For many Israelis, the Jewish religion makes up a major part of their lives. For others, it’s an unwelcome presence they can’t get rid of. But regardless of one’s level of observance or faith, the rabbinate hangs over all of us.
From their offices in the Beit Yahav building on Jerusalem’s Yirmiyahu Street (formerly located in Heichal Shlomo next to the Jerusalem Great Synagogue) the chief rabbis wield enormous power that influences the lives of all Israelis. Everything from kashrut (kosher food certification), immigration, marriage, divorce, death, and more – all fall under the domain of a huge rabbinic bureaucracy helmed by two chief rabbis who sit at the top of it all. But that’s just the thing – why two?
Plenty of countries have chief rabbis, but Israel stands unique as having two – joining only Russia and Ukraine with this distinction. But those two currently warring countries have entirely different situations as to why they have more than one chief rabbi. Neither should have more than one, and this is something that is recognized. So why does Israel?
It turns out that the current system is more perplexing than it may seem, breaking off hundreds of years of established tradition of having just one chief rabbi in what is now Israel. So the Magazine now takes a look at why Israel has two chief rabbis, and whether it should go back to having just one – or maybe none at all.
This is particularly relevant now because, as Greer Fay Cashman noted in a recent “Grapevine” column, elections for the two chief rabbis are due sometime this summer, already having been postponed three times – and they may even be postponed a fourth time, given the politics behind the long black kapota and the ceremonial robes.
To do this, we need to ask a few key questions:
- What is a chief rabbi?
- Why does Israel specifically have more than one?
- What should Israel have going forward?
Let’s take a look at these questions.
What is a chief rabbi?
The position of chief rabbi is essentially held by the appointed leader of a Jewish community, whether that be just within a city or for an entire country. Although they have existed in the Jewish world for hundreds of years if not longer, there is no specific requirement for them to exist. Despite this, some claim they are specifically derived from the old position of nasi (“president,” as the figurehead leader of modern Israel is called, currently Isaac Herzog), who was the head of the Sanhedrin in the Second Temple era, or the equivalent post in the Babylonian Jewish community, the exilarch.
However, the position of chief rabbi is more of a medieval creation, especially in Europe, having been built from the influence of Christianity’s clergy structure. Just as designated clergy officials would lead parishes and dioceses, so too would rabbis lead communities.
This is, in fact, why many chief rabbi positions exist today in the world. For example, consider Italy – a country with no national chief rabbi, but one where one is apparently required in every Jewish community.
Speaking with the Magazine under condition of anonymity, a former chief rabbi of a country in the Diaspora explained that broadly speaking, there are two kinds of chief rabbis that have traditionally existed around the world:
- Those elected or appointed by the Jewish community
- Those elected or appointed by the secular government
These two criteria are very different. For the former, the importance is chiefly regarding the rabbi’s role within the Jewish community itself. They are experts in both spiritual guidance and leadership who have the job of thinking about the future of the community as well as helping address religious concerns.
For the latter type, the focus is on the secular government, with the chief rabbi’s role often being that of a liaison between the state and the Jewish community.
HISTORICALLY, both positions have had their issues. The secular version often ran into the issue of not being recognized by the Jewish community since they were appointed not by the community themselves, but by an outside secular authority.
A prime example of this is the crown rabbi post of the Russian Empire from the early 19th century, which saw a Jew fluent in Russian appointed to be the official representative of the Jewish community – actual halachic (Jewish legal) knowledge was not exactly a priority here. This led to the crown rabbis often not being seen by the Jewish community as legitimate rabbis at all.
With the other type, one notable issue was their inability to gain legitimacy from all Jewish communities supposedly under their jurisdiction. Judaism is a diverse religion with a number of different denominations and customs, and these different religious traditions often prevent everyone from uniting behind a single opinion.
To some, this may appear confusing. Judaism has a tradition of always following the rulings and opinions of leadership, with the authority of the ruling religious body such as the Sanhedrin or the Council of Four Lands being a deciding factor, with varying degrees of effectiveness.
However, that authority has greatly weakened over the centuries. The punishment of herem (excommunication) has become far less of a danger since the Jews were no longer confined to ghettos. Jews became less strictly bound and were able to evolve and diversify into different traditions based on everything from geography to circumstance-specific issues. As such, it is no wonder that the role of chief rabbi is not nearly as prevalent as it once was. Some places, notably such as the United States, have never even had one.
But despite this, the position of chief rabbi does still exist, building off the influence of the old models and providing a sense of communal rabbinic leadership. This has its merits, too: Jewish communities have often faced challenges amid the ever-shifting tides of history. Many rabbis have worked hard to help their communities adapt, maintaining their identities while adjusting to new realities.
Current noteworthy chief rabbis around the world include UK Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, French Chief Rabbi Haim Korsia, and Moroccan Chief Rabbi Yoshiyahu Pinto.
