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
Prized Sketchbook at Palace of Versailles Was Stolen by Nazis During WWII, Investigation Reveals
The Palace of Versailles. Photo: Sandrine Marty / Hans Lucas via Reuters Connect
The Palace of Versailles said it will conduct further research into the origins of a sketchbook owned by French painter Jacques-Louis David after a recent investigation revealed that it was stolen by the Nazis during World War II before joining France’s national collection.
Radio France said on Monday that it launched an investigation into the provenance of the prized sketchbook after being contacted by a descendant of its original owner. The broadcaster said just “a few weeks” later, it had compiled enough evidence to support the descendant’s claim about the sketchbook being looted by the Nazis during the war.
The evidence relies on public data accessible online, such as diplomatic archives and the French Holocaust Memorial’s database of Nazi-stolen property. France’s Ministry of Culture admitted that both the ministry and the Palace of Versailles did not know the sketchbook was stolen by Nazis during World War II, but they vowed to “continue research on this notebook and have discussions with the descendants of the owners.”
The Ministry of Culture told Radio France that in the Palace of Versailles, a team of three people are “actively working and reviewing works in the collections to verify their provenance” but the team “had not yet examined this notebook.”
A relative of the sketchbook’s original owner took Radio France he was shocked when he discovered by chance that the Nazi-looted sketchbook was a part of the collection at Versailles. “It’s a key work by David, and the Palace of Versailles does a lot of publicity around these notebooks … So, I’m very surprised that there isn’t more research into their provenance,” he said. “At the moment, there are 100 police officers looking for jewels stolen from the Louvre while to return the works stolen – and there are many at the Louvre and other museums – I find that the means are very, very low.”
The sketchbook dates back to 1790 and includes drawings, sketches, and notes related to one of David’s most famous works, “The Tennis Court Oath” (1790), a painting about the French Revolution that was never finished. The painting belongs to the Palace of Versailles but is currently on display in the Louvre as part of its limited time exhibition that celebrates the 200th anniversary of David’s death. The sketchbook is not part of the exhibit.
German Nazi soldiers stole an entire library, including David’s sketchbook, from Professor Lereboullet in July 1940 when they occupied his home. Lereboullet’s daughter Odile reported the theft in November 1945 to the Commission for Art Recovery (CRA), a French public body responsible for recovering and returning looted pieces of art to their rightful owners or their heirs. She never received a response from the CRA. The sketchbook reappeared in January 1943, when it was sold at auction by the Karl & Faber art gallery in Munich, Germany. It came into the possession of German Jewish art dealer and art historian Otto Wertheimer. A former German professor of art history and curator at the National Museum in Berlin, Wertheimer himself fled Nazi persecution and settled in Paris in 1944. He became a well-known art dealer who provided museums with masterpieces and missing pieces of European art. He sold the David sketchbook to the Palace of Versailles in 1951.
The Palace of Versailles has previously returned only one Nazi-looted item to its original owners: a small Louis XVI era writing table that was returned in 1999.
Uncategorized
Israeli Singer Noa Kirel Blasts Anti-Israel Boycotts of Eurovision Contest: ‘Letting Politics Ruin the Celebration’
Noa Kirel performing “Unicorn” for Israel at the first semifinal at the 2023 Eurovision Song Contest. Photo: ESC/Sarah Louise Bennett
Israeli pop star Noa Kirel lambasted the countries that have decided to boycott the 2026 Eurovision Song Contest because of Israel’s participation, defended her country’s involvement in the competition.
On Wednesday, Iceland joined Ireland, Spain, Slovenia, and The Netherlands in announcing that it will pull out from next year’s Eurovision in protest of Israel’s participation due to its military actions in the Gaza Strip during its war against Hamas terrorists. The war started after Hamas-led terrorists carried out a deadly massacre in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
Ireland, Spain, Slovenia, and The Netherlands made their announcement last week after the European Broadcasting Union, which organizes the competition, decided to allow Israel to participate in the song contest.
Kirel, who represented Israel in the 2023 Eurovision and finished in third place, told the BBC podcast “The World Tonight” on Wednesday she was “deeply disappointed” that countries have decided to withdraw from the 2026 Eurovision, set to take place in Vienna, Austria, in May. She spoke to the podcast before news broke about Iceland’s withdrawal.
“Eurovision is a bridge, not a wall, and the heart of this competition is to connect hearts through music,” she said. “Unfortunately, some countries are letting politics ruin the celebration. Israel has not violated any rules of the Eurovision. Israel is a peace-seeking nation.”
Kirel also clarified key details about the deadly Hamas-led terrorist attack in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which launched the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. “On Oct. 7, Israel did not attack anyone,” the singer noted. “Israel was brutally attacked in a way unseen before. Entire families were murdered, including children. Civilians were kidnapped. Israel defended itself like any other nation would do and those countries are choosing to see the opposite, to ignore the reality. And to boycott Israel – that is antisemitism. I think boycotting Israel on political fronts – it’s not just an injury to us; it’s an injury to everything that Eurovision represents.”
