The future of the Consistory is not indifferent to me.

At the end of this Letter No. 350, which I am addressing to a thousand of you, I reproduce (with his permission) a text by my colleague, Rabbi Yeshaya Dalsace, which appeared in Tribune Juive the day after the by-elections to the Consistory Israelite of France last Sunday, November 26, 2017, entitled "The Consistory, bleak plain where nothing moves"... If I reproduce it, it means that I share 90% of the content. The purpose of this column is to explain to me about the remaining 10%! – In his article, which I hope you will read in full, Yeshaya Dalsace observes with bitterness and realism that these elections, like the previous ones, do not change anything with regard to the supreme leadership of the Consistory, an institution created, let us recall, by Napoleon in 1808 for the purpose of representing all the Jews of France as to their religion and its relationship with the Empire, the Royalty, then the Republic. The creation of the Consistory definitively sealed the integration of the Jews of France within the national community. It followed the recognition, in 1792, in the wake of the French Revolution, of the full and entire citizenship of the Jews, abolishing at the same time all the restrictive laws in their regard, and allowing them access to all the professions which were previously prohibited. These elections last Sunday will not change anything, predicts Yeshaya Dalsace, because neither the men nor the principles in place for at least three decades will change. [One could say: at the Consistory, the more things change, the more they are the same thing].

And my eminent colleague punctuates his remarks with statements about the total indifference he feels about these elections. Indeed, he can only recognize what we have been given to observe ourselves, namely that the Consistory, this institution which claims the authority of its birth 209 years ago (nothing less than the Emperor Napoleon!), whose vocation was to federate all the Jews of France, today only represents a very small minority of the Jewish population: less than 10% (40.000) of which even less than 10% (3.700) has seen fit to go and vote. So much so that one could say that 0,74% of the Jewish community elected the representatives of the Jewish religion to the authorities of the Republic. I know how fallacious the temptation to interpret elections in terms of the percentage of abstentions and to draw conclusions on the non-representativeness of elected officials is. The last presidential elections should lead us to some caution! The fact remains that these results, even weighted, are indicative of the loss of confidence, or adhesion, of the Jews of France vis-à-vis the Consistory. This situation has deteriorated over the years since the end of the chief rabbinate of Jacob Kaplan (ז”ל) in 1980.

I don't have the space here to analyze the Jews' lack of love for their institutions. But I want to say clearly that the drift of the Consistory does not leave me indifferent, and this for several reasons. The first is that it doesn't strike me as odd that the "old lady" (as Yeshaya Dalsace calls her) is shelved in the aisle of old-fashioned accessories, and that from being a powerhouse she has become so insignificant and unrepresentative . The Consistory has been supported, both rabbinically and secularly, by high figures in the community, from the first chief rabbi of France, David Sintzheim (1809-1812) to Jacob Kaplan (1955-1980), from the one of the first presidents, Abraham de Cologna (1812-1826), up to Jean Kahn (1995-2008). From the Consistory radiated Judaism with brilliance and universalism. It is unbearable for me to see its withdrawal into communitarianism and ritualism, the rigor in terms of halakha (religious jurisdiction) and the almost complete closure to the reception of converts. All this, I said, does not leave me indifferent, even if I can very well live my Judaism without the recognition of the Consistory, because I know that for public opinion it continues to represent Judaism “officially”.

Throughout the past decades, the Consistory has made sure to "format" Jewish consciences to the point of separating them from the other religious currents of our community. He succeeded in conveying the idea that no expression of Judaism except his own had any legitimacy; and that any act emanating from the liberal, Masorti or Lubavitch communities did not have its endorsement. He forged a veritable monopoly over all religious life, beginning with kashrouth, continuing with marriages, conversions, divorces, etc. Well, that cannot leave me indifferent either because I see in it the distortion of the biblical and Talmudic image of the Jew. And I don't want, especially at a time when religions suffer from the intolerant and narrow image that some of their followers present to society, that through the fault of the Consistory, Judaism loses its substance.

I would like two things for the future. 1° That the Consistory recognize all expressions of Judaism: religious, non-religious, liberal or Masorti. That is to say that it becomes again what it was created for more than two hundred years ago. 2° Failing that, if this proves impossible, that another Consistory take over, with new men, a new name, but in the spirit of the founding fathers. It seems essential to me, especially in the times in which we live, that a unity that is not a facade sees the light of day. Unity, not uniformity; unity, not single thought; unity in diversity. It is no longer acceptable for a handful of Jews to dictate to the majority its criteria of Jewishness, to decide who is a Jew and who is not, who is a "good" Jew and who is not. . It is enough that this handful of “pure” intellectually and spiritually terrorizes a majority who, through ignorance or weariness, allow themselves to be dictated to by constraints and prohibitions with which it is more than probable that our ancestors would not recognize themselves today. By dint of advocating what the late Abraham Heschel called a “Judaism of precautions”, the Consistory would risk leading us away from a Judaism with a prophetic vocation. This is why I do not intend to lock myself in an ivory tower and superbly ignore the hole in the hull of the ship on the pretext that it is not under my seat. If the Consistory refuses to reform itself (return to the original forms and spirit), let us firmly remind it of its duties towards the “great community”, or else stop calling itself its sole representative. We read in the same verse of the Torah the following precepts (Leviticus 19:17): “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall rebuke him so that you do not bear sin on his behalf”. It is an invitation not to turn away from the future of this moribund institution. Elie Wiesel (ז”ל) said that the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference.

Shabbat Shalom!