Every year, the Melbourne Orthodox community conducts a communal Yom Ha’atzmaut  (Israeli Independence Day) prayer service. But it is a community service in name only. The rabbis and presidents of most Orthodox congregations do attend (most rabbis being allocated parts of the service to lead), but very few of their members. The overwhelming majority of the attendants tend to be Mizrachi members, the venue where the service is always held.

Possible reasons for this are:

• The service may be perceived as a Mizrachi one (apart from the venue, Mizrachi plays a major role in organising the service and its format; its members take a disproportionate part in leading it) so that others may feel excluded.

• People may not regard a special Yom Ha’atzmaut prayer service as important – perhaps this view is shared by the rabbis and leaders of the other congregations; perhaps the rabbis and leaders do regard it as important, but don’t strongly push it; perhaps they do push it, but don’t succeed in motivating their congregants to share their views or put them into practice.

• People are very parochial when it comes to shules, and often don’t feel inclined to attend services at shules other than their own, which they feel part of.

One solution may be to hold the service at another synagogue. That should at least lead to increased attendance from members of that synagogue, as they would feel more “ownership” of it, especially if their rabbi and leaders promoted it. Perhaps there would be an advantage in a venue like Caulfield Shule, which may be perceived as more “neutral”, and belonging to the community as a whole. (Seating both men and women downstairs would fill the considerably larger space more effectively, as well as allowing the women to feel less like spectators). One would expect that Mizrachi members, being Religious Zionists already committed to the importance of prayer being an integral part celebrating Israel’s independence, would attend wherever the service is held.

But I believe that the best way to increase attendance and participation is to abandon the attempt at the community service, and for Yom Ha’atzmaut prayer to be reclaimed by the individual congregations.  It’s time to treat Yom Ha’atzmaut as a “real” chag – so that just as each individual congregation holds its own service, in its own way, for Pesach, Rosh Hashana, and Purim, so they should now do for Chag Ha’atzmaut.

We all know that chometz is forbidden on Pesach even when mixed into food in minute quantities (Shulchan Aruch O.C. 447:4, Mishnah Berurah 35, Chazon Ish 119:12). Since these days the ingredient lists are long and manufacturing methods complex one is faced with an almost insurmountable problem of investigating every manufactured item in the house. This stringency only applies, however if the product in question is a food item. Something that is not a food can be used and owned with confidence, as the very issue of chametz does not apply. How are we to define what is a food item? The Talmud (Pesachim 15b) says that an item is not food if a dog refuses to eat it (“Eino Ra’ui L’achilas Kelev”). Tosafot (to Pesachim 15b) even exempts bread from the definition of chametz if it has become stale to a point where a dog would reject the item.

So a question of whether a non-food product can be considered chametz for Pesach should be decided not by a halacha expert or a kashrus expert but by a dog expert. And as someone with a decade-plus experience in owning and looking after dogs I can say with certainty that no dog, no matter how hungry, would choose to consume shampoo, deodorant, shoe polish, plastic plates or perfume. When faced with an unfamiliar food dish you and I have no means, other than visual examination to ascertain the edible state of the food. We may well opt to swallow a small piece to find out what the dish tastes like. Not so the dog.

The dog has a well-developed olfactory mechanism to inform it of the taste and flavour of food without touching it and over considerable distance. As such, no dog in his right mind would consume a product that is toxic to it and has a strong noxious smell. Below in a short Video in which you can see me perform a simple scientific and repeatable test that will convince even the most cautious sceptics that the product in question will not be consumed by a dog and can therefore be used safely on Pesach.

So to all those confused about the permissibility of common household products on Pesach I bring great news: Don’t waste your time buying expensive Kosher-certified cleaners and toiletries. Send your questions to me and I will gladly apply the ‘dog test’ to the products of your choice. Moreover – unlike other kosher agencies my testing services are free. Did I hear you ask – “What will I do will all that leftover money after Pesach?” Write to me and I will gladly send you a list of charities in Australia and overseas. Goodness knows – they could do with some help.

Dr Vadim Chelom is a Veterinarian, a writer and an educator. You can read his blog at: www.safetypets.wordpress.com

As an “insider”, and someone who has a reasonable grasp of Chabad theology and textual sources, I sensed that many of their assumptions and interpretations are based on a misunderstanding or lack of appreciation of Chabad theology, and particularly of the nature of the organisation itself. This article is primarily intended to educate and contextualize Chabad for those not part of the community. As the work of a card-carrying Chabadnik, it may be dismissed as hagiography – my intent is not to be one-eyed and defensive; rather to break down barriers between Jewish groups through better understanding of each other.

Jews have been pining for Moshiach for nearly 2000 years, some more overtly than others. The belief in the coming of Moshiach is core to all of Orthodox Judaism – the daily prayers and liturgy are full of very explicit and strongly worded wishes for the messianic age. Orthodox Jewish leaders – both Chassidim and Mitnagdim – were for many hundreds of years clearly focussed on the desire to usher in the Messianic age. While the Mitnagdim are/were opposed to some Chabad activities and theology, this did not dampen their own desire for Moshiach; rather they rejected Chabad’s unique approach to the issue. Where Chabad differs from other Jewish groups is that the Rebbe prioritized and emphasized the belief in and desire for the Messianic age, and used it as a driver for the entire movement in ways that have never been done before. This is something worthy of further exploration when considering the impact of Chabad in the world.

To understand this better, one first has to understand the relationship between a Chassid and a Rebbe. As a leader, a Rebbe has a connection to God and spiritual dimensions not attainable for the majority of people. As such, he has the ability to perceive the needs of his Chassidim, and to offer advice, insights, blessings, and direction for their lives. This leads to a very strong bond between Chassid and Rebbe. My late grandfather, Reb Zalman Serebryanski OBM, would repeat the time-worn adage “a Chassid is a soldat (soldier)”. This military metaphor helps us understand the way a Chassidic group functions and the interactions between Rebbe and Chassid.

As an example of this, in 1978, the Gerer Rebbe known as “Lev Simcha” established an outpost in Ashdod. At the time, Ashdod was mostly secular, with a Sefardi and a small Ashkenazi charedi community there. The Gerer Rebbes had a history of establishing takanot (by-laws) to regulate the way their Chassidim lived, such as placing limits of the amount one could spend on weddings to avoid inflationary pressures and jealousy. The initial response was mixed – the believers were positive, those with financial issues liked the proposition, and those who could afford elsewhere tried to get permission to buy elsewhere.

However, the authority of the Rebbe was not something that was questioned, and since price limitations were imposed on flats for newlyweds, the Ashdod community grew very quickly. Today, the price controls are no longer needed as the Gerer community has spread across the Israel, so no- one has an issue with living outside of Jerusalem.

In hindsight, this was an outstanding visionary move. Property prices in Jerusalem only went up, and the Rebbe was acting in the best interests of his Chassidim and the continuity of their community and lifestyle in doing this. And as a Rebbe, he had the power to make it happen, rather than leave it to a market economy.

There are elements of autocracy, monarchy and military in the organisational structure and culture of Chassidic communities. The bottom line is simple: if the Rebbe issues a directive, the Chassidim do.