Why does Israel have two chief rabbis?
One almost universal fact of national chief rabbis everywhere in the world is that there is only one in each country.
There are three exceptions to this: Russia, Ukraine, and Israel. Russia and Ukraine have unique circumstances – the former being due to the chief rabbi appointed during the Soviet era seemingly being ignored by Russian President Vladimir Putin in favor of another chief rabbi, and the latter having had no less than four claimants over the last 20 years amid denominational debates, internal Ukrainian politics, and more.
Israel has no such excuse, however, since its two represent two distinct cultural groups: an Ashkenazi chief rabbi and a Sephardi one. The situation in the Jewish state is therefore quite different, but at the same time quite perplexing.
While the position of chief rabbi tends to be linked to Christian influences, in Israel it is actually linked to Muslim – or rather, Ottoman – traditions.
The Ottoman Empire established the position of Hakham Bashi (a mix of Hebrew and Turkish that roughly translates to “head scholar”) for the Jews of the Turkish Empire, as it was also called, starting in the mid-15th century. This is similar to what was done for all religions under Ottoman rule. There were several people appointed to the position, and to this day the chief rabbi of Turkey is known as the Hakham Bashi.
In Israel, the title of Hakham Bashi also had another name: Rishon Lezion (literally “First to Zion”). The first Rishon Lezion was Rabbi Moshe Galante, who was born in Safed and assumed the title in the mid-1600s, though the first to also be recognized by the Ottomans was Rabbi Chaim Avraham Gagin in the 1840s. Regardless, since Galante, there has been an unbroken chain of rabbinic leadership, continuing to today with Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, also known as the Sephardi chief rabbi.
BUT WHERE does the Ashkenazi chief rabbi come into play?
The institution of the Chief Rabbinate itself didn’t come about until the British Mandate era. This was more similar to the British post and saw the establishment of two chief rabbis, one for Ashkenazi Jews who were becoming more and more numerous in the region, and one for Sephardim, based on the existing role of Rishon Lezion. And so, the new Ashkenazi chief rabbi position was born, its first office holder being the renowned Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, who was appointed in 1921 – two years after being chief rabbi of Jerusalem.
Some of the details regarding exactly why this happened have been the subject of debate.
Some pointed to Herbert Samuel, the British-Jewish official put in charge of Mandatory Palestine, as wanting to give representation to both Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews, and some pointed to Kook as wanting to do the same. But others pointed out that ultimately, the reason was that, at the time, the Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jewish communities were just simply very different.
“The Rishon Lezion was a position that was our custom for hundreds of years,” explained Rabbi David Stav, the current chief rabbi of Shoham and a previous candidate for chief rabbi of Israel. “When Rav Kook established the Chief Rabbinate, he understood that none of the Ashkenazim would ever accept any authority or decision from the chief Sephardi rabbi.”
Explaining further to the Magazine, Stav, who also helms the Tzohar rabbinic organization – which, according to its website, “functions as Israel’s largest private alternative to the Chief Rabbinate” – pointed to the many disagreements between the Ashkenazim and Sephardim in Jerusalem that existed at that point.
“In Jerusalem, Rav Kook found two communities, Sephardi and Ashkenazi, and their relationship was terrible. So he understood the need to appoint someone to represent Ashkenazi interests.”
Several years later, Israel’s first prime minister David Ben-Gurion agreed to what has become known as the status quo agreement – a deal that led to the rabbinate having sweeping powers and authority over everything from kashrut to marriage and more. The Jewish state would have two chief rabbis, who wield considerable power to this very day.
Was this justified? Many argue it was. Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews do have very different and oftentimes contradictory customs, especially back then. The idea of having different rabbinic leaders does therefore seem to hold some merit.
On a more practical level, the two chief rabbis also serve different roles – aside from the Ashkenazi and Sephardi divide. During their 10-year terms, both chief rabbis alternate in leading the rabbinate’s two most important organs, the Chief Rabbinate Council and the Supreme Rabbinical Court.
Today’s chief rabbis all serve important roles within everyday life in the Jewish state. Whether you are secular or religious, Ashkenazi or Sephardi, your life will be inextricably dependent on the wills of these two rabbinic figures in Jerusalem.
BUT WHAT also matters is how these rabbis are chosen in the first place.
The chief rabbis are elected every 10 years by a group of 150 eligible voters. Eighty of these voters are other rabbis, many of them municipal chief rabbis, IDF rabbis, rabbinic judges (dayanim), and so on. Notably, these rabbis can in theory run the gamut of the religious spectrum. In practice, however, they tend to be mostly haredi (ultra-Orthodox) with some religious Zionist rabbis participating. The other 70 voters are all secular officials – mayors, lawmakers, council heads, etc.
