In Every Generation: Remaking The Szyk Haggadah [VIDEO]
Judaism in two minutes
Can you “sell” Judaism in a few minutes? This question came up in a piece in The Forward by Leonard Fein, who was commenting on a recent debate in New York City between Daniel Gordis and Peter Beinart. In the debate, as Fein quotes, they were asked this question: “Both of you have written about the tragedy of young American Jews who have no connection to Judaism and the fate of the Jewish state. So let’s say you were stuck in an elevator with one of the people from that demographic, and you had two minutes to sell them about why they should re-engage with Jewishness and Zionism and the Jewish people. What would you say?”
Gordis responded: “I wouldn’t engage in that conversation. When in the Gemarrah, the ger [stranger, heathen] comes to Hillel and Shamai and asks them to teach him the whole Torah while standing on one foot, Shamai throws him out; the question itself is an outrageously obnoxious question. It’s dismissive. I wouldn’t take two minutes while standing in an elevator to try to explain everything that makes my world meaningful or to try to convince somebody to be a moral human being, and I wouldn’t take two minutes in an elevator to try to convince another person why a life spent loving another person is a life that, although more complicated, is infinitely worthwhile. And I wouldn’t try to convince a person why a life spent being a patriot is a noble thing. There are certain conversations that don’t deserve two minutes; they deserve years of upbringing. I think we’ve gotten too used to the idea that important things can be summarized on the screen of an iPhone or a BlackBerry…”
Beinart then said: “On questions of Israeli policy and how we should respond to them, Daniel and I have very substantial disagreements. But when he gives answers like that, though I could not have stated it so eloquently, I could not more profoundly agree with what he said. I think he’s entirely right: It’s too late at that point, and the kids who ask that question have in fact been failed by our community, which says today to most American Jewish parents, ‘The most important thing you can do is to raise children with knowledge of, joy in and fascination with Judaism — but, by the way, if you’re interested in the possibility of a full-time Jewish school, you’re going to have to take a second mortgage on your house and the school’s not likely to have a gym and we don’t even know whether it’s going to be around in three years. Go for it!’ That’s precisely why we end up with kids who would ask such an insulting question in the elevator.”
Are Gordis and Beinart being too dismissive? Fein thinks so, and I very much agree with him. The sad state of Jewish education today is even more reason why Judaism can’t afford to be too dismissive or pessimistic. As Fein says, our approach should be that it’s never too late to try to light a Jewish spark.
I have a little story that connects with this idea.
A few years ago, I was confronted by a young Jewish copywriter in an ad agency who knew about my Jewish activities but who himself was totally disconnected from Judaism. He challenged me to explain why he should bother with a tradition that held little interest for him.
Instead of a sales pitch, I started with a few questions:
“Do you love your grandparents?” I asked.
“Yes, of course,” he replied.
“If you could meet your great-great-great grandparents, would you love them as much?”
“Yes, absolutely,” he said.
“Now, let’s go further back. If you could meet your great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents, would you still love them as much?
“Yes, I still would. Why?”
“Well, close your eyes and imagine if all these grandparents whom you love were standing in a long line holding hands. Imagine that this line would stretch all the way back to the destruction of the Second Temple. Consider that for almost 2,000 years, this great line of grandparents, no matter where they lived or how much they suffered, held on tightly to their Jewish tradition. And every time they opened a prayer book or celebrated a bris, wedding or Passover seder, they expressed their deep yearning to return home to Zion and Jerusalem.
“Now open your eyes. You, my friend, are privileged to live in the generation that can get what your ancestors prayed and died for; you can see and touch the miracle of Zion they yearned for during all those centuries; you can be free to be Jewish without any fear or embarrassment.
“Imagine that this long chain of grandparents are all looking at you, hoping and praying that you will take your place in the chain. What will you do? Will you stay in the chain, or will you be the one to break it off after 2,000 years?”
I could see from his face that my words lit a spark. I don’t know if he ended up connecting to his Jewish tradition, but I do know this: It took me less than two minutes to connect him to 2,000 years — and it was worth every second.
Judaism in two minutes Read More »
The Arabpreneurs
Last week, I wrote about innovative ideas for addressing poverty and the class divide in America.
This week I will solve the Middle East crisis.
