Uncategorized
In a shift, Hebrew College will now admit and ordain rabbinical students whose partners are not Jewish
(JTA) — Hebrew College will begin admitting and ordaining rabbinical students in interfaith relationships, according to new admissions standards revealed on Tuesday.
The decision makes the pluralistic seminary outside of Boston the second major rabbinical school in the United States to do away with rules barring students from dating or marrying non-Jews. The Reconstructionist Rabbinical Seminary was the first to do so in 2015.
Hebrew College’s decision comes as rabbinical schools compete over a shrinking pool of applicants and after decades of rising rates of intermarriage among American Jews.
Rabbi Sharon Cohen Anisfeld, Hebrew College’s president, announced the policy change in an email to students and graduates on Tuesday evening. She said the decision, which followed a year and a half of review, came amid a broad revision of the seminary’s “guiding principles for admission and ordination.”
Those new guiding principles were published on the admissions page of Hebrew College’s website late Tuesday, replacing different language that had included the partner policy. “We do not admit or ordain rabbinical students with non-Jewish partners,” the page had previously said, adding that applicants whose partners were in the process of converting would be considered.
“This is a really exciting moment for Jewish communities everywhere,” said Jodi Bromberg, the CEO of 18Doors, a Jewish nonprofit that supports interfaith families. “We all will get to benefit from Jewish leaders in interfaith relationships who have been sidelined from major seminaries up to now.”
Hebrew College has set aside time on Wednesday for its roughly 80 rabbinical students and others to process their reactions about the change, which Anisfeld had previously said she expected to be intense no matter the decision. She declined to comment late Tuesday, saying that she was focused on communication with members of her community.
“This has not been a simple process and, in addition to the strong feelings raised by the policy itself, there have been complex feelings about various stages of the process we’ve undertaken over the past year,” Anisfeld wrote in a message to students in October, in a series of emails obtained by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Hebrew College’s policy change reflects a longstanding and sometimes painful dynamic in American Jewish life: While nearly three-quarters of non-Orthodox Jews who married in the last decade did so to non-Jews, few traditional rabbinical schools have been willing to train or ordain rabbis in interfaith relationships. Their policies have roots in Jewish law, known as halacha, which prohibits marriages between Jews and non-Jews. But they also reflect anxiety among American Jewish leaders over whether high rates of intermarriage threaten the future of Judaism, and whether rabbis must model traditional practices in their families.
At Hebrew College, which launched its rabbinical school 20 years ago, the prohibition against interfaith relationships had been the only admissions requirement rooted in Jewish law beyond the rule that applicants must be considered Jewish according to at least one Jewish movement. There was no requirement that rabbinical students keep kosher or observe Shabbat.
When the school’s leadership first solicited feedback from students a year ago, several took aim at what they said was hypocrisy in the approach to Jewish law.
“This is the one area of students’ halachic life where I am acutely aware that the school does not trust us, does not think we are capable of navigating our own personal lives, and does not believe that the choices we may make for ourselves have the capacity to expand and enrich our Jewish practice,” wrote one student, according to a collection of anonymous comments shared among students at the time.
A chuppah at a Jewish wedding. More than 60% of American Jews who have married in the last decade have done so to non-Jewish partners, according to a 2021 study from the Pew Research Center. That proportion rises to nearly 75% for non-Orthodox American Jews. (Scott Rocher via Flickr Commons)
Most of the 15 comments that students and graduates shared with their peers called for doing away with the ban on interfaith student relationships, often citing the benefits of having Hebrew College-ordained rabbis reflect the families they are likely to serve.
“We should be training rabbis for the Jewish community that exists and that we want to cultivate, not the one we wish existed or that existed in the past,” one student wrote. “Having intermarried rabbis could do a lot of good: perhaps having role models for a fulfilling, active, intermarried Jewish can help people feel welcomed, not just grudgingly tolerated after the fact — and can increase the likelihood that those intermarried couples want to raise Jewish children.”