This model has its benefits. By having the deciding voices on who gets to be appointed chief rabbi be both religious officials and elected secular figures, it shows that the Chief Rabbinate is a purely Israeli institution – truly something both Jewish and democratic. It becomes something unifying, helping all Jews be connected to the rabbinate.
At least, that is how it should work in theory. In practice, it’s a lot more complicated – and a lot messier.
For one thing, politics plays a role on both sides. The rabbis are essentially political figures in the religious sector, and the politicians are, well, politicians. Everyone has angles and deals they want to make, all of which influence who votes for whom.
Second, there are dynastic elements. There is nothing new about rabbinic dynasties; they’ve existed for thousands of years, and they continue to do so all over the world. But it does lead to many of the voters and candidates themselves having some familiar last names.
For example, take the current chief rabbis, starting with Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi David Lau. A relatively young up and comer (he is the youngest Israeli chief rabbi, having been elected at the age of 47), Lau’s rabbinic career saw him serve in the IDF, become the chief rabbi of the town of Shoham, and become the inaugural Ashkenazi chief rabbi of Modi’in. An impressive resume, for sure. But Lau is also the latest member of what is arguably the Lau rabbinic dynasty.
Lau’s father, Rabbi Yisroel Meir Lau, was also Ashkenazi chief rabbi of Israel, as well as having served as chief rabbi of Tel Aviv and Netanya, having himself descended from a line of respected rabbis in Europe. His eldest son, Rabbi Moshe Chaim Lau, succeeded him as chief rabbi of Netanya, and his other family members and in-laws also hold prominent posts throughout the religious sector. Currently, Moshe Chaim Lau is actually one of the prominent candidates to succeed his brother as Ashkenazi chief rabbi.
NOW LOOK at their Sephardi counterparts. The current Rishon Lezion is Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, son of the widely beloved late Sephardi Chief Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. While he has noted experience in halachic study, having collated many of his father’s rulings and written commentary on them while still a student, his main rabbinic experience seems to be as a rosh yeshiva (Torah seminary head).
While being a rosh yeshiva is an important job in the religious world and is far more than simply just leading a school, it still isn’t the same as having served as a community rabbi or a municipal chief rabbi.
Further, while Chief Rabbi David Lau’s religious education is still notable – barring a controversial disqualification from his first attempted at being ordained as a rabbi – he also has some secular credentials, having served in the IDF Intelligence Corps – albeit in a chaplaincy role – and still being listed as a major in the reserves. By contrast, Yosef famously has little in the way of secular education, having dropped out of high school and being vocally disparaging of secular education and IDF service.
Despite this seeming lack of rabbinic leadership experience compared to Lau, Yosef was elected chief rabbi anyway with over 46% of the vote. His runner-up was admittedly a rather controversial choice, Safed Chief Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, who had faced numerous calls for his disqualification over far-right views.
Like the Laus, the Yosefs are also a powerful family in both the religious and political sectors, having long been the backbone of religious leadership in the influential Shas Party. The family’s members include former MK Rabbi Yaakov Yosef (who died of cancer in 2013), haredi activist Adina Bar-Shalom, former chief rabbi of Holon Avraham Yosef, former chief rabbi of Har Nof David Yosef, and kashrut mogul (if such a term can be applied) Rabbi Moshe Yosef.
Likewise, one of the Yosefs, David Yosef, was reportedly set to be nominated as a candidate to replace his brother as the next Sephardi chief rabbi – similar to the Lau rabbinical brothers. One other candidate who was also reported to be nominated was Beersheba Chief Rabbi Yehudah Deri, brother of Shas leader Rabbi Arye Deri and son-in-law of Yitzhak Yosef himself.
The trend of rabbinic dynasties is nothing new – and it hardly ends with the Laus and Yosefs. Several other candidates are also relatives of former chief rabbis, including the controversial Shmuel Eliyahu, himself the son of former Chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu (who was chief rabbi after Ovadia Yosef in the ‘80s) and father of Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu.
Where this becomes a problem is in how the chief rabbis wield authority – and whether they are even respected at all. In other words, despite the lofty lineages these rabbis hold, how much respect and authority do they actually have, and how much are they being made to act in the interests of the Orthodox leadership who help appoint them?
SPEAKING TO the Magazine, Rabbi Uri Regev, head of the Hiddush nonprofit organization that fights against religious coercion, accused the system of chief rabbis in Israel to be less of a religious leadership position and more of a system of imposing control.
“In the ultra-Orthodox community, there is an element of control. They choose who will serve as chief rabbi and make sure they’re submissive enough,” Regev explained. “They maintain the illusion of the rabbinate’s authority without actually listening to it, because frankly, no one looks up to David Lau. It’s a sad joke.”
Indeed, no matter how much power the Chief Rabbinate seems to hold over the country, its authority isn’t always recognized – especially among the ultra-Orthodox community.