OK, maybe I’m over-promising.
But on stage in a large ballroom at the Beverly Hilton Hotel earlier this month, two Israelis, a Jordanian and an Egyptian sat together and discussed investment strategies with an investor from Dubai and a Palestinian moderator.
This took place at the Milken Institute Global Conference in front of an audience of some 300 people at a breakout session titled “The Changing Face of the Middle East.”
It should have been called “How to Change the Face of the Middle East.”
The fact is, the Arab Spring that destroyed the stagnant and oppressive status quo unleashed many forces, both positive and negative. We are well aware of the negative: the rise of Islamic parties in Algeria, Egypt and elsewhere; the chaos and anarchy unleashed when dictators fall; the anti-Israel rhetoric, sown by decades of propaganda, flowering in uncensored media. Being Jews, that’s what we focus on.
What we neglect are the positive forces: the voices of democracy and women’s rights. The unleashing of creativity and the drive for free enterprise.
It’s that last one that the men and women in the room at the Hilton believe will make all the difference.
“Many of you have heard of the book called ‘Start-Up Nation,’ ” said Chemi Peres, managing general partner and co-founder of Pitango Venture Capital, Israel’s leading venture capital firm. “But,” he added, “there is a more important book to be written, which is ‘Start-Up Region.’ I think we are on the verge of a very important era. The Middle East is the last region in the world that has not experienced dramatic growth. Those who will not participate in the game will be left behind.”
Yes, Peres is the son of Shimon Peres, the eternally optimistic Israeli president who, 20 years ago, was talking about high-speed trains from Beirut to Beersheba. But while the father dreamt, the son invested.
Recently, Pitango started a $50 million fund to invest in the Israeli Arab sector, whose GDP has grown by 7 percent through the recession. He said that’s just a small example of what opportunities await investors in the region as a whole.
The numbers are mind-boggling. There are 400 million people in the Middle East. Arabic is the fastest-growing language on the Internet. Some 65 percent of the world’s Arab population is under 30 years old, and they want work and opportunities.
“The Arab Spring is two springs,” Peres said. “There’s the political one, which I’m not so positive about in the short term, but very positive about in the long term. There is more power shifting toward the people. The second Arab Spring is what the young generation is doing.”
The Internet has enabled Arab youth to go from being job seekers to become job creators, said Abdul Malek Al Jaber, the Palestinian entrepreneur who founded and is chairman of MENA Apps. In Jordan, his company invested $100,000 in an e-commerce site that is now worth $30 million.
Al Jaber’s company has created office spaces in cafes across the region, where entrepreneurs can develop their ideas for free.
“We call them Arabpreneurs,” the Palestinian said. “We want to re-create the high-tech ecosystem of Israel.”
In Egypt, Mohamed Seif-Elnasr, chief investment officer and managing partner of Safanad SA, said, the tech sector is up 18 percent during a time of great turmoil.
That turmoil is the “froth at the top,” Seif-Elnasr said. “Don’t look at the country,” he said, “look at youth.”
Abdulla Mohammed Al Awar, the CEO of the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority, said that in his country oil now accounts for only 2 percent of the GDP. They are making massive investments in high-tech. Focusing only on the turmoil misses the big picture.
“Look at young people,” Al Awar said. “Look at entrepreneurial spirit. Invest in innovation.”
An hour into this panel, I realized no one had mentioned “peace process” or “settlements” or any of the other sinkholes of Middle East hope. Yet the subtext seemed clear: Rising wealth and opportunity will increase regional cooperation and decrease conflict. The Internet, Al Jaber said, is a land of no passports and no borders.
And even where those exist, investment and innovation can triumph.
Zika Abzuk, senior manager of Cisco in Israel, told of sponsoring a Palestinian-Israeli tech conference with 40 entrepreneurs. The Palestinians were stopped at a border crossing, so everyone met in a Bedouin tent in a no-man’s land pointed out by a helpful Israel Defense Forces soldier.
“Both Israel and Palestine have educated people as their only resource,” Abzuk said.
These panelists certainly didn’t sound like wild-eyed optimists. They weren’t just describing digital opportunity in a flat world, they were placing multimillion-dollar bets on it.
