Most Jewish parents choose Jewish names for their kids. But they don’t always realize that one fine day, their kids may choose to really use those names.
According to Jewish thought, your Jewish name describes your essence. When you want to name your child after a relative, you should really use the Hebrew name as closely as possible to the original. Identical is best. Starting with the same letter, in either Hebrew or English, is a distant second. It’s powerful for the memory and honor, but spiritually, the connectedness is in the actual name or the same meaning.
Rabbi Akiva Tatz, originally of South Africa, who did not grow up using his Hebrew name, and who did not grow up Orthodox, for that matter, describes how his parents chose the name “Kevin” for him. First, he says, they chose Akiva – after the person for whom he was named. Then they went about searching for a secular name that he could use to navigate in the “real world” that was as similar as possible to the actual (Hebrew) name. In other words, “Akiva” was the “real him” and Kevin was a distant nickname that replicated the real deal.
Many Jewish parents go about this the opposite way – first they choose an English name that they like or that’s after a loved one, then choose a Hebrew name based on other factors. But many young parents tell me they wished they had known, when they were naming their kids, how very powerful that Hebrew name is to the essence and the soul of their children. Many Jewish parents don’t remember their kids’ Hebrew names, if they’ve fallen into disuse.
Sometimes kids will start using their Hebrew names, whether at Sunday school, in Israel, or if they become more religiously-minded. So you might want to choose carefully.
So here I am, to tell you! And now you know.
How was your name chosen? How did you choose your kids’ names?
Related posts: Your Kid’s Hebrew Name is Yechezkel Simcha Chaim?
High on Hebrew
I wish I had the guts to switch to my Hebrew name. (It's lovely.) I should have done it when we moved to Cleveland. My husband has the advantage that his middle name is his Hebrew name, so it's part of his name all the time.
For our kids, their Hebrew names are also their birth certificate names. Each child has its own story of how his/her name came to be chosen, of course. (Matt chose our son's name as he drove down Cedar Road to the JLC to have his bris done by your husband. Talk about waiting for inspiration to strike.)
It's funny, because we have sometimes worried it will be hard for the kids in the other way, going out into the work world (if they work in the secular world) with names that are not common outside the Jewish community. But, I think in general, society is becoming looser about names, so unusual names aren't such a hindrance as they might have been in the past.
(As a total aside, my dad said all names considered for his kids were tested by shouting at the top of his lungs, "Amy Newman Smith, you get out of that street right now!" (or whatever the name was), just to check the cadence and flow. We did not use this method.
That is hilarious! And my husband has an entire collection of crazy baby boy naming stories (including one couple who felt after a month that they had chosen the wrong name…).
Btw, what is your Hebrew name?
Eliana Tamar bas Sarah
Yup, that is beautiful 🙂
Amy, if you really want to switch, people will get used to it pretty quickly. I know people who have done it. The question is how quickly you will get used to it yourself after thinking of yourself in a certain way all your life until now.
I think my Jewish name is Yiddish, not Hebrew. Is that normal?
Two of my kids have Yiddish names.
My guess is that Yiddish names are more common for girls than for boys because there are fewer women mentioned in the Bible (and hence fewer old Hebrew names to choose from). But "Jewish" names come from all sorts of sources. The Yiddish girl's name Shprintze comes from the Spanish "esperanza" (hope). Some of the rabbis in the Mishnah had Greek names. Akiva is an Aramaic form of Ya'akov (Jacob). Sender is a Yiddish form of Alexander. Some common Jewish double names are simply the same name in two languages (Shlomo Zalman, Yitzchak Isaac, Aryeh Leib, Dov Ber, Zvi Hirsch, Asher Zelig).
Yiddish names more common for girls? Really? Akiva for Yaakov…never knew that.
It's just my impression, but think about it: How many Biblical girls' names are there? Sarah, Rivka, Rachel, Leah, Chava, Chana, Devora, Yael, Tamar, Elisheva, Miriam, Yocheved, Avigayil, Esther, Hadassah, Michal, Ruth, Naomi, Dina, Batsheva, Shifra, a few others that are less common or not used at all. (When was the last time you met a Chogla?)
