Menorah at the Mall? in the Public Square

Sara Labaton

Emerging Jewish Thought Leaders Fall Learning December 9, 2020

1. Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 23b 1 2. Rabbi Joseph B. Glaser and Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, correspondence (1978), from Religion and State in the American Jewish Experience, 1997 2 3. Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Letter to the Jewish Community of Teaneck, New Jersey, 1982 4 4. Ellie Pierce, “The ‘Christmas Tree Crisis’ at Sea-Tac Airport,” The Pluralism Project at Harvard University, 2020 6

Dr. Sara Labaton is Director of Teaching and Learning at of North America, where she serves as a conduit between the Kogod Research Center and program directors, overseeing programmatic excellence and ensuring that research topics and content are informed by the realities of the field and experience of program participants. She was a member of the inaugural cohort of North American David Hartman Center Fellows.

Sara received a B.A. in Religious Studies from Columbia University and a doctorate in Medieval Jewish Thought from the Skirball Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at NYU. Her doctoral thesis focused on the relationship between the esoteric and peshat hermeneutics in the commentaries of Abraham ibn Ezra, particularly with regard to ibn Ezra’s understanding of biblical cultic rituals.

Sara was a founding faculty member of Yeshivat Hadar, where she developed a Bible and Exegesis curriculum. She has taught in a variety of Jewish settings, most recently as a history instructor at the Frisch School. Her research interests include the intersection of ritual and relevance, ritual experimentation, and overcoming the binary of halakhic–non-halakhic/ insider-outsider in Jewish ritual practice. As part of her participation in the Religious Worlds Seminar at the Interfaith Center of New York, Sara researched ways of integrating comparative religion into Jewish educational contexts.

The Shalom Hartman Institute is a leading center of Jewish thought and education, serving and North America. Our mission is to strengthen Jewish peoplehood, identity, and pluralism; to enhance the Jewish and democratic character of Israel; and to ensure that Judaism is a compelling force for good in the 21st century.

Shalom Hartman Institute of North America 475 Riverside Drive, Suite 1450 New York, NY 10115 212-268-0300 [email protected] | www.shalomhartman.org 1. Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 23b

אמר רבא פשיטא לי נר ביתו ונר חנוכה נר ביתו עדיף משום שלום ביתו נר ביתו וקידוש היום נר ביתו עדיף משום שלום ביתו בעי רבא נר חנוכה וקידוש היום מהו קידוש היום עדיף דתדיר או דילמא נר חנוכה עדיף משום פרסומי ניסא בתר דאבעיא הדר פשטה נר חנוכה עדיף משום פרסומי ניסא:

Rava said: It is obvious to me that there is a fixed list of priorities. When a person is poor and must choose between purchasing oil to light a Shabbat lamp for his home or purchasing oil to light a lamp, the Shabbat lamp for his home takes precedence. That is due to peace in his home; without the light of that lamp, his family would be sitting and eating their meal in the dark. Similarly, if there is a conflict between acquiring oil to light a lamp for his home and wine for the sanctification [kiddush] of Shabbat day, the lamp for his home takes precedence due to peace in his home. However, Rava raised a dilemma: When the conflict is between oil for a Hanukkah lamp or wine for kiddush of Shabbat day, what is the ruling in that case? Does kiddush of Shabbat day take priority because it is frequent, i.e., it is performed every week, and there is a principle: When there is a conflict between a frequent practice and an infrequent practice, the frequent practice takes precedence? Or, perhaps the Hanukkah lamp takes precedence due to publicity of the miracle? After he raised the dilemma, he then resolved it on his own and he ruled that, in that case, the Hanukkah lamp takes precedence due to publicity of the miracle.

1

2. Rabbi Joseph B. Glaser and Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, correspondence (1978), from Religion and State in the American Jewish Experience, 1997

Central Conference of American Rabbis Office of the Executive Vice President

May 31, 1978

Rabbi M. M. Schneerson , New York 11213

Dear Rabbi:

Following up on my letter of April 25 suggesting that we discuss religious observances, particularly the kindling of Hanukkiot, held on public property, I was pleased to receive a telephone call from your office inviting me to send our views for your consideration and response.