My late grandparents OBM were among a handful of families sent to Australia in 1949 by the previous Lubavitcher Rebbe (known as “the Rebbe Rayatz” – an acronym of his name) to help establish and grow the community here. This was during an age where communication across 10,000 miles (let alone travel) was far more difficult. And yet, these families took this upon themselves and were shluchim – emissaries – of the Rebbe, dedicating their lives in fulfilling the mission of Chabad. It was far more difficult to maintain a close connection to the Rebbe back then. They corresponded by (snail) mail, sending reports of their activities, asking questions, and receiving further instructions.

The mission of Chabad is unashamedly simple: to usher in the Messianic age through acts of goodness and kindness. This harks back to the Baal Shem Tov’s famous spiritual encounter with Moshiach, where he was advised that Moshiach will come when “your wellsprings will burst forth to the farthest extremes”; indeed this phrase forms part of a popular Chabad Chassidic song about the encounter.

The Rebbe Rayatz did this by sending his emissaries like my late grandparents to all parts of the world to build communities and do outreach work, and the Rebbe continued this work with even greater vigour, rapidly growing Chabad to a global network of tens of thousands of Chassidim, and thousands of Chabad Houses and Chabad communities.

While other Chassidic groups had a more insular and isolationist approach, in some cases trying to recreate the shtetl of pre-war Europe, Chabad was radical and revolutionary. They discarded the shtreimel and long coats of the other groups and took the conservative fedora and dark suit of mainstream Orthodoxy and Misnagdim. They went out into the world and engaged with it in a way that no Jewish group had ever before.

The thousands of foot-soldiers, each dedicated to the Rebbe and his mission, spread very rapidly across the world. The movement took some but not all elements from the military. In an army, the chain of command is everything. A soldier is trained to follow the orders of their superior officer, and in order for an army to operate smoothly, it needs a deep hierarchy of management: Lieutenants, Corporals, Majors, Generals, and a Commander in Chief. Orders flow down from the Commander in Chief to the Privates, and activity and reporting flows up. Chabad was different: it had the military culture of soldiers working together toward a common cause, but not the structure and management levels of an army (or indeed of any organisation of similar size). I believe this was for two reasons:  Firstly, this sort of hierarchy is not how delegation traditionally works in Chassidic groups – everyone can and does have a direct connection to the Rebbe, which is embodied in the principle of hitkashrut (connectedness). A Chassid is connected to a Rebbe by (a) doing the things the Rebbe directs and considers important, and (b) studying the Rebbe’s teachings. The Rebbe had a tremendous work rate, and with the assistance of a small secretariat group, was indeed able to respond to a huge volume of correspondence from many thousands of Chassidim and maintain a direct connection with them. Secondly, having minimal management and controls meant global expansion could be far more rapid. How long would it take a regular business to establish a global presence of tens of thousands all pushing the message of the CEO?

Over time, and with growth, the position of Head Shliach for a geographic region emerged. However, this was not a management position, rather a way to ensure the region was divided appropriately. Any given Shliach would not report to, nor be required to seek guidance from their Head Shliach on a regular basis – rather they would still be connected directly to the Rebbe. In recent time, and with greater saturation of shluchim in some areas, this structure has led to turf wars and nepotism, and the conflict resolution mechanisms are not well developed.

In some areas, parallel and partially overlapping structures formed, where in one city or area there might be several Chabad Shuls, several Chabad Houses, and a Chabad community. Melbourne is a good example of this, where there are Rabbis, Shluchim, and Head Shluchim, and somehow, they mostly find a way to coexist. However, the alliances are loose at best, and there are weak if nonexistent lines of accountability within the city. There is no group that purports to speak or make decisions for the Chabad Rabbis in any city. Again, conflict can and has arisen, and has not been dealt with well. Here is not the place to go into a deep examination of the political and organisational dynamics of one particular city that has a strong Chabad presence. Suffice to say that the loose hierarchy has both strengths: rapid growth and a feeling of direct connectedness to the Rebbe and the mission; and weaknesses: difficulty in dealing with conflict and maintaining a very consistent message.

People who speak of “the Chabad PR machine”, or who suggest that “Chabad has power and influence” have the mistaken impression that Chabad Rabbis and Shluchim work far more closely together than they do. Each has their individual shlichus and mission, and each one seeks to fulfil it on a micro level. As disappointing as this may sound, they don’t get together in secret meetings to plot global domination, or even local domination of (non-Chabad) shuls or pan-communal organisations like the Beth Dins or Kashrut authorities.

So how about Messianism? As stated, the mission of Chabad is to bring about the coming of Moshiach, and the Rebbe was (and remains) as the leader, driver and face of that mission. There is a tradition (mentioned in Zohar) that in every generation, there is someone who is the designated Moshiach (if the time is right for Moshiach to come). Most, if not all Chassidim (and plenty of non-Chabadniks) considered the Rebbe to be the mostly likely person to be the Moshiach of our generation.

There was plenty of opposition by broader Orthodoxy to this focus on who Moshiach may or may not be. While there is precedent in the Talmud for declarations of who the “designated Moshiach” is at any time, it was felt by some that this emphasis was unnecessary, unhelpful to the cause, and cult-like. From the perspective of Chabadniks, it may be that identifying a likely Moshiach made the concept more tangible and acceptable, which in turn would drive greater activity directed toward bringing Moshiach (when I was in Yeshivah many years ago, my roommate once commented to me: “Galus isn’t as bad as people make out”. This inertia, complacency, and fear of change were something the Rebbe was trying to break with the Moshiach campaign. Only a genuinely feeling that there was something deeply missing in the world could being to sufficient desire to create change).

Did the “who” surpass the “how”? For some, it certainly did. Did the Rebbe himself feed the frenzy? This is a difficult question to answer. There are letters, extracts of discourses and incidents that can be interpreted either way (and here is not the place to go into a detailed chapter and verse), so it’s impossible to come to a clear answer to this. How important is it to know whether or not the Rebbe himself fed the frenzy? This question is probably only important to those who feel strongly either way (rather than the muddled middle that are comfortable with ambiguity on this issue).

There was and remains a divergence of views as the relative importance of the “who”. Some within Chabad believe that the declaration and acceptance of the Rebbe as Moshiach in and of itself helps bring Moshiach closer. The majority focus on what they consider “core” activities: general outreach work and the mitzvah campaigns.

The Rebbe’s passing from this world, on Gimmel Tammuz (all Chabad special days are known by their Hebrew date rather than what happened on them), was a huge challenge for all Chassidim. For some, it was a clear indication that the Rebbe’s mission to bring Moshiach (and to be the Moshiach) had failed. Nevertheless, the mission had to continue. For others, a spectrum of secondary beliefs emerged and developed as to the status of a Rebbe who no longer had a physical presence in this world, and this spawned what is now characterised as Chabad Messianism. Yet for these Chassidim too, the mission had to continue. This created a significant rift within the movement which continues until this day. And yet, no matter where on the Messianic belief spectrum Chassidim sat, they all agreed that the mission had to continue. And continue it did, with even greater growth and expansion than before Gimmel Tammuz.

What proportion of Chabad fall within the spectrum of these Messianic beliefs? How many are “Meshichisten”? Until someone does some quality research on the matter, it’s impossible to say. But again, this question is probably only important to people at either spectrum of belief (both within and outside Chabad).

Actions speak louder than words and give us a greater insight into the underlying beliefs that drive those actions.

