the theological divide. But while the sole purpose of his attendance is to educate, there will be those who would like to construe that into something it is not. Essentially it is those people, and not Limmud, that is the problem.

One question remains however: Just how far are the organisers of Limmud prepared to go on their programme? What are the red lines, if any? Would they, for example, allow Jews for J to present at Limmud? If not, why not? After all, they also profess to be Jewish no less than anyone else presenting. Does Limmud take a Universalist approach? If so they would have to accept the so-called “Hebrew-Christians,” for that matter all of Christianity which defines itself as the “New Israel.” Would Chief Rabbi Mirvis attend if Jews for J were given a platform?

These questions require urgent consideration as it has come to light that the Kaballah Centre are being given a platform at Limmud. I will give the naïveté of the programme organisers the benefit of the doubt, but for those of us who have been intimately involved with the Kaballah Centre, and certainly several of its victims, it is seemingly nothing less than a cult. An in-depth exposé was done by the BBC and most broadsheets in this country carried stories about its dubious dealings. Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks issued a statement his office denouncing the Kaballah Centre and in the United States it is on an official cults and missionaries watch list. In short, there is little difference between the Kaballah Centre and Jews for J. Both essentially look to lure the Jew into a belief that has nothing to do with Judaism per se.

I don’t typically like to use labels such as Orthodox or Reform. I prefer to use terms like more observant or less observant. The Kaballah Centre however has nothing to do with Jewish observance whatsoever. One needs to only scour through the internet to find all the claims against the centre and its categorical cult like tactics. Even using the marketplace paradigm, would I be looking to sell my wares at a market narcotics or prostitution were also openly being sold?

It beggars belief that Limmud would entertain this. I call upon the organisers of Limmud to withdraw its invitation to the Kaballah Centre. Failing that I call upon Chief Rabbi Mirvis and my esteemed colleagues to withdraw their attendance Limmud.