Mentally going through my relatives: Miriam, Deena, Chana, Esther, Devora…
And then there are the names that are concepts, not people:
Bracha, Aviva, Ahuva, Shira, Nechama…
Whereas for boys you have the avot, Jacob's sons, lots of kings and prophets … Women didn't get into the "news" so much in those days. A lot of Hebrew girls' names these days are relatively new.
Many of the kings' and prophets' badges are no longer commonly used, though. Yehoash, Rechavam, Shamgar, Chavakkuk, Tzephania, Achazia. They're streets in Jerusalem, that's all.
Names, not badges.
True, but David, Shlomo, and Shmuel are still common, and there are lots of others that are less common but not really rare. Also, it depends on the person's age and segment of society. Names go in and out of fashion. Less so among religious Jews who name after relatives, but even there it happens. And Rechavam Ze'evi was a well-known Israeli.
One of my kids is named Akiva after a grandfather named Yaakov, because my husband preferred Akiva to Yaakov.
According to Carol L. Meyers, only 111 (9%) of the 1426 names in the Tanakh are female.
That's an interesting stat, although I'm not sure what it shows. Many of the male names mentioned in the Pentateuch are just names on a list when the generations are recorded (and not used today at all, or even remembered for any significant contribution to history). You could certainly argue why are only the male names recorded as "heads of households" and not their wives, but I suppose that convention is still in vogue even in many non-religious contexts.
My impression is that a very high percentage of the female names are commonly used, whereas a very low percentage of the male names are. Presumably, that's because the women are only named when they play a significant role in an account. I can only think of a few women's names that aren't used (Machla, Chogla).
Speaking of woman's names in Tanakh that are in practice today, how come Shifra is used as a given name and Puah is not?
Good question, but you could ask the same question of many names in Tanach. It may have fallen out of vogue due to it's funny sound in modern English.
that would be "its funny sound" minus the apostrophe…shudder.
That would only explain why it's not used in English-speaking countries.
SBW, my oldest has a Yiddish name. From what we learned, these names have a tradition of being Jewish names so they become de facto "Hebrew" names. (I assume it is the same for Ladino names as well.) In some circles, it's not so popular to have a Yiddish name, so you may see a person who moves to Israel, for example, change their Yiddish name to the Hebrew equivalent.
My parents wanted to give my sister and me strong female role models of ways women can be more and do more. I'm named after the prophetess Devora, and my sister is named for Queen Shulamit. Our names serve as useful amulets against those who say women shouldn't strive for greatness outside the home.
Plus, my sister was born on Shabbat Shira. It's something of a shame that they didn't go with the message and name her Miriam… oh well!
Hi Debbie! First, that's very cool…and, who is Queen Shulamit?
One of the only ruling queens of Israel. Kicked the Sadducees off the Sanhedrin, ruled in peace and prosperity, etc. http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/112049/jewish/Queen-Salome-Alexandra.htm (Salome is the Hellenized version of Shulamit)
The Hebrew equivalent of Queen Salome Alexandra is שְׁלוֹמְצִיּוֹן אלכסנדרה, or "Shlomtziyon". There is a street in Jerusalem named for her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salome_Alexandra
Hoffman
Ah, her I've heard of. Thanks.
Amy Newman Smith—- I chose the law firm I hired for my kids' SSI cases because they are Shifrin Newman Smith and it sounded so much like Amy Newman Smith. 🙂 (seriously, they were right for the job).
I ADORE my son's name, Chananiah, but boy oh boy I wish I had some inkling of how many doctors/ therapists/ outreach workers/ public school/ people outside the frum community with whom he'd have constant contact. EVERY DAY we get a mis-pronounced Chananiah on our answering machine. Sha-na-nyah, Cha-(like cha cha) non yuh, and sometimes they just say "we're confirming an appointment for…….. your daughter! (because only in the frum community is Chananiah OBVIOUSLY a male name).
As a BT, I've been Heather WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY too long to switch. I thought about it, but it never felt right to switch to my Hebrew (actually Yiddish) name. And frankly I'm proud to be a BT and it's nice that people automatically know it when they find out my name.
My daughter has it easy— EVERYONE seems to be able to say/ pronounce Reena especially since we spell it with two ee's. Only one receptionist called her Rayna.
For us, it was important to give our kids ONE name and not do the English AND Hebrew.