Crazy? Peres pointed out that if you had invested in China in 1989, during the Tiananmen Square crackdown, your friends would have thought you were nuts, but you would have made 25 times your investment by now. If you had invested in Turkey when Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan took power in 2003, your friends would have warned you that the man is a radical who declared, “The mosques are our barracks.” But by now you would have quintupled your money.
And if you had invested in Israel during the crippling turmoil of the First Intifada, in 1987, now, three wars and another Intifada later, you’d be — well, you’d be rich enough to follow this panel’s advice.
Beinart and Suissa debate ‘Is Zionism in Crisis?’
If you’re in Los Angeles Wednesday, there is a ” title=”Peter Beinart” target=”_blank”>Peter Beinart, of “The Crisis of Zionism,” will debate ” title=”on his blog” target=”_blank”>on his blog.
If you’re going to go, Rosove warns you to arrive early. Beinart draws a big crowd. And if you’re not in LA, or you prefer to watch from home, the debate will be Beinart and Suissa debate ‘Is Zionism in Crisis?’ Read More »
UCLA’s ‘one state or two’ debate
For anyone who missed the debate on May 15 at UCLA between Reza Aslan and Hussein Ibish over whether the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be resolved by creating a Palestinian state alongside the Jewish one or by creating a single bi-national state, here’s the basic report of what went down.
As expected, Aslan argued that the two-state solution is “dead and buried,” and that everyone (the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Americans and other international bodies) should instead start investing resources and energy to create a single bi-national state with “soft borders.”
Ibish, meanwhile, rejected the idea that the window to create two states for two peoples has closed, and instead held out hope for the possibility that such a conflict-ending resolution could be reached in the region.
While they disagreed about what final resolution to aim for, a careful listener would have realized that Aslan and Ibish agreed on almost everything else about the conflict.
Both scholars assigned blame for the failure of the peace process to many parties, but set the lion’s share of the blame at Israel’s feet. Both Ibish and Aslan saw the Israeli policy of settlement expansion as the primary reason for the failure of the peace process to progress in the nearly 20 years since the Oslo Accords were signed. Both acknowledged that, while most Israelis and most Palestinians (and most Americans, for that matter) want to see a two-state solution achieved, the likelihood of it being achieved anytime soon is very slim.
As one student in the audience put it afterward, “They’re on the same page, but they have different views.”
But confronted with the question of how the parties should proceed in resolving this seemingly intractable conflict, the two Muslim scholars parted ways.
“I’m advocating the one-state solution for one simple reason: there is no other solution,” said Aslan, calling the prospect of two states for two peoples “a sham” and “a charade.”
Pointing to the 600,000 Israelis who are currently living beyond the so-called green line that divides pre-1967 Israel from the territories it conquered during the war that year, Aslan argued, in no uncertain terms, that the infrastructure of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank had simply crowded out any possible space for a second state.
“There will never be a Palestinian state,” he said. “Ever. That is the truth.”
Ibish disagreed. “The majority of Israelis are, rather strongly, in favor of two state solution; the majority of Palestinians are in favor of a two-state solution,” he said. “So it’s a question of political will.”
With that political will, Ibish said he believed that the Israelis would dismantle West Bank settlements in order to achieve peace, and cited the examples of Gaza and the Northern West Bank as evidence of their willingness to do so.
“Walls go up and walls come down,” Ibish said.
Throughout the debate, Ibish sounded both hopeful and pragmatic when compared with Aslan, and never more so than when Aslan described the bloody process by which he believed a single, bi-national state could actually come about.
“If you want me to be honest with you,” Aslan said, “I think that what we are going to see is a process through which the demographic balance [between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea] tips into apartheid, ethnic cleansing, until finally you have international mediation that leads to confederacy.”
“If,” Ibish responded, “I wanted to exercise a radical dystopian imaginative leap of that kind, if I wanted to be Hieronymus Bosch of Israel and the Palestinians, sure, I can arrive at your conclusion after all this horror. Well I’m not willing to go there.”
“Even if it turns out you were right,” he continued, “I would be proud to stand here and tell you that I am not going to acquiesce to making that happen.”
Despite falling during the week of mid-terms, about 80 people, most of them students, came to UCLA’s Humanities Building to hear from Aslan and Ibish.