Several students and graduates wrote that the policy as it stood incentivized students to obscure their relationships, denying them dignity and preventing their mentors and teachers from fully supporting them. Several suggested that prohibiting students in interfaith partnerships could have a disproportionate effect on queer Jews and Jews of color.
At least one person argued against changing the policy, instead suggesting that the school strengthen enforcement and clarify expectations about other Jewish practices and values.
“By changing the policy Hebrew College is sending the message to the Jewish world that love-based marriages are more sacred than the covenant with which we made at Sinai,” that student wrote, referring to the moment in Jewish tradition when God first spoke to the Israelites. “However, by not changing the policy Hebrew College is affirming that students learn the art of lying. Therefore, my suggestion is to keep the policy but change the ethics on how it is enforced.”
Those comments followed a two-day workshop, facilitated by experts in conflict resolution, about the policy a year ago. The experience was challenging for many of those in attendance, according to the student comments.
“The pain of the need to hide was on full display during Winter Seminar, and I found myself wondering if I could remain in a community whose first response was anything other than to seek healing for the hurt that the policy has inflicted,” one wrote at the time.
With tensions high, an initial deadline to decide whether to keep the policy came and went last June. In late October, Anisfeld wrote to students with an update. A special committee including both rabbinic and academic faculty members had been meeting regularly since July, she said, and would be presenting their recommendation by the end of January.
Last week, she said in her message to students and graduates on Tuesday, Hebrew College’s board approved the policy change and admissions principles revisions.
The decision could renew pressure on other rabbinical schools amid steep competition for students. Several non-traditional rabbinical schools that do not have a requirement about the identities of students’ spouses have grown in recent years, while Hebrew College; the Reform movement’s Hebrew Union College; and the Jewish Theological Seminary and the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies in the Conservative movement all shrunk. Hebrew College recently completed a move to a shared campus after selling its building under financial duress.
“We continue to hear from folks who want to be rabbis and up until this moment had really limited choices,” said Bromberg. “I can’t help but think that this will have a really positive impact on the enrollment in Hebrew College’s rabbinic program.”
The pressure could be especially acute for Hebrew Union College, the Reform seminary with three campuses in the United States. (Because of declining enrollment, the school is phasing out its Cincinnati program.) HUC does not admit or ordain students in interfaith relationships, even though the Reform movement, which does not consider halacha to be binding, permits its rabbis to officiate at intermarriages and to be intermarried themselves.
That policy, which the movement reaffirmed after extensive debate in 2014, has drawn resentment and scorn from some who say it is the only thing holding them back from pursuing Reform ordination.
“All my life, my community had told me that no matter who you are or who you love, you are equal in our community and according to the Divine. But now it feels like I’ve been betrayed, lied to, misled,” Ezra Samuels, an aspiring rabbinical student in a queer relationship with a non-Jewish man, wrote on Hey Alma in 2020, expanding on a viral Twitter thread.
But even the Conservative movement, which bars rabbis from officiating at intermarriages and only recently began permitting members of its rabbinical association to attend intermarriages, is grappling openly with how to balance Jewish law and tradition against the reality around interfaith relationships.
The movement recently held a series of online meetings for members of its Rabbinical Assembly to discuss intermarriage, sparking rumors that the movement could be headed toward policy changes. That’s not the case, according to movement leaders — though they say other shifts may be needed.
“There are no proposals at present to change our standard,” said Rabbi Jacob Blumenthal, the CEO of the RA and United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, the movement’s congregational arm. “But there is a conversation about what are the ways that we can provide more pastoral guidance to colleagues, especially around moments of marriage.”
The Pew study found new high rates of intermarriage in the Jewish community. (iStock/Getty Images)
Keren McGinity, the USCJ’s interfaith specialist, previously directed the Interfaith Families Engagement Program, a now-defunct part of Hebrew College’s education school. She declined to comment on the internal conversations underway within the Conservative movement. But in 2015, she argued in an op-ed that the Jewish world would benefit from more rabbis who were intermarried.