In many other Chassidic dynasties, the passing of the Rebbe led to quarrels as to succession, and in many cases to splits, and the formation of new groups (how do you think we ended up with hundreds of Chassidic groups, when it all started from the Baal Shem Tov?). In the case of Chabad, there was no nominated successor, which makes it even more amazing that the movement didn’t fracture into many distinct subgroups. Why didn’t this happen? If the movement was that focussed on its leader, why didn’t it collapse when he was no longer around?

To understand this, let’s take a quick digression into the concept of bitul – most commonly translated as “self-nullification” (some translations of complex Chassidic and Kabbalistic terms are infuriatingly awkward and inadequate) or “selflessness” (a bit better). Very briefly, the pathway to a deep relationship with God is humility, thus recognizing that God is one and is everything, and that the purpose of man is to bring Godliness into the physical world. A person then becomes batul to the mission of his soul and the purpose of creation. This bitul is not unlike the relationship between a Chassid and a Rebbe – the Rebbe directs the mission, and the Chassid is a loyal and unquestioning foot-soldier. The notion of bitul is being part of something bigger than oneself.

As a tzadik (righteous person), a Rebbe certainly has attained this level of bitul toward God, and as a leader, his role is to direct the mission. But the Rebbe is not greater than the mission – indeed the Rebbe is batul to the mission in exactly the same way that the Chassidim are. The mission is greater than everyone – Rebbe and Chassid alike.

In this context, and using the terminology of James Collins, it makes sense to describe the Rebbe as a “level 5 leader”, who embodies a “paradoxical mix of personal humility and professional will.” As a mission-driven organization, Chabad was built to last, and this is the key to understanding how the mission could continue to thrive after the physical passing of the Rebbe.

The prolific writings of the Rebbe continue to act as a guide to all Chassidim in the fulfilment of their mission, and as a way to continue to remain connected to the Rebbe, in various different ways.

How long can Chabad survive without a physical leader? It’s a good question. Eighteen years after Gimmel Tammuz, it is humming along like a well-oiled machine. The rift associated with Messianism has not destroyed the movement, nor has it split the movement far enough apart that there are two versions of Chabad. Eighteen years is nearly a generation: the young shluchim that are going out to open new Chabad Houses barely have a memory of the Rebbe being around, of directly hearing discourses, or any personal interaction. Will they have enough mission in them to impart to their children? Only time will tell.

So what is Chabad? Chabad is a global, distributed, mission-driven organisation. ‘Global’ is quite obvious; ‘distributed’ because of the lack of hierarchy and central controls; and ‘mission-driven’ because the mission was and is everything, and is bigger than and survives any one leader or individual.

In conclusion, Chabad is perceived as far more structured and controlled than it is. When taking into account its organisational structure and culture, Chabad in my view is actually more mission-centric than Rebbe-centric. Academics and others who ruminate about what the Rebbe might have thought of himself may be missing the real story of Chabad, which continues to power on long after many people thought the light switched off.

Can we fix it? Yes we can!

Following his previous article outlining what’s wrong with the Melbourne Beit Din, Rabbi Yaron Gottlieb puts forward some solutions.

The Beth Din (Jewish court) is unique. No other communal institution has anything like its power. My previous post was a personal account of the Kafkaesque nature of dealing with the Melbourne Beth Din. This article is about fixing the problem. And it is fixable.

In terms of Jewish continuity, the Beth Din plays a crucial role in issues of intermarriage and mamzerut.

Mamzerut is the status of someone born to a mother who is still officially married (Jewishly) to another man. If you’re a mamzer, you are excluded from many key areas of Jewish life. If people decide that they cannot deal with the Beth Din and don’t divorce Jewishly, then mamzerut has the potential to become widespread. As mentioned in the previous article the Beth Din only processes 40 divorces a year.

Meanwhile, only 10 converts are currently in the system and we have to wonder how many people are choosing to marry out or leave the Orthodox religious system of their families.

Defenders of the Beth Din will excuse their inefficiency by telling you that the halachic (Jewish legal) work is what makes their job so complicated. These defenders claim that simplification of processes will jeopardise universal recognition of conversions and divorces. This is not necessarily true and evidence that we are dealing with political, not halachic, issues.

Quite recently the Israeli Rabbinate annulled tens of thousands of conversions of Russian Jews. Even though these conversions were conducted by the highly respected Religious-Zionist Rabbi Drukman, for political reasons, these conversions were not deemed kosher enough. There are now thousands of Russians who are accepted as Jews only by some of the Orthodox community. The Israeli public – religious and non-religious – were horrified by this power play, but the Rabbinate’s political power meant that little could be done at the time.

But in reality, this sort of ultra-stringency is unsustainable. The growing rift between Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) rabbis and the rest of the Orthodox (and Orthodox affiliated) world creates a high stakes game that could potentially destroy what it means to be an Orthodox Jew. Many religious Jews and their rabbis in Israel are rejecting the authority of the Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Chief Rabbinate and are finding ways around it.

The Israeli public – both Orthodox and secular – have begun an intense campaign protesting Haredi excesses in many areas, including matters of personal status.

If we are to avoid becoming part of the problem – if we do not wish to be a party to encouraging mamzerut and if we do not wish to actively encourage marrying out and assimilation – we need to begin putting halacha before politics and look at ways to reform a broken system.

After my previous article, I discussed this issue with many people and three dominant possibilities for change emerged.

1) Fix the current Beth Din.

2) Establish a layman’s Beth Din.

3) Establish a visiting international Beth Din

Option 1: Fix the current Beth Din

In order to regain the trust of the public, the current Beth Din requires serious political and bureaucratic reform so that their authority is based on more than just the fear of the alternatives.

These reforms would include -

a) Acknowledging that accusations of insensitivity are far too common and undertake to address this matter.

While I agree that it is impossible that every person will be satisfied with every decision of the the Beth Din – especially considering the highly sensitive nature of its work – such complaints should be far fewer than currently seems to be the case. With the Beth Din adjudicating on only 50 cases per year, we should not be hearing the current number of negative stories.

b) Eliminating its adversarial and threatening atmosphere

During my interview with the Beth Din when I applied to teach converts, they made it quite clear that they expected me to act as a virtual spy for them.

They informed me that if a potential convert was having doubts, my first move should be to inform on the convert. They did not suggest I discuss any such issues with converts themselves or even help them through personal example (for example invite them to stay with me for a full Shabbat and work through the issues involved with that mitzvah).

c) Increasing transparency and fixing its appeals process

The current Beth Din sees no need for its decisions to be fully and clearly explained. If there is a reasonable basis for a decision, they should not fear providing it. The desire to conceal their reasoning only invites suspicion and undermines their credibility.

Whilst it is reasonable for the Dayanim (judges) to preside over halachic decisions (and there is certainly a need for judicial independence),  a means of appealing cultural or political – as opposed to halachic – decisions must exist. It should not be as easily circumvented as it currently is.

d) Addressing the unnecessary concentration of power in the Dayanim

The Dayanim do not only rule on halacha. They also decide on many areas of the administration that have no direct bearing on any halacha.  For example, they decide who will teach converts. This function could be easily be carried out by others and would eliminate an unnecessary concentration – and potential abuse – of power. It would also lighten their workload considerably. This would help their organisation run more efficiently

e) Increasing efficiency

Justice delayed is justice denied. The Beth Din deals with some of the most sensitive aspects of people’s lives. When we talk about inefficiency, we are not talking about the odd lost piece of paper or other minor confusion. Should a test for a convert be delayed a month, that is another month they are stuck in limbo. Often these delays are far longer and this is particularly difficult for women who are of a certain age and want to have children.

f) Reducing costs for converts

A number of converts have told me that the conversion course costs at least $10,000. Are we saying that we only want those with money to consider joining us?

