Should Shlomo Carlebach’s music be cancelled?

His daughter, Neshama, has bravely acknowledged both realities and centred the women whose accounts were ignored or dismissed. She wrote, “I believe you. I see you. I hear you.” Her wider point is crucial: debate about whether to sing his melodies must not eclipse the work of creating communities where people can speak safely, be heard, believed and protected.

It is critically important that concerns about potentially maligning, informing on, disrespecting the dead or bringing shame on the community should never stop someone coming forward to report abuse.

Our approach is informed by the Torah’s instruction: “Do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbour.” Based on this, Maimonides rules that someone who sees a man pursuing a woman to sexually assault her, but fails to rescue her when he can, transgresses this command. This principle must shape how communities respond to disclosures of abuse: safeguarding, independent investigation and accountability are essential. Silence is not neutrality. We must educate children about consent, boundaries and responsible authority.

The Talmud is equally uncompromising about responsibility of leadership. It describes someone who studies Torah but behaves so badly that people say: “Woe to him who studied Torah” as a chillul Hashem. Spiritual influence is not a shield from moral scrutiny; it intensifies responsibility.

So, must Carlebach’s music be discarded? The Gemara provides a fascinating insight. Rabbi Meir continued to learn Torah from his teacher Elisha ben Avuyah, despite the latter’s apostasy. It likens this to eating the fruit of a pomegranate and discarding its peel. This implies that a person’s failings need not erase every contribution they made. While Elisha ben Avuyah’s was a theological downfall, not physical abuse, the passage is certainly not an acquittal, nor a reason to minimise the harm. It concludes by reminding us that the Divine Presence shares in the suffering of human beings.

With Am Yisrael Chai, there is a distinction between the words and the melody. It was reportedly proclaimed at Bergen-Belsen in 1945; Carlebach composed his tune in 1965 for the Soviet Jewry movement. The words belong to the Jewish people; the melody is his contribution.

If we continue to sing Am Yisrael Chai, it must never be as an act of uncritical homage to Carlebach. Some may find the melody impossible to sing, and that must be respected. We can retain a song’s meaning without sanitising its composer. Above all, our loyalty to music, leaders and even institutions must never outweigh our responsibility to protect people.

​

Alex Chapper is senior rabbi of Borehamwood and Elstree (United) Synagogue

A Progressive view: Rabbi Romain

At a time when we are used to the Christian clergy, especially Catholics, but also Anglicans, being defrocked for a variety of sexual abuses, this is a wake-up call that the rabbinate is not immune from appalling acts of wrong-doing.

It is also a reminder that we suffer not only from rogue rabbis but cover-ups. Rumours about Shlomo Carlebach were circulating at least 45 years ago. Many knew and chose to say silent. Why?

As for whether we should still sing his tunes, the answer is that there is no one right answer. Instead, there are several options to be considered.

One option is a blanket “no”. We should show our disapproval of the perpetrator, and our sympathy for his victims, by shunning both his name and his works. Otherwise, we give a message of “naughty boy, but we ignore his faults because we like other bits of his life”.  This is not only an immoral stance but also self-centred, as it is based on our likes, in this case of a good melody. We can live without them. There are many other Jewish composers.

Another option is to separate a person’s behaviour and their creative output. Why should we deny our children the wonderful stories of Roald Dahl, a literary genius even though his personal antisemitism is well-documented. We can distinguish between art and the artist. 

The Bible certainly seems to differentiate undesirable traits and overall results when it so wishes: King David, for instance, receives both divine condemnation and blessing for different aspects of his life. God has often bestowed gifts on flawed individuals throughout the ages.

A third option may be to have a moratorium, such as waiting 50 years since his death in 1994, though this skirts around the issue. Does time lessen abuse? A fourth might be to not use his material in areas where his victims are still living, but he travelled the world and misbehaved internationally.

Another angle: is it relevant that many who sing his songs do not even realise he is the composer? It is the tunes they love, so why deny them that religious joy?

Given all of the above, I would honour the music but not the man. So we should not celebrate him personally, such as by having “An Evening of Shlomo Carlebach’s Music”, but continue singing any songs of his that bring us closer to Heaven.

Jonathan Romain is convenor of the Reform Beit Din

If you have a problem to put to our rabbis, email it to srocker@thejc.com