“Seeing rabbis — who have committed their careers, indeed their lives to Judaism — intermarry, create Jewish homes and raise Jewish children should convincingly illustrate how intermarriage does not inhibit Jewish involvement,” she wrote, citing her research on intermarried couples.
That argument got a boost two years ago, when a major survey of American Jews found that most children of intermarried couples were being raised Jewish. And on Tuesday, McGinity said she was glad to hear that Hebrew College was dropping its partner requirement, which she said she knew had caused students to leave the program in the past.
“The decision to admit rabbinical students who have beloveds of other faith backgrounds is a tremendous way of leading in the 21st century, illustrating that interpartnered Jews can be exemplars of Jewish leaders,” she said.
She added, “Knowing my colleagues, I can only imagine the hours and hours of thought that went into this decision.”
—
The post In a shift, Hebrew College will now admit and ordain rabbinical students whose partners are not Jewish appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
The three profound Jewish lessons of Mamdani’s astonishing victory
Among pollsters familiar with the American Jewish vote, the events of Nov. 4, 2025 in New York City will go down as Opposite Day.
A CNN exit poll showed that Zohran Mamdani, the new mayor-elect, received just about 30% of the Jewish vote, while his opponents, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Curtis Sliwa, together received a total of 70%. Those numbers are effectively the inverse of the Jewish vote in decades of national elections, which have usually seen the Democratic candidate getting between 70% and 80% of the Jewish vote.
Now, that stark divide is one that Jews, and Mamdani, will have to learn to live with.
For the majority of Jews who opposed Mamdani, there are a few primary lessons.
First and foremost: If you want people to care about your most important issues, you first have to address their most important issues.
Pro-Palestinian positions may have fueled Mamdani’s politics and established his early volunteer base, but they didn’t win him the election. The New Yorkers who voted for him “overwhelmingly” said cost of living is their top issue, reported CNN.
For most New Yorkers who hit the polls, questions about Mamdani’s attitude toward Israel Israel — and even concerns about antisemitism — paled in importance beside affordability.
Yet one tone-deaf Jewish leader after another pleaded with voters to reject Mamdani because of his highly critical attitude toward Israel. That stance, they said, could lead to attacks on Jewish New Yorkers.
Exactly why should economically besieged New Yorkers care?
Second, I suspect we will find out that a good portion of the Jewish voters who did opt for Mamdani did so not despite his stance on Israel, but because of it.
Most American Jews say Israel has committed war crimes against Palestinians. Some 68% are unhappy with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Most can’t vote against Netanyahu, but they can vote for Mamdani, or their local equivalent.
The Jewish vote for Mamdani was a rebuke to the mainstream Jewish leadership that organized against the mayor-elect. That leadership didn’t speak for these Jews. Mamdani did.
It’s also surely true that some portion of Jewish Mamdani supporters voted for him while opposing his views and statements about Israel — what my fellow Forward columnist Jay Michaelson called the “No-Yes option”. These Jewish voters saw Mamdani, in the last months of his campaign, reach out to Jewish leaders, political opponents, business interests and others as a sign that he was open to compromise and bridge-building.
And third: While many in the Jewish community had good reasons to oppose Mamdani, they should be grateful for those Jews who supported him. There is a certain blessing in the fact that center-left Jewish leaders like outgoing Comptroller Brad Lander and former New York City mayoral candidate Ruth Messinger got behind Mamdani — because under his administration they will now be in or near the room where it happens.
These leaders, who have been slammed by some as traitors, sell-outs and self-haters for supporting Mamdani, now have the opportunity to help him make good on his promise to protect and serve Jewish New Yorkers.
Mamdani built reassurance on that front into his victory speech Tuesday night.
“We will build a city hall that stands steadfast alongside Jewish New Yorkers and does not waver in the fight against the scourge of antisemitism,” he said, before pivoting to decry the Islamophobia he faced in the campaign.
But Mamdani himself has much to learn, too.
Tomorrow, when the party is over and the 34-year-old mayor-elect begins meeting with his transition team,what lessons should he draw from the Jewish vote’s split?