EVERY now and then my husband Adam, when meeting someone new in the community introduces himself as Avrohom Sholom and I always do a double take— he'll always be Adam to me.
So funny. I took this into account to some extent when naming our kids.
The question of whether baalei teshuvah should switch to their Hebrew names is a good one. There are pros and cons.
Heather, my situation is so similar because my boys all go to public school for various special needs, and all have very Jewish names. Luckily we live in a diverse community, and among the various Indian and Hispanic names it's no big deal.
My teenage daughter prefers the English pronunciation of her Hebrew/English (same) name and I don't object. Both pronunciations sound pretty.
I have a question about people who are regretful about the Hebrew names they chose for their kids. Why not encourage them to find out more about the names they did choose, and to connect that in some way to the personality and uniqueness of the child? Even if it's not a family name, it may somehow suit their child. (Most names don't mean bad things and most people don't name after historically bad Biblical characters, so I'm sure there is some good in nearly every name).
Regret is such a negative emotion, and not necessary in so many cases.
Thats a good point.
Sometimes when they learn more, they don't like it anymore, or they realize it's unusual.
In Israel a common secular name is "Nimrod" who was a bad guy.
The first time I met someone whose first name was Nadav I was taken aback. His father is Israeli, so maybe there's more acceptance of biblical names regardless of background there. After all, the Talmud includes a Rabbi Ishmael.
I think Nadav was mostly righteous, but made one mistake at the end of his life. And Yishmael did repent at the end of his life…
According to Jewish thought, your Jewish name describes your essence.
What does this mean for all the non-Jews in the world? Does their secular name describe their essence? Do they lack the insight into themselves a Jew has as a result of their name?
Also, is this prescriptive or descriptive? Is every Jewish parent granted a flash of ruach hakodesh (a lesser form of prophecy) so as to pick the correct name for their child, or is the child shaped by the name chosen? If the latter, what about non-Jews and their names? (For an example of a non-Jew being shaped by the name his parents chose, see the Reverend Johnny Cash and A boy named Sue.)
Hebrew describes the essence, even in the animal kingdom.
My husband always says parents are given a flash of divine insight when choosing the Hebrew name for their children.
So how does that apply to a non-Jewish name that becomes Judaized? And at what point does a non-Jewish name become considered Jewish (e.g., Kalman, from the Greek Kalonymos)?
Thats a great question. I don't know.
Yes, names like Nimrod & Omri are exceptions.
Who was Omri?
A "bad king" of Israel.
For two possible explanations of the use of the name Nimrod and similar examples of names, see http://ha-historion.blogspot.com/2009/11/hows-nimrod-for-nice-jewish-name-how.html.
Does Judaism believe that languages other than Hebrew have certain special qualities that express essences?
German philosophy has examples of people saying similar things to this about German–an idea that the Nazis later took up enthusiastically. I imagine that Sanskrit might have similar things said about it. Actually knowing other languages, not just Hebrew, does seem to grant insight into things–different grammar structures and etymologies illuminate other ways to view things, and other kinds of things overall.
I believe it's true about any language. There is a "Dictionary of Untranslatables" [or something to that idea] that lists (and explains) some words that exist in only one language, to express a very precise concept or idea.
That's what I love about learning languages – since I believe in the linguistic theory that we can acknowledge only the things we name, different languages give me different perspectives and ways of seeing and interpreting the world.
Sbw, I don't think Judaism believes that about other languages, at least not that I know of.
I do think languages give insights into their respective cultures, which in turn grants insights into people and concepts.
So where does Aramaic fit into this? Is it as holy as Hebrew? Is there a spiritual rationale behind calling your son Akiva rather than Yaacov, or is it purely a question of personal preference?
This sounds like a question for Larry or Ben-Yehoshua. Gentlemen?
Here's what my husband is telling me: Aramaic is not as holy as Hebrew. It does have holiness because it's based on Hebrew. Here's an interesting factoid about it:
Any prayer said in Aramaic can only be said with a minyan. Normally prayers go through angels, but they get irritated when you use Aramaic, since it's so similar, why not just use Hebrew? But with a minyan, you can bypass the angels and the prayers can go straight up. (Kaddish, one of most holy and well-known prayers, is in Aramaic.)