“I think settlements can be overturned and stopped,” Ajwang Rading, a second year political science major, said after the debate. He is taking a course about the Middle East this term, and found Ibish’s argument the more convincing of the two. “It’s hard, but I’m a believer in that option. There is hope that it is possible.”
Benjamin Wu, a second-year student at UCLA studying economics and political science, also recoiled from the one-state solution. “Even though it’s probably more realistic, I thought it was too cynical,” he said. “Whereas Dr. Ibish, I thought he was much more optimistic. At least he was proposing a solution to the problem.”
Tuesday night’s debate was part of the Olive Tree Initiative’s Month of Ideas, and a second panel of Jewish participants will address the same topic on May 29. For more information, go to http://otiatucla.com/month-of-ideas/.
UCLA’s ‘one state or two’ debate Read More »
May 16, 2012
An Integrated Imperative: Attack Iran and Launch a Regional Peace Initiative
Prof. Yehezkel Dror wrote for the Begin-Sadat Center at Bar-Ilan University that an Israeli push for regional peace would go some way to mitigating any adverse responses should it decide to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Integrating an attack with a broad, multi-dimensional, credible peace initiative will multiply the benefits of both, whether or not there is an immediate favorable response from Arab states. The recommendation to attack, if there is no other way to deny Iran of nuclear weapons, is not necessarily conditional on presenting an Israeli peace initiative. But the attack recommendation is less problematic and more valid if it is integrated with such an initiative.
Hamas Elections Solidify Split from Palestinian Authority
Hamas has an unshakeable grip on Gaza, and its divide from the Palestinian Authority has been largely ignored by the west, writes Jonathan Spyer in PJ Media.
The nature of the regime created by Hamas in Gaza, and its strength and durability, has received insufficient attention in the West. This may have a political root: Western governments feel the need to keep alive the fiction of the long-dead peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. One of the necessary components of this is pretending that the historic split between nationalists and Islamists among the Palestinians has not really happened, or that it is a temporary glitch that will soon be reconciled. This fiction is necessary for peace process believers, because it enables them to continue to treat the West Bank Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas as the sole representative of the Palestinians.
Walter Russell Mead of the American Interest reports on the growing tensions in Syria’s one-time client state and western neighbor, Lebanon.
The longer the fight against [Syrian President Bashar] Assad continues, the tenser Lebanon gets. Every day, the potential grows for Lebanon to erupt once again into conflict. What is now sporadic fighting in isolated spots could spread to Beirut. The army has already deployed in Tripoli. Hezbollah is still not really involved in any fighting; that could change. Lebanese civilians are preparing for the worst.
Novelist condemns ‘intimidation’ by group promoting boycott of Israel
Ronan McGreevy of the Irish Times reports on the somewhat forceful steps taken by an Irish anti-Israel organization.
Gerard Donovan was the subject of the letter written by IPSC cultural liaison officer Dr Raymond Deane urging him not to attend the International Writers Festival that is happening in Israel this week. Dr Deane posted on the internet that attempts to contact the novelist had been unsuccessful, which was why he was resorting to an open letter requesting the novelist to abide by a cultural boycott of Israel. In response, Mr Donovan accused Dr Deane of having “some nerve” in sending him an open letter. “I live on a farm with three dogs.”
What Happened to Israel’s Reputation?
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Israeli Ambassador to Israel Michael Oren explores the unfair deterioration in Israel’s image abroad.
Israel may seem like Goliath vis-à-vis the Palestinians, but in a regional context it is David. Gaza is host to 10,000 rockets, many of which can hit Tel Aviv, and Hezbollah in Lebanon has 50,000 missiles that place all of Israel within range. Throughout the Middle East, countries with massive arsenals are in upheaval. And Iran, which regularly pledges to wipe Israel off the map, is developing nuclear weapons. Israel remains the world’s only state that is threatened with annihilation.
In Iran Nuke Talks, Ehud Barak Is the Man to Watch
Writing in Bloomberg, Jeffrey Goldberg hypothesizes that the Israeli defense minister, a former army chief, is the power behind the thrones when it comes to making the decision on attacking Iran.