Above all, that “being overly controversial on Israel is not in his self-interest,” said Peter Dreier, a professor of politics at Occidental College in Pasadena, Calif. “He needs to bring people together. He needs to focus laser-like on running the city and his affordability agenda.”
It’s one thing to be critical of Netanyahu, and another to say, as Mamdani has, that he would boycott the joint research center between Cornell University and Israel’s Technion based on New York City’s Roosevelt Island. He should stick to the former.
And as he works to fulfill his promise to make New York more affordable, Mamdani must also keep his promise to Jewish New Yorkers to keep them safe.
There will be special, if unfair, scrutiny of how this Muslim mayor relates to his Jewish citizens, and Mamdani could prove the fearmongers to be, well, fearmongering.
He must show he can rein things in, said Dreier, who served as deputy mayor of Boston in the 1980s under Ray Flynn. Flynn was feared by the business elite but left office with a 74% approval rating. “We ran a very progressive campaign,” Dreier said, “and then we had to figure out what we were going to give in, and where we could hold the line.”
And it’s not just New Yorkers and New York Jews who will be watching. Mamdani’s religion and views on Israel have made it inevitable that American Jews across the country will be either on board, or on edge.
Will Mamdani work to flip the Jewish voter exit poll numbers for his next race back to the familiar 70/30? That would seem to be the move for a young politician with a promising career ahead of him, and with a Jewish constituency that is predisposed to vote for the Democrat.
But say he leans into his radical roots and betrays his promises? That would leave a lot of Jews feeling politically homeless — at a time when the Republicans are opening the doors to explicitly antisemitic far-right figures like Nick Fuentes and Candace Owens. The question of whether Jews still fit, politically, in the United States — and if so, where — is one that Mamdani will have a crucial role in answering.
“My rabbi has been on the job for three months and just gave a sermon about Mamdani,” Dreier said. “I mean, why the hell would a rabbi here in Pasadena care about who’s the mayor of New York?”
The post The three profound Jewish lessons of Mamdani’s astonishing victory appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Mamdani’s victory divides Jews one more way: Whether to say congratulations
Jewish leaders reacted with a mix of chill, optimism and resolve after state assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, an outspoken critic of Israel, coasted to victory in New York City’s mayoral election.
Many of Mamdani’s biggest critics commented on his victory over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo. But not all of them were willing to congratulate Mamdani, whose politics have exposed a deep rift in the Jewish community over Israel and antisemitism.
Mamdani’s refusal to disavow the phrase “globalize the intifada,” his description of Israel’s war in Gaza as a genocide and his admission that he would not attend the city’s annual Israel Day parade infuriated many of the city’s Jews, though others — especially younger Jewish voters — understood or appreciated what they saw as a principled stand.
Mamdani, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, often emphasized that foreign policy was a secondary concern, but he was dogged throughout the campaign by remarks he made about Israel.
Exit polls by CNN showed 60% of the city’s Jewish voters backing Cuomo, who ran as an independent following Mamdani’s victory in the June Democratic primary.
Among the detractors declining to wish the mayor-elect well was Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, who wrote on X that in light of Mamdani’s “long, disturbing record on issues of deep concern to the Jewish community, we will approach the next four years with resolve.”
A joint statement from several establishment New York Jewish institutions, including the city’s Jewish Federation and Board of Rabbis, also declined to congratulate Mamdani, who is the city’s first-ever Muslim mayor-elect.
“New Yorkers have spoken, electing Zohran Mamdani as the next Mayor of New York City,” the statement, which was also signed by the American Jewish Committee, Jewish Community Relations Council and ADL, in part read. “We recognize that voters are animated by a range of issues, but we cannot ignore that the Mayor-elect holds core beliefs fundamentally at odds with our community’s deepest convictions and most cherished values.”
The groups added that they would work with “all levels of government” to ensure the safety of the city’s Jewish community.
Other Mamdani opponents took a friendlier tack.
