RSS
Conservative rabbis endorse use of electric cars on Shabbat, but divisions over driving remain

(JTA) — When rabbis from the Conservative movement got together to decide whether it is permissible to drive electric cars on Shabbat, their conclusion might have been obvious.
After all, the Conservative movement famously adopted an opinion in 1950 saying that driving to synagogue on Shabbat is acceptable for Jews who have no other way to get there. And in 2012, the movement adopted an opinion saying that the use of electricity in activities that are permitted on Shabbat is acceptable according to Jewish law or halacha.
And yet the ultimate vote to permit the use of electric cars on Shabbat was deeply divided, with just 10 members of the movement’s 25-rabbi Committee on Jewish Law and Standards voting in favor and six voting against. Five rabbis abstained from voting. (All 25 rabbis need not attend a vote; six or more votes are needed to approve a paper.)
What’s more, the committee adopted a second, competing opinion, known as a responsum, outright rejecting the use of electric cars on Shabbat — by a very similar margin.
Two rabbis, including one of the committee’s co-chairs, voted for both papers, even though the responsa came to different conclusions.
“Both of these responsa articulate the preference for walking to and from the synagogue on Shabbat, and the more of us Jews who can do that, the better, not only for halakhic reasons, but also for creating a close-knit community on Shabbat,” Rabbi Elliot Dorff wrote to explain why he voted for both positions. “That said, Jewish law must be applied to the realities that Jews face.”
It’s not unusual for the committee, whose rulings guide the movement’s rabbis, to adopt competing opinions, as it did, for example, when ruling in 2006 on inclusion for gay and lesbian Jews.
The groundwork for the split rulings, published on Wednesday, was laid in a footnote to the 2012 ruling on electricity. “Those who accept the 1950 CJLS minority position permitting people to drive to synagogue in a gas powered car would be justified extending this permission to electric cars,” the opinion’s author, Rabbi Danny Nevins, wrote — implying that at least some in the movement rejected the 1950 decision.
Before the 1950 responsum, Orthodox and Conservative groups agreed that driving was prohibited on Shabbat, citing halacha, or Jewish law, that forbids a host of activities on the day of rest, including lighting a fire and traveling a long distance from one’s home. The 1950 responsum was a landmark in American Judaism because it effectively sanctioned the choices of many Jews who had moved to suburbs where walking to synagogue was all but impossible. In fact, the responsum did not say that driving to synagogue was halachically sound, only that it was a concession worth making to facilitate the public and communal observance of Shabbat.
Nearly 75 years later, the leniency reflects the practices of most Conservative congregants in the United States, but Conservative rabbis and institutions largely have not accepted it. The Jewish Theological Seminary, the movement’s flagship seminary, bars rabbinical students from traveling by car on Shabbat, for example, and the Conservative movement in Israel rejected the position fully.
The challenges to the use of cars on Shabbat according to Jewish law are extensive: One might travel beyond the borders of one’s community, for example, or be tempted to perform repairs, both prohibited on Shabbat. But the biggest obstacle for the cars that most American Jews were driving in 1950 and today is that gas-combustion engines create fire in the course of ignition.
The rise of the electric car offers a widely accessible way to drive without creating fire. Concerns about driving too far or needing repairs still apply, write the authors of the paper making the case for electric cars on Shabbat, but by sticking close to home and driving only for Shabbat-related reasons, Jews can use electric cars without violating Shabbat.
That paper was written by two rabbis with recent experience in U.S. pulpits, David Fine of Temple Israel in Ridgewood, New Jersey, and Barry Leff, who divides his time between Israel and the United States and recently completed an interim stint at a synagogue in Birmingham, Alabama.
“For those who drive to the synagogue on Shabbat, driving an all-electric car is preferable to driving a conventional car,” they write. But they add, “When possible, we encourage walking or riding a bicycle as they are at a slower pace and more conducive to the spirit of Shabbat.” (Looking ahead, they also note that self-driving cars are permitted, saying, “The more that can be taken out of direct human hands, the more the spirit of Shabbat is constructed and preserved. If the technology and capability of an autonomous driving car is available and safe and able to transport one to synagogue, then all the better.”)
The paper rejecting driving on Shabbat altogether was written by two rabbis who do not work in synagogues: Marcus Mordecai Schwartz, who heads the study center at JTS, and Chaim Weiner, the head of Masorti Europe, the movement’s network of European congregations. They say they wanted to make sure that Conservative Jews who hold more traditional views about Jewish law — and who never accepted the 1950 ruling on Shabbat driving — could see their values in the movement’s legal literature.
“Some may think that we are attempting to exclude the less strictly-observant members of our communities,” they write. “Nothing could be further from our aim.”
Practically speaking, the impact of the legal opinions about electric cars is limited. Conservative congregants mostly drive to synagogue when they go — though the number of Jews affiliating with those synagogues is down sharply in recent decades, according to survey data. Few rely on the movement’s legal rulings to guide their daily activities.
But the rulings are influential among the movement’s rabbinic corps. And they can offer broad and needed messages, according to Rabbi Pamela Barmash, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis who chairs the CJLS with Dorff.
Barmash voted for the anti-driving opinion and abstained from voting on the one permitting electric cars on Shabbat. She said she wanted both positions to be available to Conservative Jews who are thinking about how to observe Shabbat.
“What is inspiring this is to emphasize the centrality of Shabbat to our lives as Jews, to our synagogue communities, and our personal relationships with God,” she said. “Restoring Shabbat and emphasizing Shabbat as so central is all the more urgent in the 21st century.”
—
The post Conservative rabbis endorse use of electric cars on Shabbat, but divisions over driving remain appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
RSS
Germany’s Halt to Arms Exports to Israel Is Response to Gaza Expansion Plans, Chancellor Says