Waaaait a minute. This is what Jews believe? Angels mediate? But only Hebrew prayers? And get irritated with Aramaic? And 10 men gives a direct line to God even in Aramaic? And solo kaddish reciters are out of luck?
Ask Rambam what he thinks about prayer being mediated by angels, and then duck.
Sbw, that's straight out of the Talmud. So, yes. (Although doubtless not ALL Jews believe it.)
Larry, even Rationalist Rambam describes the ten different kinds of angels.
re: the power of the Hebrew language, as opposed to any other – according to our Sages, the world was created with the supernal light contained within the Hebrew letters. As explained in the Book of Tanya, a stone's very nature is based on its composite letters (aleph, beit, nun).
Oh, tesyaa… Jewish Cleveland is obsessed with Omri Casspi so I hope the bad king was at least a gifted basketball player…?
Do Os watch basketball??
many do!
I was named after my great-grandmother who was murdered in Auschwitz; my Hebrew and secular name were both hers, since the latter was not something weird sounding in Hungarian, like "Ibbi" or "Manci," like my great aunts.
I, too, am named after a Holocaust victim. She was my great-aunt and was murdered as a young child. It is an honor and a responsibility to carry her name.
True that.
Yes, I thought it was obvious that Akiva was for Yaakov, the fact that they are both spelled with the letter Ayin and not Aleph is a dead giveaway. Also, Rebbi Yosei (Yosi) for Yosef/Joseph. Like Yishmael, Terach also repented before he died, so how come that is not in use? Although mine (and most of my family's) names are Hebrew, my father's Hebrew name is one of those Jewish Hebrew-Yiddish double names. What's interesting about being a BT is that although I have two normal Hebrew names, my name combination is one that is not common among frum Jews, which makes me different but unique ("K'sheim She'ein Partzufeihem Shavot, Kach Ain Dayoteihem Shavot").
Ruach ha Kodesh…Our children had never discussed the naming of their other children with us but the day after this grandson was born they told us that they had no idea what to name the baby. They had been looking through a Jewish baby name book and pointed out a name they were intrigued by but didn't really like, as it seemed odd. Certainly, none of us knew anyone by that name. The day of the Bris I went over to get the older children ready and saw that the young parents were very tense. They still had no name for their son. Just before the Bris they appeared relaxed and smiling. As our new grandson was named , I leaned against our daughter and laughed-they had decided to give him that unusual name they had first seen in the naming book and had not really liked. Suddenly it seemed perfect. At the Seuda, the Rabbi spoke about how appropriate the name was as it is the name of a sefer written by a great rabbinical leader and posek on whose yartzeit our grandson was born!
Wow.
My husband always says parents are given a flash of divine insight when choosing the Hebrew name for their children.
So in my case my parents chose my Hebrew name. Then only my Dad went to the brit, and his mother convinced him to change what he told the mohel. So did she derail my parents' ruach hakodesh, or did she intervene as an agent of Hashem to give me my correct name?
Since divine insight has subsequently abandoned me, we'll never know! 😉
And what does it mean when parents don't know any Hebrew names and just ask their rabbi to choose a name, which they have no intention of using? Does that have any significance?
I'd guess yes, because their free will led them to that name.
Then there's the story of the rabbi who declined that request, on the grounds that the parents are gifted with insight and should take full advantage.
I obviously don't have a Hebrew name. But as my secular name, my parents wanted one that would make me fit in. They both have had some identity issues (my father is Jewish, my mother has mixed origins) so they chose a veeeeeeery classical name from my birth country's repertoire.
What they didn't realize is that a) the name is so classical nobody names their daughters like that anymore b) other people in the same position had a similar train of thought.
So effectively it never made me blend in, on the contrary. And when I (infrequently) meet someone with my name, it usually mean she's Jewish. In other words, the very result they were trying to avoid…
W, I missed something. Why is it obvious that you have no Hebrew name? Perhaps I missed a biographical detail along the way.
SBW, how come, so you haven't read my complete biography yet?!? 🙂
I think I did mention in some previous comments that I'm a child of intermarriage (Jewish father, and completely secular at that, my mother is a lukewarm Catholic)
I'm a hopeful future convert to Judaism who was baptised Sara. In a way, I credit my name for first sparking my interest in Judaism (when I was a child). I had to know who this princess and mother of nations was. I feel like it's a lot to live up to but I do love the idea that I'll be a child of the first Sarah after I've converted. It's like a red thread binding my former self together with my future self. Even if the rest of my name gives me away as very much not Jewish, I like that my first name is Jewish, give or take an h.