Pro-Israel billionaire Bill Ackman, who had predicted a Cuomo win earlier in the day, appeared to extend an olive branch. After the election was called for Mamdani, Ackman wrote, “@zohranmamdani congrats on the win. Now you have a big responsibility. If I can help NYC, just let me know what I can do.”
The Democratic Majority for Israel, a national organization, congratulated Mamdani but added, “We urge him to prioritize fulfilling his campaign promises to bring down costs, not foreign policy issues that are unrelated to the everyday lives of most New Yorkers.”
One pattern emerging from the reaction, particularly among Cuomo supporters, was to blame Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa as a spoiler who stayed in the race after even incumbent Mayor Eric Adams dropped out. Cuomo supporters at his Ziegfeld Ballroom watch party chanted, “Shame on Sliwa.” But Sliwa’s votes, even if Cuomo had received all of them, would likely not have been enough to overcome Mamdani’s lead.
New York City controller Brad Lander, who campaigned for Mamdani and helped build bridges to parts of the Jewish community, celebrated at the Brooklyn Paramount Theatre with the mayor-elect wearing a message to Cuomo on his T-shirt, “Good F—ing Riddance.”
The post Mamdani’s victory divides Jews one more way: Whether to say congratulations appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
In a first, a ballot initiative to divest from Israel has won at the ballot box in Boston suburb
(JTA) — A municipal ballot proposal to divest from Israel went before a popular vote for the first time on Tuesday — and pulled off a decisive victory.
Question 3 won more than 55% of the vote in unofficial election results in the Boston suburb of Somerville, Massachusetts, as the Israel-divestment movement saw the elevation of its most well-known proponent in politics — Zohran Mamdani — to mayor of New York City.
Local pro-Palestinian activists claimed victory, with Somerville for Palestine — the group that gathered the signatures required to put the non-binding resolution on the ballot — posting a celebratory Instagram video alongside the Boston chapter of anti-Zionist group Jewish Voice for Peace.
However, as they were celebrating, the mayoral candidate best poised to enact the proposal in Somerville conceded his race to a rival who signaled he was far less likely to do so. Willie Burnley Jr., a democratic socialist who had endorsed Question 3, lost to fellow at-large city council member Jake Wilson, who did not.
A handful of other American cities have previously adopted Israel divestment proposals brought by their city councils. One of those is Portland, Maine, whose mayor publicly regretted backing divestment after hearing from local Jewish groups. An attempt last year to place a similar referendum on a Pittsburgh ballot failed after legal challenges to the signatures. Similar attempts to challenge the Somerville measure failed.
Home to Tufts University and several Jewish congregations, the four-square-mile Somerville has a population of around 82,000. Residents voted on whether its mayor should “engage in business that sustains Israel’s apartheid, genocide and illegal occupation of Palestine.” The local teachers union endorsed the measure.
Jewish groups opposed the measure, including the newly formed group Somerville United Against Discrimination, which ran TV ads against it. Brian Sokol, a Jewish IT manager and writer based in Somerville, implored his neighbors on Facebook to reject the measure — citing friends of his who were killed by a Hamas suicide bomber in Israel in 1996.
“I am not equating those in Somerville urging a Yes vote with violent extremists or terrorists,” he wrote. “But passing this ballot measure would unintentionally land Somerville on the wrong side of the deeper ideological rift.”
On the other side, a group of 84 local pro-Palestinian Jews endorsed the measure in an op-ed in the Tufts student newspaper. Celebrating the recent ceasefire in Israel and Gaza but saying that Israel has continued to commit atrocities in the region, the authors pointed to local contracts with two companies, Hewlett-Packard and Lockheed Martin, that total over $2 million.
Somerville became a flashpoint in the fight over campus pro-Palestinian activism earlier this year when a Tufts graduate student, Rümeysa Öztürk, was seized by ICE agents and put into deportation proceedings for writing an op-ed in the student paper urging divestment from Israel. A judge freed Öztürk while her deportation case remains ongoing.
The post In a first, a ballot initiative to divest from Israel has won at the ballot box in Boston suburb appeared first on The Forward.