As believing , Lubavitcher Chasidim, Reform Jews, and others share the conviction that the mitzvah of kindling Hanukkiot should be fulfilled by all Jews. Likewise, that the lights should be placed in the windows, or even outside, of Jewish homes and synagogues “to proclaim the miracle,” is a practice we encourage. All that we question is the necessity and desirability of holding this or similar religious ceremonies on public property.

The mitzvah is fulfilled when Hanukkiot are lit on Jewish property. So there is no halachic necessity for doing so on public property. We believe public property religious observances are not only unnecessary, but undesirable. Allow me to explain why we feel that way.

As you know, the American Constitution provides for the separation of “church and state.” The relative comfort of Jews in the United States has resulted in part from the application of that principle. By constant vigilance we Jews, and other Americans who believe that the full freedom of religion which church-state separation provides is important, have managed to minimize violation of the Constitutional principle. Of particular note in this context, we have had considerable success in recent decades in preventing Christmas displays, crèches especially, on public property, and in preventing religious assemblies and prayer-periods in public schools. Thus we and our children are not forced—as Jews in many nations are—to support Christianity through our taxes or to be exposed, and have our children exposed, to government sanctioned proselytizing. The civil courts have repeatedly agreed that we and our children need not be exposed to Christian observances which we find offensive.

2

Clearly Jewish religious observances and displays on public property are no less a violation of the doctrine of church-state separation than are Christian observances and displays. And when Jews seek to violate the Constitutional principle we weaken our hand in our ongoing efforts to prevent Christian violations.

There is a second reason for our concern about ’s practice of holding Hannukah observances on public property. For the reasons outlined above, in several communities Jews have objected to these observances. Heated debate in the Jewish community has spilled over into the general community and has been reported by the media. Surely the sad spectacle of Jews publicly fighting with other Jews is a chillul hashem. I must tell you in all candor that we continue to receive complaints about this particular Chabad practice, and thus I have no doubt that the disputations will continue and possibly even end up in court. Since you and we have no difficulty “proclaiming the miracle” via Hanukkah observance on private property, continued confrontation serves no positive Jewish purpose, and indeed is counter-productive.

Our request of you, then, is simply that in your role as leader of the Chabad Lubavitch movement you direct a cessation of Hanukkiot lighting or other religious observances on public property. I would be happy to meet personally with you or your representatives to discuss the matter further.

Shalom,

Rabbi Joseph B. Glaser

3

3. Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Letter to the Jewish Community of Teaneck, New Jersey, 1982

The Jewish community in the U.S.A. is as old as the U.S.A. itself. We know the problems it faced, and the actual discriminations it suffered, until it has won its place in this country. Yet, even in this day and age prejudice and anti-Semitism exist, not only latently, but also overtly. Under these circumstances we must not relax our alertness to any sign of erosion of our hard-won positions.

One of these positions is the annual lighting of a Chanukah Menorah in public places. As mentioned in my previous letter, such Chanukah Menorahs have been kindled in the Nation's capital (in Lafayette Park, facing the White House), in , Albany, Philadelphia, , and in many other cities of the Union. There has been no opposition to their being placed on public property from non-Jewish quarters. Regrettably, there have been some Jews who did raise objections in several places out of fear that kindling a Menorah on public property, would call attention to the fact that there are Jews living in that city; Jews who would apparently be willing to forgo the claim that the public place belongs also to them, as part of the public.

I also pointed out that in Washington. D.C. the President personally participated in the ceremony, that in the Attorney General of the State of New York personally participated in the ceremony, and elsewhere public officials and dignitaries were on hand at this public event. There is no need for any stronger evidence that the Chanukah Menorah-with its universal message, which is especially akin to the spirit of liberty and independence of this nation - has won a place not only in Jewish life, but also in the life of the American people.

In light of the above, when a Jewish community in the U.S.A. publicly raises objections to placing a Chanukah Menorah in a public place-on whatever grounds, and however well intentioned-it is thereby jeopardizing the Jewish position in general. It is also undermining its own position in the long run, as mentioned above. With all due respect to the claim that hitherto this policy has resulted in a "steady reduction of all Christological elements in public life," I doubt whether these have been eliminated completely. But granted, for the sake of argument, that this is the case, it would be most exceptional and unnatural in American life, since by and large the American people is Christian.