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz attends a cabinet meeting at the Chancellery in Berlin, Germany, Aug. 6, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Liesa Johannssen
Germany’s decision to curb arms exports to Israel comes in response to Israel’s plan to expand its operations in the Gaza Strip, Chancellor Friedrich Merz said on Sunday in an interview with public broadcaster ARD.
“We cannot deliver weapons into a conflict that is now being pursued exclusively by military means,” Merz said. “We want to help diplomatically, and we are doing so.”
The worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza and Israel’s plans to expand military control over the enclave have pushed Germany to take this historically fraught step.
The chancellor said in the interview that the expansion of Israel’s operations in Gaza could claim hundreds of thousands of civilian lives and would require the evacuation of the entire city of Gaza.
“Where are these people supposed to go?” Merz said. “We can’t do that, we won’t do that, and I will not do that.”
Nevertheless, the principles of Germany’s Israel policy remain unchanged, the chancellor said.
“Germany has stood firmly by Israel’s side for 80 years. That will not change,” Merz said.
Germany is Israel’s second-biggest weapons supplier after the US and has long been one of its staunchest supporters, principally because of its historical guilt for the Nazi Holocaust – a policy known as the “Staatsraison.”
RSS
Newsom Calls Trump’s $1 Billion UCLA Settlement Offer Extortion, Says California Won’t Bow

California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks at a press conference, accompanied by members of the Texas Democratic legislators, at the governor’s mansion in Sacramento, California, U.S., August 8, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Carlos Barria
California Governor Gavin Newsom said on Saturday that a $1 billion settlement offer by President Donald Trump’s administration for UCLA amounted to political extortion to which the state will not bow.
The University of California says it is reviewing a $1 billion settlement offer by the Trump administration for UCLA after the government froze hundreds of millions of dollars in funding over pro-Palestinian protests.
UCLA, which is part of the University of California system, said this week the government froze $584 million in funding. Trump has threatened to cut federal funds for universities over anti-Israel student protests.
“Donald Trump has weaponized the DOJ (Department of Justice) to kneecap America’s #1 public university system — freezing medical & science funding until @UCLA pays his $1 billion ransom,” the office of Newsom, a Democrat, said in a post.
“California won’t bow to Trump’s disgusting political extortion,” it added.
“This isn’t about protecting Jewish students – it’s a billion-dollar political shakedown from the pay-to-play president.”
The government alleges universities, including UCLA, allowed antisemitism during the protests and in doing so violated Jewish and Israeli students’ civil rights. The White House had no immediate comment beyond the offer.
Experts have raised free speech and academic freedom concerns over the Republican president’s threats. The University of California says paying such a large settlement would “completely devastate” the institution.
Large demonstrations took place at UCLA last year. Last week, UCLA agreed to pay over $6 million to settle a lawsuit by some students and a professor who alleged antisemitism. It was also sued this year over a 2024 violent mob attack on pro-Palestinian protesters.
RSS
Trump Nominates State Dept Spokeswoman Bruce as US Deputy Representative to UN

FILE PHOTO: U.S. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce speaks during her first press briefing at the State Department in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 6, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
President Donald Trump said on Saturday he was nominating State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce as the next US deputy representative to the United Nations.
Bruce has been the State Department spokesperson since Trump took office in January.
In a post on social media in which Trump announced her nomination, the president said she did a “fantastic job” as State Department spokesperson. Bruce will need to be confirmed for the role by the US Senate, where Trump’s Republican Party holds a majority.
During press briefings, she has defended the Trump administration’s foreign policy decisions ranging from an immigration crackdown and visa revocations to US responses to Russia’s war in Ukraine and Israel’s war in Gaza, including a widely condemned armed private aid operation in the Palestinian territory.
Bruce was previously a political contributor and commentator on Fox News for over 20 years.
She has also authored books like “Fear Itself: Exposing the Left’s Mind-Killing Agenda” that criticized liberals and left-leaning viewpoints.
In a post after Trump’s announcement, Bruce thanked him and suggested that the role was a “few weeks” away. Neither Trump nor Bruce mentioned an exact timeline in their online posts.
“Now I’m blessed that in the next few weeks my commitment to advancing America First leadership and values continues on the global stage in this new post,” Bruce wrote on X.
Trump has picked former White House national security adviser Mike Waltz to be his U.N. envoy. Waltz’s Senate confirmation for that role, wherein he will be Bruce’s boss, is still due.
Waltz was Trump’s national security adviser until he was ousted on May 1 after he was caught up in a March scandal involving a Signal chat among top Trump national security aides on military strikes in Yemen. Trump then nominated Waltz as his U.N. ambassador.