For Barak, keeping Iran outside the zone of immunity is paramount. If Iran moves its nuclear program beyond the reach of the Israeli air force, Netanyahu and Barak believe they will have outsourced the security of their nation to the U.S., which has more advanced weaponry. But in Barak’s estimation, the U.S. has gone 0-2 in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons to hostile, unstable countries. Pakistan and North Korea both built and tested nuclear weapons over U.S. objections. Barak has pointed out that Israel is 2-0 in the same arena, having destroyed nuclear facilities in both Iraq and Syria from the air.
Iran nuclear concession would test big power unity
Facing an imminent toughening of sanctions, Iran is hinting at a readiness to give some ground in its long nuclear stand-off with world powers, but any flexibility could split their ranks and lead to protracted uncertainty about how to respond.
The stakes are high, for the longer the impasse goes on, the closer Iran will get to the technological threshold of capability to develop atomic bombs, raising the odds of last-ditch Israeli military strikes on its arch-foe and the risk of a new Middle East war a troubled global economy cannot afford.
A succession of optimistic statements by Iranian officials and academics has raised speculation that Tehran may offer concessions to its six main negotiating partners in talks scheduled for May 23 in Baghdad, a move that could ease regional tensions and soothe fears of a fresh spike in oil prices.
Such an offer would also be closely studied by Israel, which has threatened to use force to destroy nuclear installations the Islamic Republic says are purely civilian in nature but the West suspects are geared to gaining a weapons capability.
Any talk of a diplomatic breakthrough, though, is almost certainly premature.
Whatever concrete gestures are tabled by Iran would test anew the cohesiveness of joint Western, Russian and Chinese efforts to prevent an Iranian atom bomb capability, and might simply lead to months of inconclusive consultations among its interlocutors about how to answer Tehran’s move, analysts say.
Differences in how best to match an Iranian offer – for example by suspending some sanctions in return for Iran shelving enrichment of uranium to 20 percent purity, a level that worries U.N. nuclear experts – could snag efforts to turn any such initiative into meaningful movement towards negotiations.
“Don’t expect a ‘Kumbaya’ (celebratory) moment. It’s going to be a poker play” between Iran and the major powers, French analyst Bruno Tertrais said. “I would be surprised if what happens in Baghdad was more than an agreement on interim steps.”
ISOLATION
There is “no doubt ” that Iran’s policy would be to split the six, known as the P5+1, says Dennis Ross, until November a chief Middle East strategy adviser at the White House.
“I also have no doubt that they probably will put something on the table that they think will be attractive to some of the members of the P5+1,” Ross told an audience at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington.
He said one such move could be Iranian assurances on a halt to stockpiling of 20 percent enriched uranium.
That level, well beyond the 5 percent of fissile purity suitable for running civilian nuclear power plants, is intended only to replenish the fuel stocks of a medical isotope reactor, Iran says. But it also moves Iran farther down the road towards the highly enriched grade of uranium usable in bombs.
One Western government assessment is that it would take Iran two to three years to manufacture a usable nuclear weapon in the event that authorities in Tehran decided to attempt that task.
Analysts and some diplomats have said Iran and the global powers must compromise for any chance of a long-term settlement, suggesting Tehran could be allowed to continue limited low-level enrichment if it accepts more intrusive U.N. inspections.
But Iran has often managed to limit its diplomatic and economic isolation by sowing rifts among the six states spearheading international efforts to rein in Iran’s nuclear program, leading to a watering-down of U.N. sanctions.
Western analysts are on alert for any new such gambit now.
A united front among Russia, China, the United States, France, Germany and Britain is the most powerful leverage the outside world has in ensuring Iranian compliance with international safeguards intended to curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons, Western analysts say.
And yet that unity has always been fragile.
Russia and China, which both have strong trade ties to Iran, have supported four rounds of U.N. sanctions imposed since 2006 on Iran over its refusal to suspend enrichment-related activity and grant unfettered U.N. inspections to resolve suspicions of military dimensions to its nuclear program.
But Moscow and Beijing criticized the United States and the European Union last year for meting out extra unilateral sanctions against Iran. Russia has made clear its opposition to any further U.N. Security Council measures against Tehran.
“I think P5+1 will have significant problems whenever it comes to Iran actually moving and how they respond,” a European diplomat told Reuters. “At this moment in time it is easy and nothing has been promised by Iran … but I think it will become very difficult and very tense on the P5+1 side once they have to start reacting to an Iranian step.”