Reducing costs is not complicated. One way is to stop insisting on private tutorials and to allow group lessons. Group lessons are common in other parts of the world as they are a far more cost-effective method of instruction.

g) Making the gett (Jewish divorce) as quick and painless as possible

As it stands at the moment, there are 40 divorces per year being performed by the Beth Din. Estimations by a number of people suggest that at a minimum, considering the Jewish population of Melbourne, that up to 50% of separated couples are choosing not to go to the Beth Din for a Jewish divorce.

Unnecessarily unpleasant and complicated procedures at the Beth Din must not be a reason for people to risk creating situations of mamzerut.

Because the Beth Din places so many politically motivated stringencies in the way of potential converts and divorcees, the current system presents a clear threat to continuity within the Orthodox Melbourne community.

Yet none of what I have suggested above in any way compromises stringent halacha.

In 2002, there was an opportunity to implement these sorts of reforms when the Beth Din was restructured. Those charged with reforming Beth Din failed to do so then, and there is no evidence they would be any more willing now. My experience – and the vast majority of experiences that have come to my attention – is evidence of this.

Option 2: The Layman’s Beth Din

If the current Beth Din cannot be reformed, then the possibility of creating a new one must be examined.

An alternative Beth Din already exists in Melbourne: the Adass Beth Din, so any arguments that a city can not have more than one Beth Din are put to rest by this fact.

Most of us who are looking for a new approach, however, would probably prefer an alternative to the strictly ultra-Orthodox Adass as well.

Within the boundaries of halacha there is no need for rabbis to constitute a Beth Din. For the purposes of conversion and divorce there is only a need for people who are knowledgeable in those areas to preside.

This option is inexpensive and logistically uncomplicated and could be virtually run as a volunteer organisation. It would be open to more of the Orthodox community, and be far more representative  than is currently the case.

It could be set up with structures that would avoid many of the pitfalls of the current Beth Din. The administrative processes could be set up to be more affordable and less cumbersome.

The flaw in this setup will always be a lack of acceptance by the global Orthodox community. While this is a legitimate concern, in Israel and around the world, there is a growing number of Orthodox rabbis and congregations that are more interested in halacha than in politics.

And the current Beth Din’s “good standing” in Israel – this is one of their excuses for their political stringency and other shortcomings – simplifies one bureaucratic area while it complicates and vexes so many others as I have explained above, particularly with regard to continuity.

While the rabbis in Israel control marriage and divorce, they do not have absolute control over people’s rights to make Aliya (immigration to Israel). Today Reform and Conservative conversions are also accepted for the purposes of Aliya.

It is important not to overstate the Israeli Rabbinate’s power.

Option 3: The visiting international Beth Din

Three rabbis with international standing and the requisite qualifications could be brought to Australia to give halachic rulings several times a year.

Funding this initiative would be an issue and it would be logistically more complex than the other options. However, such rabbis would provide significant international recognition of conversions and divorces.

Many of the logistical and cost factors can be dealt with by intelligent use of information technology. There are many instances in which the phone, the internet and Skype are quite acceptable in managing day to day business.

Any administration outside of the halachic rulings can also be done by laymen in Australia, leaving the rabbis to preside only on the final, halachic rulings. This includes administrative issues such as appointing teachers and setting a curriculum.

Considering the current cost pressures on the clients of the Melbourne Beth Din, a visiting international Beth Din may not cost any more than is presently the case.

There may also be people within the community willing to fund this effort, thus taking the financial pressure off the people coming before the Beth Din altogether. This would lead to an increase in the numbers using the Beth Din, with halachicly acceptable outcomes, especially in divorce cases, where it seems many have been avoiding the Beth Din altogether.

Once again, there will be issues with recognition by the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, but these issues are not as severe as they might first seem for the reasons stated in Option 2.

Anyone claiming that a rift will be caused by a new Beth Din ignores the current rift that the Israeli Chief Rabbinate and the Melbourne Beth Din have already created within the Orthodox world.

They ignore the mamzerim, they ignore the people who desperately wish to convert Orthodox but whose partners feel forced to leave Orthodoxy or marry out, by a system which is clearly broken.

These are only some ideas that I have discussed with a number of people since my last article, but I welcome other comments and further discussion.

May this ‘argument for the sake of heaven’ find a solution that puts compassion above unnecessary stringency and may we finally find a way to put halacha above politics.

I did not have an answer and I don’t believe anyone has an answer to that question, because the cost difference was enormous. And they had tried a number of Kosher caterers. I saw the quotations.

However, my main point is that many people resist making a commitment to Kosher or even a partial commitment (I know that sounds weird but that is the fact, people will eat various things but never THAT stuff.) for a related reason. Their main objection is – they feel violated by a system that appears to extort and abuse them. In short they feel they are being treated like idiots. When there is no transparency regarding prices and processes and no real competition, they feel abused. These are people who are prepared to pay for quality and for service and they want to pay for Kosher, provided that it appears to be reasonable and justified.

Now for some of us, an extremely small proportion of Australia’s Jewish population, this is not a question. However, the vast majority of Australia’s Jews, our brothers and sisters, are not that way inclined. Are they opposed in principle to keeping Kosher? Sure, some of them are. But let’s consider the overwhelming proportion who wish to have burial according to our ancient traditions, who have their children circumcised, educated at Jewish institutions, their homes actively reflecting some Jewish content and connection to their heritage. Are these Jews in principle opposed to keeping Kosher? Certainly not.

Kosher has been made unnecessarily difficult, and unjustifiably expensive. We do not, and many believe that we cannot, explain and justify that the costs are fair and not extortive.

Kosher has been made to look silly and political. That’s the consequence of insisting that a kitchen must be Koshered after being used by a Kosher caterer supervised by a different Kosher organisation.

Kosher has been made to look trivial. That’s the consequence of knowing that the products on the Kosher list are not Kosher enough for the rabbi who endorses the list.

Kosher has been made to look petty. That’s the consequence of accepting as Kosher the same food in one state of Australia but not in another state.

Kosher has been made to look divisive and infantile. Like kinder kids playing in the sandbox. That’s the consequence of some of us, who suffer a narrow perspective, dismissing those outside our own little arena. This was recently expressed on this site by a poster who declared that those who keep Kosher to standards approved by some great Poskim but not to the poster’s standards, “You’ll consider yourself kosher, and even some of your friends will consider you kosher. But by the standards enshrined in our Holy Torah, you’re simply not there yet in terms of full kashrus adherence.”

Melbourne KA (KAM) and Sydney KA (KAS) both operate facebook pages. Recently there was a veritable explosion on these usually docile and pedestrian pages, the detonator being the high costs of the Melbourne Kosher book on the Melbourne FB page [whereas the Sydney list of Kosher foods is freely available on the web] and the price of Kosher chicken/meat on the Sydney FB page. These discussions have been removed, which is probably appropriate since those FB pages are not designated for such discussion [and is one of the reasons I have aired the topic here].