Kirel further noted that claims about Israel manipulating votes during the 2025 Eurovision are total “nonsense” and added, “Instead of searching for excuses for [Israel’s] success, let’s focus on music.”
Wednesday was the deadline for countries to confirm whether they will join the 2026 Eurovision or withdraw without being penalized. Eurovision Director Martin Green said, “We respect the decision of all broadcasters who have chosen not to participate in next year’s Eurovision Song Contest and hope to welcome them back soon.”
Iceland’s national broadcaster RÚV said it believes Israel’s participation in the Eurovision has “created disunity among both members of the European Broadcasting Union and the general public.”
“There is no peace or joy connected to this contest as things stand now. On that basis, first and foremost, we are stepping back while the situation is as it is,” added RÚV Director-General Stefan Eiriksson.
Israel has won the Eurovision Song Contest four times, most recently in 2018, and came second in last year’s contest.
Uncategorized
Columbia University Antisemitism Task Force Calls for Viewpoint Diversity on Israel, Zionism
Students walk on campus at Columbia University in New York City, US, Sept. 2, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ryan Murphy
Columbia University’s Antisemitism Task Force on Tuesday implored the school to foster “intellectual diversity” with respect to the subjects of Zionism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, concluding its fourth and final report on the origins of antisemitism on the campus.
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, Columbia University was, until the enactment of recent reforms, the face of anti-Jewish hatred in higher education in the aftermath of the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel. Dozens of reported antisemitic incidents transpired on its grounds, including a student’s proclaiming that Zionist Jews deserve to be murdered and are lucky he is not doing so himself and the participation of administrative officials, outraged at the notion that Jews organized to resist anti-Zionism, in a group chat in which each member took turns sharing antisemitic tropes which described Jews as privileged and grafting.
In its report, the Columbia Task Force on Antisemitism cited ideological conformity — as well as professors’ discussing the Middle East as would politicians framing a narrative which aims for accessibility and the swaying of democratic opinion — as an outsized contributor to the climate which yielded the slew of outrages.
“The [Columbia Faculty Handbook] is clear that [professors] should stick to the subject matter of the course and avoid political advocacy in the classroom,” the report said. “We heard from many students that an academic perspective that treats Zionism as legitimate is underrepresented in Columbia’s course offerings, compared to a perspective that treats it as illegitimate. The university should work quickly to add more intellectual diversity to these offerings.”
The task force also said that it is the university’s responsibility to reconcile viewpoint diversity —which may give voice to ideas which some deem offensive — with an American culture which prizes unfettered free speech, meritocracy, social equality, and racial and ethnic plurality, all at once. The university must not censor ideas, the report said, but it also cannot facilitate discrimination — which the American government, responding to popular outrage over racism perpetrated against African Americans, proscribed by passing the Civil Rights Act in 1964. In the 60 years since the law’s passage, lawmakers and the courts have affirmed the law’s applicability to other protected groups, including, women, sexual minorities, the Jewish people, and, among many others, Arab Muslims.
“When faculty members publish books, studies, articles, or other academic work, drawing on their expertise and using the methodologies of their disciplines, this work generally should be protected, even if it offends other members of our community, so long as it does not violate antidiscrimination laws,” the report continued. “We recommend seeking ways to comply with antidiscrimination laws that do not limit offensive speech. In some cases, for example, the university may be able to respond to offensive speech by condemning it instead of limiting it.”
It added, “Admittedly, condemning speech might at times be in tension with a commitment to institutional neutrality. Yet, when a university is faced with a choice between limiting speech, on the one hand, or condemning it, on the other, the latter strikes us as a less restrictive response.”
Even as it pursues a policy of “no orthodoxies,” the university must also protect itself from “outside influence” which may, for political purposes, demand its adoption of a particular viewpoint, the report continued. Donors, federal and state governments, or American voters, whose agents of action are their representatives in government, all “present challenges to academic freedom.”
In a statement, Columbia University president Claire Shipman thanked the task force for its work and said the university will “work on” translating its recommendations into policy.
“The work of this task force has been an essential part of the university’s efforts to address the challenges faced by our Jewish students, faculty, and staff,” Shipman said. “We have also been working this semester to focus on discrimination and hate more broadly on our campuses — which has long been a strong recommendation of the task force. All of this work must become part of our DNA.”
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, Columbia University agreed in July to pay over $200 million to settle claims that it exposed Jewish students, faculty, and staff to antisemitic discrimination and harassment — a deal which secured the release of billions of dollars in federal grants the Trump administration had impounded to pressure the institution to address the issue.
Claiming a generational achievement for the conservative movement, which has argued for years that progressive bias in higher education is the cause of anti-Zionist antisemitism on college campuses, US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said the agreement included Columbia’s pledging to “discipline student offenders for severe disruptions of campus operations” and “eliminate race preferences from their hiring and admission practices and [diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI] programs that distribute benefits and advantages based on race” — which, if true, could mark the opening of a new era in American higher education.
“Columbia’s reforms are a roadmap for elite universities that wish to retain the confidence of the American public by renting their commitment to truth-seeking, merit, and civil debate,” McMahon added. “I believe they will ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.