“EARLY TEST OF UNITY”
Mark Fitzpatrick of London’s International Institute for Strategic Studies said an Iranian demand for an easing of sanctions in return for its concessions “will present an early test of P5+1 unity. For the West, any lifting of sanctions would require significant limitations on the enrichment program.”
There is little debate about what may be encouraging Iran to indicate new flexibility: Iran, analysts say, wishes to stave off the planned July 1 start to a European Union ban on imports of Iranian oil, a significant measure since the EU takes a fifth of the country’s petroleum shipments.
But there is plenty of speculation about the extent to which Russia and China are prepared to reward any Iranian shift.
Shashank Joshi of the Royal United Services Institute said divergence between Russia and China and its other partners would likely emerge on the price the world should demand for dropping the insistence, enshrined in the Security Council resolutions, that Iran cease any enrichment whatsoever.
He said the United States would want to see the dismantling of an enrichment plant buried deep under a mountain at Fordow south of Tehran, the Iranian nuclear site best sheltered from any possible air strike.
“The Russians and Chinese may recognize that this is unlikely, and may accept Iranian offers short of this,” he said.
“So we should expect to see Iran attempt to split the Russians and Chinese from the others by offering something concrete and significant, but short of dismantlement.”
Tehran has ruled out closing the bunkered Fordow site.
SIGNS OF NEW IRANIAN APPROACH
Diplomats and analysts say an agreement is still far off, but the signs are growing that Iran’s leaders are changing their approach and preparing public opinion for a potential shift.
Tehran’s former chief nuclear negotiator, Hossein Mousavian, now a visiting scholar at Princeton University in the United States, said last month Iran and major nations had a “historic opportunity” to settle their decade-old nuclear dispute.
On May 2, Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammad Mahdi Akhondzadehhe said in a speech in Vienna: “We continue to be optimistic about upcoming negotiations.”
In April, Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said Iran was “ready to resolve all issues very quickly and simply”.
Editing by Mark Heinrich
Iran nuclear concession would test big power unity Read More »
Argentina to have Jewish president for a day
For the first time, Argentina will have a Jewish president—at least temporarily.
Beatriz Rojkes, the provisional president of the Argentinean Senate, will be in charge of the government for a day-and-a-half beginning Wednesday because President Christina Fernandez and Vice President Amado Boudou are traveling out of the country.
On Wednesday, Fernandez will fly to Angola on a business trip. On Tuesday night, Boudou traveled to Switzerland to accept a prize for Argentina at the International Telecommunication Union.
The provisional president of the Senate is the No. 3 position in the government and second in the line of succession.
Rojkes was elected to the Senate in 2009 to represent the northern province of Tucuman. Two years later she was appointed by Fernandez as provisional president of the Senate. She became the first Jewish lawmaker and the first woman to hold the position.
Rojkes is married to Jose Alperovich, the governor of Tucuman, who was the first Jewish person in Argentina to be elected a governor and to be sworn in on a Jewish Bible.
Argentina to have Jewish president for a day Read More »
Female Reform rabbi seated on Jerusalem suburb’s religious council
A female Reform rabbi took her place on the religious council of Mevasseret Zion, a suburb of Jerusalem.
Rabbi Alona Lisitsa said she did not feel hostility from the rest of the representatives—all Orthodox—of the local religious council, according to reports.
The Reform Mevasseret Zion Congregation put forth Lisitsa’s name to join the council nearly a year ago. The appointment was delayed in the Ministry of Religious Affairs until the courts became involved and ordered the ministry to approve the appointment.
The community’s population is mixed secular-religious.
“I came with much optimism and hope, and indeed I found a different Mevasseret community,” Lisitsa said in an interview with Israel Army Radio. “We talked about the need for cooperation and the need to ignore internal differences for the residents. This is a triumph for Israeli democracy. “
Lisitsa told Army Radio that the members all introduced themselves to her, and that she had a “long conversation” with one of the representatives of the haredi Orthodox Shas party.
Lisitsa works at the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Jerusalem, according to her Facebook page.
Religious councils supervise kashrut, and are the central address in their communities for marriage registration, synagogues, mikvehs and burials. Israel has more than 170 religious councils.
Female Reform rabbi seated on Jerusalem suburb’s religious council Read More »