Someday, someone will raise the question, "Why should Teaneck be different from any other American town, and be hindered by Jews – a minority – from expressing itself in terms of religious symbols?" The answer that Jews, on their part, likewise refrained from placing a Chanukah Menorah in a public place – will hardly satisfy the majority of the Teaneck population.

4

Now, to come to the essential point; Why is it so important for Jews to have a Chanukah Menorah displayed publicly? The answer is that experience has shown that the Chanukah Menorah displayed publicly during the eight days of Chanukah, has been an inspiration to 55any, many Jews and evoked in them a spirit of identity with their Jewish people and the Jewish way of life. To many others, it has brought a sense of pride in their Yiddishkeit and the realization that there is no reason really in this free country to hide one's Jewishness, as if it were contrary or inimical to American life and culture. On the contrary, it is fully in keeping with the American national slogan "e pluribus unum" and the fact that American culture has been enriched by the thriving ethnic cultures which contributed very much, each in its own way, to American life both materially and spiritually.

Certainly, Jews are not in the proselytizing business. The Chanukah Menorah is not intended to, and can in no way, bring us converts to Judaism. But it can, and does, bring many Jews back to their Jewish roots. I personally know of scores of such Jewish returnees, and I have good reason to believe that in recent years, hundreds, even thousands, of Jews experience a kindling of their inner Jewish spark by the public kindling of the Chanukah Menorah in their particular city and in the Nation's capital, etc., as publicized by the media.

In summary, Jews, either individually or communally, should not create the impression that they are ashamed to show their Jewish-ness, or that they wish to gain their neighbors' respect by covering up their Jewishness. Nor will this attitude insure their rights to which they are entitled, including the privilege of publicly lighting a Chanukah Menorah, a practice which has been sanctioned by precedent and custom, as to become a tradition.

I also must point out that I do not think that a Jewish community can disregard its responsibility to other Jewish communities in regard to an issue of this kind, which cannot remain localized, and must have its impact on other Jewish communities and community relations.

5

4. Ellie Pierce, “The ‘Christmas Tree Crisis’ at Sea-Tac Airport,” The Pluralism Project at Harvard University, 2020 https://pluralism.org/the-%22christmas-tree-crisis%22-at-sea-tac-airport

“What a mess.” Rabbi Anson Laytner shook his head as he read the media coverage of Christmas trees at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac). Laytner didn’t agree with the request for a menorah to be added to the holiday display, the threatened lawsuit or the airport’s decision to remove the trees. He thought, “This is all such silliness.”

Airport puts away holiday trees rather than risk being “exclusive” (The Seattle Times, December 10, 2006) As odd as it might seem, Sea-Tac Airport officials were hoping to avoid controversy when they had maintenance crews working Friday’s graveyard shift dismantle nine holiday trees festooned with red ribbons and bows.

The airport managers ordered the plastic trees removed and boxed up after a rabbi asked to have an 8-foot-tall menorah displayed next to the largest tree in the international arrival hall.

Port of Seattle staff felt adding the menorah would have required adding symbols for other religions and cultures in the Northwest, said Terri-Ann Betancourt, the airport’s spokeswoman. The holidays are the busiest season at the airport, she said, and staff didn’t have time to play cultural anthropologists.

“We decided to take the trees down because we didn’t want to be exclusive,” she said. “We’re trying to be thoughtful and respectful, and will review policies after the first of the year.”

The decision, made in consultation with the Port’s elected board of commissioners, interrupts a decades‐ long tradition at the airport. No sooner had the trees come down than their removal spread something less than holiday cheer across religious groups.

Elazar Bogomilsky, the rabbi who last month asked that a menorah be displayed, said he was “appalled” by the Port’s reaction to what he believed to be a simple request. There are public menorah lightings at the White House and cities across the Northwest, he said. Next week, Gov. Christine Gregoire will help light a menorah under the Capitol Dome in Olympia. Why not the airport?

6

“As a liberal Jew who lived in Seattle for 20 years, I wasn’t offended by seeing Christmas trees in public places. It didn’t bother me,” Laytner explained. “What bothered me was the Port’s reaction, because I knew it was going to create backlash in the community, and sure enough, that’s what happened.”