– Sara
There have been so many changed names and converts that no name can give you away as not Jewish these days.
Wow, Sara. I love that.
I related to this post a lot. Thanks. I am a BT who very much tried to embrace my Jewish name, but now find myself going back to my "secular" name, simply because my Jewish name is very awkward. It's a Yiddish name that isn't even so common in frum circles. I've only met a few other who carry this name as one of their two names, and they seem to be called by the other name. I think when my parents gave me this Yiddish name at my bris it was simply to honor the ancestor I am named after but they never imagined this baby would become frum and consider actually using it. On the one hand I feel connected to the ancestor I am named after and proud to carry the name, but on the other hand it can be an awkward name to actually be called by. :-/ A name is so personal, especially one's Jewish name which is connected to the neshama….. so sometimes I wish I loved my name. Maybe I'll yet come to one day!
Interestingly, Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky, one of the leaders in the Torah world today, tells parents not to give their kids "odd" Yiddish or unusual Jewish names, even after righteous people or beloved ancestors, because it will put undue hardship on the child.
So interesting. I can then definitely attest from personal experience the wisdom of this gadol's words! What I didn't initially share is that my "secular" name is actually not so secular sounding! It's a Biblical name, albeit in its American anglicized version. And I do love THAT name, my "secular" name. But, the irony of ironies is that my "holy" Jewish name given at my Bris upon which I am known by my people Israel is NOT of Biblical origins, but is an unusual Yiddish name, which, as I mentioned, can be awkward to be called by! A funny world.
Ultimately, I guess I have work on my emuna that everything is hashgacha-pratis and that my parents indeed had a form of ruach-hakodesh when giving me this name and that it's what it was supposed to be!
I asked my folks. The yiddish name was "after" some aunt (who btw had a totally different name, I don't see a connection except an initial vowel, but it's not the same one!) that no one knew and had no information about, apparently selected to appease a grandmother who is long dead now. My American middle name has a first initial from an old uncle about whom the only information anyone has (which sounds like a legend rather than a real story to me) is that he died because he foolishly refused treatment after an accident. Gee, thanks parents. Nice work selecting names to be proud of.
I seriously laughed out loud when I read that! Would you be comfortable sharing what it is? Maybe the meaning is something awesome?
My anonymity would definitely not be compromised by sharing my Yiddish/Jewish name, I can tell you that! In fact I will confess that I condensed some details in the story above: I remembered my grandmother telling me what the Yiddish/Jewish name was, but my parents did not remember when I asked them (yesterday), but on being prompted said they still didn't remember and didn't know who it was after anyway.
Shayna Alta (not sure of transliteration). "Pretty [and] old". Great work again, parents, on soul-inspiring naming. I do appreciate that it allows for the translation pun "pretty old"! And my grandmother had said it was after her Aunt Ida. Whoever that was.
Wait, wait! Maybe the point is that it is entirely an absurd naming choice. That kind of fits me, no? Like there is no good reason for any of this–an unknown person, no one remembers anyway what the name was, the Jewish name doesn't have much in common with the 'source' name, and the meaning is not much good for the soul. Kind of fits my penchant for absurd, meaningless disjunction. I could kinda like this.
LOL!!!
Alte, while literally meaning "old" (obviously naming a newborn "old" is somewhat ludicrous) has the symbolism of blessing the child with long life.
So beauty and longevity…not too shabby.
Alte is sometimes used as a middle name when naming after someone who died young, as are names like Chaim/Chaya (life) or Baruch/Bracha (blessing). The idea is to name after the person but change the mazal (fortune) of the new child. So my guess is that if it was important to your grandmother than you be named after Aunt Ida, but your parents have no idea who Aunt Ida was, that Aunt Ida died young without descendents. The name may not fit you so well, but on a spiritual level, one could say you are fulfilling an important role by carrying on her name. And even this brief, vague, tangential conversation is carrying on her memory in a very abstract way.