“The ultra-Orthodox have their respective rabbinic bodies, which are characterized by none of them being willing to accept the rabbinic authority of the other,” Regev said. “The hassidim won’t listen to the Litvak (non-hassidic) yeshiva leadership and vice versa, Ashkenazim won’t listen to Sephardim and vice versa.
“And we have other divisions within that. For instance, many [in the ultra-Orthodox community] will refuse to eat food certified as kosher by the other groups, and none of them will accept food certified as kosher by the rabbinate. Many members of the Chief Rabbinate Council won’t eat food that the Chief Rabbinate itself certifies as kosher.”
What should be the fate of the Chief Rabbinate?
Since there is more than one chief rabbi, this leads to the question of why does this system continue to exist? Perhaps originally there were many divisions between Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews, but after over 76 years together, a growing secular population, and constant friction whenever matters of religion and state are brought up, is this same structure still needed going forward?
This is not just pure hypothetical, but rather something that has been brought up by both leading Israeli rabbis themselves and the Knesset.
Back in 2013, a bill was put forward that would, in 2023, abolish the current chief rabbi system, leaving just one chief rabbi instead of two. A separate position to lead the rabbinical court would be made, and that rabbi would automatically have a seat on the Chief Rabbinate Council.
“The perpetuation of differences between the communities in the framework of governmental jobs... lags behind the developing reality,” the drafters of the bill wrote at the time. “With this amendment to the law, we are enabling the rabbinical world to be partners in the revolution that the Jewish people who have returned from exile are undergoing, from a divided community to being one nation.
“The time has come to advance the process of ‘returning to Zion’ not just on the level of state and society but also on a religious level,” they said.
This proposal made significant progress in the Knesset, backed by prominent lawmakers such as future prime minister Naftali Bennett. However, it never fully passed, and it immediately sparked fierce backlash from the chief rabbis themselves. Rabbi Lau argued that the responsibilities of the chief rabbis are so heavy that dividing them up between two rabbis of equal standing was a matter of necessity. Rabbi Yosef also argued that the role of chief rabbi was more than just something for state ceremonies.
ODDLY ENOUGH, they seemingly contradicted this a few years later.
In 2015, in an interview with Yediot Aharonot, Lau said that while the existence of the two positions is a reality, there was no need for two chief rabbis – something that the paper put on the cover of one of their supplement publications.
Further, in a recording revealed by the haredi news site Kikar Hashabbat, Yosef was heard telling Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the Ashkenazi chief rabbi post, rather than that of the Rishon Lezion, should be the one to go.
Other rabbis argue this point, too.
Rabbi Stav referred to the modern setup of two chief rabbis as “a shame” and “a disgrace for Judaism.”
“Instead of being a source of unity, the rabbinate is a source of divisions,” Stav explained. “I don’t think there is a real reason now for it. There were a few arguments for why we have two rabbis: The rabbis would be able to balance one another – so if one is too liberal, the other could be more conservative. Or if one was an expert on one field of Halacha, the other could specialize in another.”
But “these arguments are not enough to justify an extra position that always is a source of tension,” he said, “because it doesn’t make a difference if it’s Sephardi or Ashkenazi, or two Sephardim or two Ashkenazim. The situation with two rabbis invites conflicts on a constant basis – even with the current ones. I see no reason for it to continue in this way – but to be honest, the fact that there are two chief rabbis is the least of the rabbinate’s problems.”
INDEED, OVER the years, the rabbinate has been plagued with many scandals and controversies. Some of these are with the rabbis themselves, with Lau and Yosef both having come under fire numerous times over the past decade for highly controversial remarks or actions. However, most of these controversies are more systemic, linked to the way the rabbinate impacts everyday life in Israel. These range from the agunah crisis (of women whose husbands refuse to divorce them), the kashrut monopoly, conversions, and even the debate over who qualifies as a Jew.
And there is the fact that the Chief Rabbinate is often accused of attempting to dominate Judaism itself, allegedly trying to suppress and delegitimize all forms of Judaism apart from Orthodox Judaism, specifically the ultra/haredi version.
“The coercive rabbinate, together with the coercive rabbinic court, is determining what Judaism is in the eyes of the Jewish state, and the rules all Jews have to abide by,” Rabbi Regev explained. “All of that is rejected by the majority of the public and is inconsistent with the core values of Israel’s Declaration of Independence.”
Regev argued that rather than just having one chief rabbi, the solution is to have no chief rabbis at all.
“I think it’s important for Israeli Jews to recognize that the origins of the Chief Rabbinate are from gentile pressure, a reality of gentile/foreign rule that needed a token head to negotiate or communicate with,” he said. “As far as I’m concerned, throughout Jewish history, there was no Chief Rabbinate.
“We started from a mistaken assumption that the institution of Chief Rabbinate is desirable or inevitable,” he concluded. “It isn’t.”