But I draw your attention to 3 points: A) the energy that was apparent in these exchanges, which was remarkably in tense; and B) the people expending that energy, who were exclusively committed Kosher consumers. The third point is that there were some who defended the costs of Kosher but their expressions of confidence in the Kosher system voiced in shrill pronouncements and their reflections upon the personalities of those posing the questions, failed to disguise the fact that there were no answers to the questions asked.

KAS, to the best of my knowledge, did not respond at all other than by removing the discussion from their fb page.

KAM responded after removing the discussions with the following (I have trimmed its length) “There has been a burning question raised on our Facebook page – why do we charge for the Kosher Australia Food Guide – The small charge (I think this refers to certified companies) defrays some of our costs, not all of them. The typical family can get the Kosher guide for $40 p.a. which also includes a Pesach guide that takes hundreds of hours to prepare. (The regular Kosher Food Guide involves a review of the ENTIRE LIST – not a 2 hour job.)
To properly check a company requires time & expertise – the charge being disproportionately small in comparison to the time & materials involved. Staff need to be paid to maintain the service. As users of the Kosher guide, it is fair and proper that some charge is sought. The equivalent of less than a dollar a week is not unreasonable.”

This response suggests that the book sales are profitable but that profit is required to finance the investigations of companies paying for their Kosher certification since the charges to the companies are not sufficient to cover the costs. The question though remains, why does KAS not charge for their list but KAM does charge? How does KAS make ends meet?

Mr Romy Leibler, President of COSV Council of Orthodox Synagogues of Victoria, 1995 – 2005 and inaugural President of COSA Council of Orthodox Synagogues of Australia, says that, “Mizrachi profits from the Kosher service it provides which must raise concerns. Further, it purports to be a broad communal organisation by its new name of Kosher Australia yet it is raising as much money as possible for itself, a single community group.”

Mr John Kraus [past president of Mizrachi Kosher] assures us that there is transparency in all of Mizrachi’s financials. As he writes [on Isaac Balbin’s Pitputim blog] to Mr. Romy Leibler, “you have access to the financial accounts, these are audited. Mizrachi is transparent and is accountable to its members of which you are one.”

We should note that for every EXTRA dollar paid for Kosher chickens, $10,000 EXTRA dollars are collected EVERY WEEK from the Kosher consumers since we produce 10,000 Kosher chickens per week. But Kosher chickens cost $15 more than non-Kosher chickens. So we are not talking about $10,000 but about $150,000 per week! What do we pay for a Kosher chicken? Close to $30. A non Kosher chicken retails in Coles and Woolies for less than $7.

I invite any businessperson to clarify these projections.

Furthermore, given that Rabbis Groner and Telsner are the principals responsible for Kashrus of our chickens [their names appear on both the Biada chicken processing plant and also the Solomons Kosher butcher shop] it is disappointing that neither they nor their representatives have ever provided any input into this discussion. The entire Jewish community will be delighted to have their and the other community Rabbonim as well as the communal leaders, help us unravel this mystery.

This is not the first time such a discussion has been aired. In his blog Pitputim Isaac Balbin suggests that:

• Melbourne Kashrut, now Kosher Australia is moving towards the standards employed by the OU, which is good.
• Some are critical of this move.
• Sydney appears to have embraced the lower LBD rather than OU standards
• Rabbi Moishe D Gutnick of the Sydney KA responded,

“Kosher Australia (Melbourne based) has announced that it is phasing out its “approved” listings. The Kashrut Authority however maintains that “approved” products are 100% kosher l’chatchila and should be listed. Furthermore, it is wrong to restrict the general community to certified products.”

The Kashrut Authority (Sydney based) maintains that “approved” products are 100% kosher l’chatchila, and it is wrong to disqualify such products. If the consumer wishes to eat only ‘mehadrin’ products that is the consumer’s choice but not a Halachic necessity.

Approved products are no ‘less kosher’ than certified products, they just fall under a different halachic paradigm.

See here.

Some more comment on the Pitputim blog:

• It would be good if there was one communal Kosher organisation, standard and symbol for Australia. Financials should be transparent and accountable. (David Werdiger)
• Kosher VeYosher is self serving and does not provide any real benefit to the community.(Isaac Balbi)
• At a Council of Orthodox Synagogues Victoria meeting, Mr. J Kraus representing Mizrachi, proposed that COSV take over the Kashrus work then being run, at a significant financial loss to Mizrachi. COSV was willing but Mizrachi withdrew their offer. (Isaac Balbi)
• Dr. Kloot has stated that that Mizrachi will only cede its control of Kashrus if it will be compensated with over $1,000,000. Dr. Kloot also fears that those who offer to take over this responsibility may lower the Kosher standards. He also bemoans that the community is not the slightest bit interested in helping to pay for the Kashrus services provided by Mizrachi.
• Isaac thinks Dr. Kloot’s comment is sad and negative.

Mr J Kraus

• disputes Isaac’s recollection, insists that the offer demanded compensation
• Isaac insists that no mention at the time was made re financial compensation. Suggests that the minutes be perused.

Mr J Kraus

• as Chairman of Mizrachi Kashrus, invited all Melbourne Synagogues to become part of Kosher Australia, to contribute to operations and to have representatives on the board, but was unsuccessful.
• maintains that the Kosher booklet is extremely difficult to use.
• Agrees with Dr Kloot that fair compensation must be paid to Mizrachi if it relinquishes or shares its control of Kashrus as occurred when COSV became joint managers with Mizrachi for the Eruv
• Assures us, as past Chairman of KA and Treasurer of Mizrachi, that Kashrus is not a profitable enterprise and is lucky to even now, be breaking even.

Rommy Leibler suggests that:

• it is absurd that the same product is Kosher in NSW but not Kosher in Melbourne
• Kashrus ought to be a communal enterprise however monetary and parochial interests prevent this. Mizrachi profits from the Kosher service it provides which must raise concerns. Further, it purports to be a broad communal organisation by its new name of Kosher Australia yet it is raising as much money as possible for itself, a single community group.
• A simple important change would see KA reporting to COSV.
• Kosher VeYosher panders to those desiring lower Kosher standards; it is controversial and confrontational.
• The proposal of ECAJ and ORA that one authority determine who may and who may not provide Kosher certification, is dangerous.

David Werdiger

• agrees with Isaac that Kashrus ought to be a communal asset, although he does not necessarily agree with the OU being the standard that we should embrace.

Finally, ANONYMOUS posters have mentioned that:

• A single Kashrus authority leads to increased costs for Kosher products and services, proof for this is demonstrated by the costs for Kosher in Sydney.
• KVY does some strange things but are servicing a section of the community that neither the Mizrachi nor the Adass are willing or capable of doing.

Rabbi Meir Rabi is the principal of KVY (It’s Kosher) Kashrut Agency.

A Mehadrin bus information poster in Israel

By David Werdiger
Many posts and comments on these pages have had a go at some of the Orthodox Jewish institutions in Melbourne, such as those associated with kashrut certification and the Beth Din, for a variety of reasons. There is a recurring theme of people complaining that these organisations are maintaining standards that are unnecessarily stringent, and not consistent with those the people want (well, at least those people who choose to engage in the discussion).

Whether it’s Kosher Australia following particular standards and therefore ruling products not kosher, while others point to rulings that would permit their use, or the Beth Din being overly strict in dealing with prospective converts (governance issues are not in the scope of this discussion).