Laytner soon began receiving emails and phone calls: “‘Are you people the ones responsible for pulling down our Christmas trees at the airport? You people shouldn’t do things like this – it will make people hate you more.’” Laytner, the Executive Director of Seattle’s American Jewish Committee (AJC), was concerned. Earlier that year, a shooting at a local Jewish organization left one person dead and several wounded. “The Jewish community was still very much traumatized by that, and so we would take even mild threats more seriously than we would have otherwise. That included me.”

The issue of the Christmas trees quickly became a matter of public debate in Seattle and beyond. Some questioned the request for a menorah; others criticized the airport’s response. One Seattle Times online article about the removal of “holiday trees” received more than 800 reader responses, most of them opposed, some of them angry. Laytner recalled, “I think when the Christmas Tree Crisis hit, many people were talking like, ‘Why should we change? We don’t need to change. … This is our community and we are going to do things the way we’ve always done it.’ By the Port yanking the Christmas trees, that really yanked their chain.”

Within the Jewish community, Laytner described conflicting concerns. “As with any other issue, I heard it in stereo. From one side, I was getting, ‘This is terrible, we need to protect the separation of church and state,’ ‘This is putting our community at risk’; … but on the other was: ‘We Jews need to stand together’ and ‘What’s wrong with having a menorah at the airport, are you ashamed of who you are?’”

Laytner stated, “I wanted to see a separation of church and state. And for me, a menorah is a religious symbol, not a secondary religious symbol; it’s the symbol of the holiday of Hanukkah.” A , he thought, was more “comparable to the Christmas tree”; however, he added, “…my preference was ideally always no Christmas tree and certainly no menorah.”

Within a few days, with the Port under public pressure and with the threat of a lawsuit withdrawn, the trees returned to the airport. That year, no other symbols would be added. Laytner noted, “I think that soothed the most vociferous complainers. That kind of diffused the crisis in the short term, and then the Port decided, ‘OK, let’s look at this in a non‐crisis mode.’”

7

Shortly after, Laytner received an invitation to join the Port’s “Holiday Decorations Advisory Committee,” together with other faith leaders and representatives from the Port, business, law, and academia. The twelve‐member committee included Dr. Marilyn Gist, a professor of management at Seattle University, and Imam Jamal Rahman, a local Sufi Muslim leader active in interfaith work.

Gist brought expertise in diversity and leadership; she also understood the perspective of the Port’s managing director: “I could feel the pain from all of the criticism in the newspapers. He was a leader embroiled in a controversy he didn’t intend to start.” She added, “They were trying to acknowledge the right of a minority community to not be offended. They took the rabbi’s concern to heart and removed the trees with the right intent. The public backlash had been surprising.” Months later, she observed, there was still “tension and woundedness” around the issue. Gist recognized that the airport was technically a municipal and private space but was thought of by most as a public space. Accordingly, for Gist, the question was simple: “As leaders, we need to ask: do we want to be welcoming to all, or welcoming to some?”

Rahman observed, “The Christmas trees at the airport brought up the issue of authentic inclusivity.” He emphasized the reverence for Jesus and Mary in the Islamic tradition, and explained, “We have respect for what Christmas symbolizes. We honor Jesus, but how can we also honor founders of other traditions? Inclusiveness is essential in a multi‐religious society." At the same time, he recalled, “I was particularly sensitive to the demonization and dehumanization of the Jews that was happening. … It was important not to generalize over particular incidents.” Rahman wondered, “How do we live our interfaith ideals?”

Laytner reflected, “I wanted to see a community in which all of the different religions, different ethnic groups were treated with respect.” Although initially he had no problem with the airport’s holiday display, he noted, “Once the Christmas tree issue was raised, it kind of became an issue of respect.” He wondered, “Are we going to remain the way we’ve been since Seattle’s founding, or are we going to move and take significant steps towards a different kind of vision for our community? And as a Jewish community and individual, I was invested in seeing change happen.”

But another question remained, for Laytner and the rest of the committee tasked with making a recommendation to the Port: What form should the holiday display take?

8

Notes: Notes: