The Jerusalem Post, citing journalist Avital Chizhik-Goldschmidt, reported that Moscow’s Chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt (pictured) and his wife left Russia because he refused to support the war against Ukraine. Chizhik-Goldschmidt, who is the rabbi’s daughter-in-law, wrote on her blog: «Now I can finally announce that my father-in-law and mother-in-law, Chief Rabbi of Moscow Pinchas Goldschmidt and Rebbitzen Dara Goldschmidt, were pressured by the authorities to support the ‘special operation’ in Ukraine, but they refused,» she said.
What can be said about this? On the one hand, Pinchas Goldschmidt is certainly no friend of Muslims and is a controversial figure in terms of his relationship with the Kremlin, as we wrote seven years ago (https://golosislama.com/news.php?id=28619). In this regard, two circumstances are noteworthy.
First, he has not personally made any public statements on the matter, and anything anyone else says or writes can always be denied. Therefore, some people will take one impression from this story, while others may present it differently, resulting in a complete victory, or as the rabbis say, geshft.
Second, Goldschmidt practically lived outside of Russia, initially as a foreigner, and visited the country occasionally. Will these visits continue in the future? This is an interesting question, and the answer may help us understand the true nature of what is happening. However, stopping visits and emigrating from one’s own country are not the same thing.
In other words, if we call a spade a spade, it is not impossible that a legend will be created about a rabbi who works in Europe and is known for his connections with the Kremlin, which will allow him to continue his activities. Besides, in Russia he can always distance himself from it.
But whatever the case may be, even if this is a legend (and it is not a fact that it is), it is still indicative and a cause for reflection for Russia’s official Muslims. After all, there is not a single person among their central figures who, in reality or in legend, would refuse to bow to the Kremlin’s pressure on this issue.
Moreover, while it may be understandable and explainable for muftis who work «on the ground» for fear of losing their «flock» (although in most cases it is not a fear of losing people but their source of income), it is completely incomprehensible for Muslim counterparts of Pinchas who also work for a European audience. Like him, they could have technically distanced themselves from the Kremlin, but instead they went with the aggressors and occupiers to the heart of the war — Mariupol.
Finally, the promoted model of a rabbi in exile is intriguing. After all, if we assume that all this is true, modern means of communication would not prevent a rabbi, like a mufti, from answering the questions of his followers and addressing them. They could give «fatwas» by correspondence, or conduct research with their participants via Zoom or Skype. And in principle, a principled and authoritative mufti of Russian Muslims, if such a person existed, could do the same.
The problem is that the Jews, who until recently had no problems with their communal and religious life under Putin, have produced such a «rabbi in exile» from their ranks, whether it is true or not. However, among Muslims, who have been subjected to systematic repression for many years, clearly emanating from this authority, such a mufti in exile has never appeared.