So how kosher is kosher enough? How frum is frum enough? In a diverse city like Melbourne, these are difficult questions to answer. We have a plethora of shuls and communities, each with their own leadership, each with their own acceptable standards of Jewish practice, and this leads to a large variety of standards within a single city.

We live in a pluralist society, so we acknowledge the right of each individual to express their Jewish practice to the standard of their own choice. And herein lays the problem: to what extent should one person have to raise or lower their own standard to accommodate others?

This question can be asked on two levels: in the case of dealing with others (“peer to peer”), and in the establishment of standards used by communal bodies.

In the case of “peer to peer”, the polite thing to do is cede to the more stringent/restrictive standard. This is common in the workplace, where non-Jews will eat kosher to accommodate the dietary requirements of one, or adjust schedules to avoid Jewish holidays. But as is often the case, non-Jews have more respect for religious practices than fellow Jews. I recall situations of frum tenants wanting to establish an “eruv chatzerot” in a block of flats so they could carry in the common areas on Shabbat (this is not needed any more), and while the non-Jewish neighbours were obliging, the Jewish ones questioned the need to be “so frum”. There are countless more examples of this, and the intolerance displayed is quite disgusting. Surely we could be at least as polite and accommodating to other Jews as non-Jews are?

With regards to communal bodies, the issue is more complex. An organisation that is responsible for an aspect of religious observance of a community is “accountable” both to the community that is serves, and to God (or rather their interpretation and understanding of what God wants from us). These interests can often conflict. By-laws established by Rabbis must also be sustainable (i.e. the community must be able to abide by them). The Rabbis who establish these standards must balance all of these, and still be able to sleep at night hoping they have acted true to their beliefs and their constituency. Where an Orthodox Rabbi heads an Orthodox shul where most of the congregants are not practicing Orthodox (I like the term “Orthodox affiliated”), similar issues can arise. If such a Rabbi did not allow his congregants to drive to shul on Shabbat, either the shul would be empty, or he would be quickly out of a job.

People are quick to criticize the Rabbis for their decisions (which will invariably trouble someone) – no wonder there isn’t a queue a mile long for Rabbinic positions when they become open. It is a credit to Chabad for producing Rabbis who are prepared to step up to these roles and devote their lives to community service. That is surely one of the reasons there is a disproportionate number of practicing Chabad Rabbis in Melbourne, particularly in non-Chabad shuls.

Is a diverse community better served by having a greater or fewer distinct standards of religious practice in its organisations? No matter how many Beth Dins or Kashrut certifiers there are, there will always be a group of disaffected people. More of them will likely not increase or decrease that – if anything more will increase the fractures that already exist in a community like ours.

I doubt if anyone is “frum enough”.

So you only buy kosher meat, stay away from crustaceans, never mix meat and milk, and always check the food labels. You try your best but all this is of course a long, long way from keeping real kosher, committed kosher – the kind of kosher kept by those strange people in black hats. Those people who seem to inhabit a different world, the world in which there is no place for a person like you. You could never bring to your dining table the same devotion and piety as they do, right? Well, what if you could? What if keeping real kosher was within reach? Let me show you how you may be closer than you think:

Checking the ingredients is all good and well but what about factory equipment? Wouldn’t the products manufactured on un-kosher equipment also not be kosher?

The subject of equipment contamination is discussed by Rav Moshe Feinstein – a leading authority in all areas of Jewish law. In a lengthy ruling concerning the kosher status of margarine manufactured on a production line previously used for other non-kosher products (Igros Moshe, YD 2:41) the Rav establishes two important principles. The first is that halacha does not require a rabbi or mashgiach to be employed to ensure that the cleaning required for kashrus is satisfactorily implemented. Provided the factory cleans to what are halachically acceptable standards for its own food safety protocols, we can rely upon them and the governments guidelines and the government penalties. Rather than acting as a second-tier system inferior to the ‘gold standard’ of direct supervision, Rav Moshe argues that this standard is consistent with the very principles of traditional Jewish dietary supervision.

The second principle advanced by Rav Moshe has even greater repercussions. Jewish law postulates that a utensil used for cooking absorbs and retains flavour of the food cooked within it. If used again – the vessel may impart this absorbed flavour to the food now being cooked. If the absorbed food is not kosher, it may make the food presently being cooked not kosher. However, once unused for 24 hours (aino ben yoma), the absorbed food inside the walls of the container becomes spoiled (pogum) and can no longer affect the kashrus status of the next food being cooked (Shulchan Aruch, YD 103:5). Jewish law designates all utensils owned by non-Jews as aino ben yoma, unless we actually know otherwise.

Nevertheless, we are not permitted, by decree of our Sages, to use such vessels until they have been kashered. This applies when a Jew will be using these vessels, or where the non-Jew has been directed by the Jew to cook on behalf of a Jew. However, where a non-Jew decides to cook on behalf of a Jew, even if a rabbi or mashgiach is employed to ensure that non-kosher foods and ingredients are not used, the vessels need not be kashered and the foods are kosher. Rav Moshe’s argument essentially renders the cooking utensils factor a non-issue in the determination of the product’s kosher status.

What about enzymes? Some say that they don’t make it to the ingredients list. If they are not-kosher, wouldn’t that make the final product not-kosher too?

The general rule is that an ingredient inadvertently added to a food mixture is nullified at the ratio of 1:60. This rule is restricted to a Jew adding the non-kosher ingredient inadvertently. A Jew may never knowingly add even the tiniest amount of non-kosher content to a food designated for kosher consumption. However, here too we must observe that a non-Jew is not restricted by such decrees of our Sages. A food manufacturer who is not Jewish can produce kosher foods even when he adds non-kosher foods and ingredients, and even if a rabbi or mashgiach is there to supervise that the final product is kosher.

However, a substance necessary to effect a transformation that is impossible without it (such as an enzyme) can affect the kosher status in any quantity. We must remember, however, that a substance can only have a kosher status if it is a food item. Something that is not food or is derived from food but rendered inedible (Nifsal M’Achila) is neither kosher nor not-kosher.

Many of the enzymes used in food industry are derived from food, some from non-kosher food – but they themselves are not food. It is meaningless to talk of a kosher status of an inedible item. A halachic template for this is the use of dried-up shavings of a cow’s stomach wall to produce cheese (Shulchan Aruch YD 87:11). The stomach of a non-kosher animal is not kosher. However, when the stomach wall is dried up and added to milk to transform it into cheese, the ingredient does not render the cheese not-kosher. In the words of the Shulchan Aruch, the stomach wall has become ‘like wood’ and no longer has a non-kosher identity.

What about gelatine and cochineal?

Gelatine is derived from inedible parts of the animal, usually hooves, horns, bones or skin. During its manufacture, gelatine is denatured into a tasteless, colourless matrix which is completely inedible. Cochineal is a red tasteless substance derived from insects and used in minute quantities as a red food colouring. Neither of the substances could ever be described as food and therefore do not fall under kosher/not-kosher definition.

What about Chalav Yisroel milk?

Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe YD 1:47-49) argues clearly that the modern regulation requiring strict supervision and testing of milk at the factory level as well as the risk of financial loss to the farmer if the milk is found to be contaminated with non-cow milk, appropriately reflect the standard of supervision required by Jewish law. Once again, this is not some kind of ‘second tier’ observance but a standard in line with halacha. It is noteworthy to mention that while Rav Moshe himself drank only chalav yisroel milk, Rebetzin Feinstein did not (as communicated by Rebbe Chaim Jachter, www.koltorah.org).

But on Passover the rules are different. So what about food ingredients then?

On Passover any leaven material added to a food product retains its unique identity and is not nullified in any quantity. This, however, only applies when the leavened material is added during the days of Passover itself. If added prior to Passover, the leaven becomes nullified by the same measurements as other food products (the 1:60 rule usually applies) and ‘disappears’ within the food mixture. Thus the frenzy of obtaining Kosher for Passover foods is in many cases nothing but a figment of the imagination.

The last argument

This argument has nothing to do with kashrus, or with food for that matter. It is the argument that kashrut supervision (in the form of a little symbol on your food container) is somehow inherently good for us. This argument is advanced in many different forms by various players in the kashrus field. We are variously told that kosher certification is good because it gives jobs to frum people, because it raises awareness of kosher, because it encourages stricter observance, because ‘otherwise you just can‘t be sure‘.

Most of all, an assertion is repeatedly made that the Jewish dietary laws are so complex, that food manufacturing is so advanced that an average person could not possibly comprehend all the intricacies of the subject. It therefore follows that we shouldn’t even try and should entrust ourselves instead into the hand of ‘knowing men’ who will take care of it all for us. To put it simply, this is nonsense. Indeed, while I hold in great admiration those individuals who choose to undertake tougher, more stringent levels of observance incurring a significant degree of additional effort and financial cost in the process, this admiration does not extend to those who seek to impose upon others their own ethical constructs which they seek to pass as true foundations of Jewish law.

To keep a kosher home is to feel the gift of spiritual connection with G-dliness resting in the very heart of our home. It must never be made the privilege of a few – a special task to be outsourced to ‘those people in black hats’. The Sages of the Talmud use poignant imagery to illustrate the damage one does in the process of making another feel embarrassed, humiliated or left out: the redness that rushes to a person’s face is compared to spilling blood in murder. Indeed, today we witness a generation being ‘murdered’ in this way through their inability to participate in the sacred tradition of keeping a kosher home – a tradition increasingly out of reach for ordinary Jews.

It may be hard for some to imagine, but for a sizable proportion of the Jewish community, the very thought of walking into a specialty kosher store is out of the question – for reasons of distance, price, or sheer embarrassment. In recent years a growing list of items (strawberries, honey, olive oil to name a few) have been branded as ‘unacceptable without a kosher logo’ for reasons unrelated to food production. With every new item declared off limits another wall is erected, another boundary separates the life of an ordinary Jew from the aspirations of holiness and connection to the bigger whole we all seek.

This article cannot and is not intended to be a comprehensive kashrus manual. To those who feel that the kosher world is beyond their reach, it is an open invitation to learn and educate themselves while letting go of the false notions they may have taken as truths. To those who couldn’t imagine a life without kosher, it is a heartfelt plea to not let themselves be intimidated into supporting opinions and views that are passed off as authentic Jewish tradition but in fact corrupt the very tradition and values they are meant to represent.

It is fitting to conclude with the words of the Sages (Yerushalmi, Kiddushin 4:12): “A man will have to give an accounting to the Presence for everything his eyes beheld but he chose not to eat, though permitted and able to do so.”

Robert is an Orthodox Jew, a life-long learner, and a kosher consumer.

Judah Maccabee

By Michael Fagenblat
The significance of Hanukah has vividly transformed in modern times. The Talmudic rabbis were conspicuously reticent about the historical and political connotations of the festival. The Book of Maccabees, which records the historical rebellion lead by Judas Maccabeus, was not included in the Jewish Bible, even though pre-rabbinic Jews regarded it as part of sacred Scripture. As a consequence we don’t read the scriptural record on Hanukah as we read, for example, the Book of Lamentations on Tisha b’Av or the Book of Esther on Purim. Hanukah, moreover, is not mentioned once in the foundational rabbinic document, the Mishnah, and its appearance in later Talmudic discussions celebrates the sacred miracle of the oil more than the historical resumption of Jewish political sovereignty. It seems clear that the Talmudic rabbis were markedly reluctant to embrace the historical and political significance of the festival and preferred to concentrate on the purely sacred miracle of the lights instead.

The contrast could hardly be starker with the significance of Hanukah in modern Israel. Here we find the opposing interpretation approaching the status of a consensus. Major currents in religious and secular Zionism view Hanukah as the symbol par excellence for celebrating the resumption of Jewish political sovereignty and “the Jewish return into history”. A stark example is provided by the fate of Psalm 106 in modern times. The second verse, Who shall praise the power of Hashem!, is transformed into a celebration of the political accomplishments of the Jewish people – Who shall praise the power of Israel! mi yim’alel gevurot yisrael.

We can observe two principal shifts of focus from the rabbinic to the modern Israeli understanding of Hanukah. The first concerns the location of the miracle, the second its source. For the rabbis, the miracle of Hanukah is to be found in a sacred realm withdrawn from political and historical life, in the oil of the temple lamp and the Talmudic academies that keep its flames flickering. By contrast, for many modern Jews the true miracle lies precisely in those historical and political events that the rabbis marginalized, in political sovereignty. It is not secularization but modernization that brought about this transformation. Religious Zionists, for example, also look to the historical and political aspects of the festival to perceive the true miracle of Hanukah, and the lights of the Temple and the Talmud now flicker in the light of History.

Similarly, for the rabbis the source of the miracle is none other than the Holy Blessed One, whereas modern Jews tend to emphasize that the source of the miracle lies in Jewish agency, or is at least mixed up in our agency. Even a Hasidic Rebbe like Levi-Yitzhak of Berdichev, writing in Poland in the late 18^th century, seems to express the modern penchant for agency over passivity. Why, he asks, do we add the prayer “for the miracles—al hanisim,” on Hanukah but not on Passover, when the latter commemorates far greater miracles such as the plagues and the splitting of the sea? His answer: because on Hanukah we brought about the miracles and they are therefore all the more blessed.

What is gained and what is lost in reevaluating the significance of Hanukah in this way? It is not simply a matter of accepting or rejecting miracles, since both ancient and modern Jews, religious and even secular, see the miraculous in Hanukah, just in different aspects. The transformations of the miracle of Hanukah are transformations of what claims us, of how we are claimed. The flickering of events in which we see light.

But does the claim of the miracle always come from the past? If its values and symbols are opened by our responses and changing interpretations, does not the miracle still fix us to the past, to events that have long passed and perhaps ought no longer be so meaningful? The miracle must also illuminate the future, otherwise it degenerates into dead metaphors that cannot sustain genuine reanimation. And here lies the danger of the miracle. For we have all survived the miracles of the past, but the future’s miracles are far from assured.

Living with miracles is risky business. A candle can start a raging fire. As much as we are asked to see the miracle, we must therefore also find the right place for it in our lives. This is why the Psalmist whom we encountered above, who proclaims the great power of Hashem which modern experience finds in historical and political Israel, immediately reserves this vision of the miracle for “those who keep justice”. Maimonides offers another, by no means incompatible, way. At the end of his Laws of Hanukah, which urge us to proclaim the miracle in full glory, Maimonides reflects on the place of the miracle in ordinary life. If one has enough money only for oil for the Hanukah lamp or the household lamp, which one to choose? Buy oil for the house, he says, because the intimate peace of a household, of one person living with another, is greater than proclaiming all the miracles, “for the whole Torah was given to make peace in the world”.