Miriam, this is really a wonderful insight, thanks. I had imagined that the "Alta" was supposed connect to "Ida" (by way of initial vowel) but your idea of its changing the longevity-karma is much better.
Beauty and longevity. That's a lot to meditate on. I guess, looking the gift horse in the mouth, that I would prefer to be blessed with contentment/wisdom and health. I find it sad, now that you point it out, that beauty and longevity might be what my long-gone grandmother would have found to be the most important things to wish for a baby girl. Or for herself. I prefer to think of her saying, drily, "She should grow up to be . . . pretty old."
Think back to the days when child mortality was so common. Isn't health related to longevity?
And beauty could easily mean inner beauty…hence, wisdom/contentment.
I knew you would say that!
Good point DG.
You know me well!
Ok, a totally unrelated story, and not Jewish, but it might be worth a chuckle:
Friend of a friend in his youth was a freethinking type, wanted to challenge conventions. Somehow starting with the convention that words have to have vowels. So he legally changed his name to Ptk-Ptk. Try saying it.
mmm I might be daft but not getting it…?
There's not much to get, except it is VERY HARD to say "Ptk-Ptk"! And imagine making your friends and family call you that.
I'm a convert, so I chose my own Hebrew name. I didn't like any of the ones that began with the same letter as my English name, and there are some names that just seemed weird to choose for oneself (for example, ones that translate as "beautiful," "princess," that sort of thing). My rabbi encouraged me to use Ruth, for obvious reasons, so since I'm a musician I went with Ashirah (meaning "I will sing") Ruth bat Avraham v'Sarah.
As a fellow musician, I love that.
Ruchi, don't despair about Omri Caspi – maybe in the future, people will name their boys Omri after the basketball star, not after the figure in Tanach, and the name will have good connotations…
I got to choose my Hebrew name, which was cool, but also weirdly stressful. I agonized over two possibilities for weeks, one of which had a component that was after my father (not at all Jewish, but he passed away when I was in high school) and one of which had a component that was the Hebrew name I had originally thought I'd take when I converted, but kind of drifted away from. I took something of a straw poll amongst my friends (both Jewish and non-Jewish) and at one point considered giving my rabbi both names and telling him to just pick one on the day, but I ended up going with the second name, I think because I figured that if I ever had kids, I'd probably give one of them a name that reflects my father, and I wasn't sure that I wanted to put myself in the position of explaining the situation with my dad every time the subject of my Hebrew name came up, because people seem to ask converts relatively often how they wound up with the name that they did.
In any case, my Hebrew name is Bruriah Michal. If you had asked me when I started the whole Jewish process, Bruriah wouldn't have even been on my radar, but I like it a lot. I think Bruriah was a pistol, personally, and what we get of her personality in the stories we have of her reminds me of myself in some ways (particularly the whole "Where's Lod?" conversation). I also wanted the name of a woman who was learned, and Devorah and Yehudit didn't really speak to me at the time, although Yehudit has really grown on me. The only problem with the name "Bruriah" is that it's not hugely common in non-Orthodox circles, so sometimes people have issues when I tell them what it is for the purposes of an aliyah or something. But whatever, I think it's a great name, so I'm happy to do my part to try and give it some non-Ortho publicity.
I couldn't change my name to my Hebrew name, because a lot of professional stuff is in my English name, which I like, anyway, but it wouldn't bother me to go by it in Jewish circles, although I never have. Between my Hebrew name, my English name and my Chinese name, my naming situation is getting a little out of hand!
Another semi-random question: I went to a pretty great modern dance performance. I guess Os don't go to that, all those not-fully-clad people, although it was beautiful. For one of the pieces they used music including some medieval chants (Catholic) and some other stuff and a Bar'chu (sp?) that had a great melody. I figure this is not ok with Os, correct? Can't use prayer in music for a secular performance? Or is it ok?
Orthodox men should not be going to shows where women are singing or dancing or half-dressed. Orthodox women can. Both are supposed to be mindful of content, like immodest themes, violence and profanity.
Viewing idolatrous prayer is a problem.
So the Catholic chants would be no go, but the Bar'chu in a secular context is ok? Interesting.
I'm no expert on what constitutes idolatry. That's the kind of thing I would run by my rabbi.