Michael Fagenblat, Monash University (Australia), is a Templeton Fellow in Philosophical Theology at the Shalem Center for 2011-12.

A 'Yechi' kippah, as per the story in question

By Rabbi Meir Rabi

A Great Story, a Disastrously Distorted Conclusion, or What’s Wrong with Super-Orthodox Thinking

Let me say at the outset, I am making observations about a frailty of humanity ; its ability to inflict on itself outrageous, mind bending, distortions.

Only a bizarre, foolish perversion could encourage the publication of the story below, in spite of it glorifying what is so obviously crooked. Only severe delusions could be responsible for so many readers who savour this and other such stories. In this story a crude, arrogant, obstinate man praises his shortcomings as being his saviour rather than seeing them as almost bringing about his own destruction.

By Rabbi Tuvia Bolton, as published on the Moshiach.ru website.

Dr X is the main doctor for the community of some 20,000 Satmar Chassidim in the city of Monroe New York.

The casual reader might not grasp the awesome novelty of this but I will try to explain.

Satmar Chassidim are among the most charitable people in the world. Their acts of kindness and aid to the needy are of epic proportions and what is advertised is only a small percentage of what they actually do.

But they take no credit, neither for this nor for their remarkable devotion to G-d and His Torah. Rather their pride is in their opposition to Zionism. To them, Zionism, Zionists and anyone that supports them are evil.

Only Moshiach, they say (as do all other Jewish sources) will gather all the Jews, certainly not an atheistic based movement like Zionism, and they hate anything and anyone that disagrees with them on this.

Therefore, years ago when the Lubavitcher Rebbe praised the Israeli soldiers that pulled off the Entebbe Raid, they came out with a strong condemnation and declared a ‘cold war’ on Chabad.

(Which is, in fact, totally unfounded, being that Chabad, especially through their Chassidic teachings, is devoted to bringing Moshiach against the basic tenant of Zionism: that Jews can solve all problems and end the ‘exile’ on their own.)

What magnifies the novelty of Dr X in Satmar is that he wears a Yarmulka that bears an embroidered declaration, in the spirit of Chabad, that he is waiting to coronate Moshiach.

Just a few months ago Dr X visited us here in the Yeshiva and told the miraculous story of his appointment.

Several years ago he saw an advertisement that the Satmar community in Monroe was seeking a Doctor and, being that he had to provide for his wife and budding family, he applied and was called for an interview.

When he arrived at the interview and they saw his credentials, portfolio and recommendations they were very pleased and were considering hiring him on the spot, until he took off his hat. Suddenly their eyes affixed on the letters decorating his Yarmulke “Long live King Moshiach” and for the rest of the conversation they heard nothing he said.

After a very short time they closed the meeting with, ‘don’t call us, we’ll call you’, didn’t even shake his hand and that seemed to be the end of it.

Although things looked dim, Dr X still had hopes.

But after five weeks passed and he heard nothing he gave up and began searching again, but nothing better presented itself.

Then, in the sixth week after his interview he received a telephone call. Satmar wanted him to come for another interview.

This time when he arrived and sat down opposite them they did not beat around the bush, they pointed to his head covering and said, “That Kippa” (nickname for Yarmulka)….

But before they could continue he interrupted them, “My friends, this kippa is part of the package. If you want me you want it, and if you don’t want it, you don’t want me. This is the first time we are talking about this and the last. If you hire me then in my office I will be the boss and you cannot tell me what to do, but outside of my office, in your community, you are the boss.”

They looked at him blankly and again said. “We’ll think it over.”

And, sure enough, a week later they called him and he got the job!

Now the story begins.

About a year later, one of the most influential members of the community came to him complaining of persisant stomach pain. It was rumored that this Chassid had over 100 million dollars in the bank, and he was in charge of all the finances of the community, assuring that everyone got paid fairly and on time etc.

After a thorough examination, Dr X gave him some pain pills to hold him over, and advised that he have a colonoscopy (a harsh intestinal examination) as soon as possible.

A few weeks the same Chassid returned and asked for more pain pills. “Did you have the colonoscopy?” Dr X asked. “Maybe later” was the reply.

“Dr X removed his glasses, stood, pointed at the door and said firmly, “Get out of my office …. NOW!”

“Excuse me!” The Chassid said indignantly. “No one talks to me like that here! I can have you fired in a second, do you understand?! You’re only here to serve us, so watch what you say!”

Dr X wasn’t affected. “In my office I am the boss! If you don’t like it then you can fire me! But as long as I’m here, you either do what I say or get out of this room. Either you leave here now, or you can fire me!”

“Okay! We’ll see who leaves!” said the Chassid as he angrily exited and slammed the door behind him.

A month later the Chassid returned with a large present for Dr X; a huge, pure silver, wine Cup of Elijah for his Passover table and a story.

“I had the colonoscopy test like you said and they found a tumor. A malignant tumor! They said it was the last minute, that there still was hope and that another week it probably would have been be too late.

They sent me to the operating room immediately and, well, thank G-D, they said that the operation was successful and they removed it completely! You were right. If you hadn’t yelled at me I would have pushed it off and who knows…so you saved my life!”

“Now I want to tell you something” The Chassid sat down and continued. “Do you know why it took six weeks for them to call you, back then when you were hired? Well I’ll tell you.

“Because when you took off your hat in that first interview and they saw that kippa of yours they thought you were crazy. I mean, you know what some people here think about Chabad. Well they figured you would hide your being Chabad and they would ignore it too. But not you! You threw it in everyone’s face.

“Anyway, no one wanted to hire you, but for the next five weeks they just couldn’t find anyone that had your credentials. And, not only that but before you took off your hat they really liked you. So they came to me for advice what to do.

“So I thought about it for a few minutes and told them like this. I told them to call you again and ask you if you’re willing to change that Kippa. And that if you say ‘yes’, that you’re willing to take it off they should NOT hire you because it’s a sign that you don’t believe in your principles. But if you refuse to remove it then it means you’ll be honest with us and won’t hide anything and they should hire you.

“So it ends up that because of your stubbornness we hired you and because of your stubbornness you saved my life! Another doctor would have worried about his job and let me do what I wanted.

“So it ends up that …. Well…. I saved myself!!! I gave them the advice to take someone as stubborn as you.”

However, I believe that authentic Jewish Life is devoted to correcting such distortions. Unfortunately it appears as though it is used sometimes and in some arenas of Jewish Life, to promote and glorify distorted thinking.

Here is the distorted conclusion of the story below.
“So it ends up that because of your stubbornness we hired you and because of your stubbornness you saved my life! Another doctor would have worried about his job and let me do what I wanted.
“So it ends up that …. Well…. I saved myself!!! I gave them the advice to take someone as stubborn as you.”

Here is the proper sensible conclusion as it ought to be.
“So it ends up that because of my stubbornness and arrogance, I would have killed myself, and because of your stubbornness you saved my life”

And here’s another perverse perspective of this story – would a doctor, should a doctor, may a doctor, adhering to Halacha and common sense, refuse the opportunity to serve a Jewish community rather than compromise superficial and artificial principles?

And another perspective of this story - Would a breadwinner who is responsible for supporting a family, should a breadwinner who is responsible for supporting a family, may a breadwinner who is responsible for supporting a family, refuse an opportunity to support his family due to these types of principles?