Seems to me the question regarding Barchu would have to do with whether it's appropriate, respectful, etc. Since it isn't even said during prayer without a minyan, it's hard for me to imagine how it could be considered appropriate to sing it in such a performance.
Ok, no idolatry experts on here, I realize, but now I'm totally curious about what Os are permitted to hear.
What if the chant is in Latin (or some other language)? I happen to know Latin, but if some O Jew didn't, would it matter if it talked about Mary/Jesus and the O hearer couldn't understand it? Or would some knower of Latin have to check what the words are before an O person could hear it? What about a Buddhist-style hum? (Does "ohm" even mean something?) What about a Christian prayer that doesn't mention anything about Jesus or anyone else? Like "The Lord's Prayer"? Can O Jews study Christian prayer as a cultural formation–like if they work as anthropologists or something?
And a big one: Is Christian prayer seen as a sin against God when Christians do it? If yes, what are they supposed to pray, and where? I figure this is contentious material, but I've never thought about it before and it is sort of fascinating.
These are great questions that most OJs never think about, because they do tend to stick within OJ culture. If something has even the barest resemblance to another religion, it'd be avoided.
In day to day life, the questions are much simpler. If an OJ family who reads secular literature is reading "Little House on the Prairie" to a small child, they would skip the Christmas chapters. They'd probably skip "The Nutcracker" if they were into ballet, and choose something else instead (is "Swan Lake" secular?)
I think that an Orthodox Jew working in a scholarly academic field might have the latitude to study Christian works if it was purely in a secular context, but those are the kind of people asking "idolatry experts".
I think the "om" chant does indeed have religious meaning, but I don't know the details.
(I recently read "Farmer Boy" to my young son and we didn't skip the Christmas chapter – a bit to my husband's chagrin – but there was absolutely nothing religious about it. OJs would, though, tend to skip it even knowing that, because it might "glamorize" Christmas somehow.)
Forgive me for bringing your deep questions down the level of kids' books.
I appreciate the everyday anecdotes about O life with kids, since it is all totally foreign to me. I have a small obsession also with the Little House books–and only came to appreciate the subtlety of "Farmer Boy" as a mom. And I am also curious about what O kids read (Mark Twain and the 'chosen people' thread already touched on this).
I am supposing O men couldn't go to ballet anyway, based on what Ruchi said. Too much female form on display. And maybe this would also mean that there's less ballet for O girls because there's no real future in it except female audiences.
My R-secular mom was uncomfortable with all the Christmas representations in all the stuff we read and did. And they were glamorous, I loved all the Christmas chapters. But how much of this would be Jewishly forbidden for idolatry/religious reasons and how much for Jewish cultural preservation reasons? For my mom it was definitely the latter.
It's a given that attending the ballet would be for OJ girls and women, not boys or men. As for little girls learning ballet, very few make it as performers – Orthodox or not. So there's not much difference between an othodox Jewish child taking ballet and a non-Orthodox child – the chances of either becoming a performing ballerina are miniscule.
For my husband, he's more concerned about the idolatry part – he might be unusual that way. But the glamorization part comes into it to.
There is just no idolatry in "Farmer Boy". I seem to remember some actual Christian prayer in the other "Little House" books though.
Same with me, BTW – there was so much of "Farmer Boy" that I appreciated as an adult that I had no clue about when I was a kid.
SBW, if you ever want to correspond let me know and I'll leave my email.
Some Orthodox Jews do dance. See http://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/571325/jewish/Rachel-Factor.htm.
Chiming in with a reminder that O behavior is a spectrum, and individuals make their own choices, with the guidance of their rabbinic advisors. I am an art historian, working in a major art museum. One of my teachers told me, years ago, before college, that art history was not an acceptable career path for a nice Jewish girl. Lots of Christianity, lots of nudity. Both true. But personally I have no problem with it. Whatever I've learned about Christianity along the way has been purely academic. If anything, it has strengthened my appreciation of Judaism. Of all the sins I've committed in my life, being an art historian is not something I've ever felt guilty about or felt the need to repent over on Yom Kippur.
I let my kids read pretty much anything, although I screen for sexual content. They know we share the world with people who believe differently, think differently, celebrate differently, none of which subtracts from our beliefs and obligations.
I also enjoy modern dance, although I admit that went I went to an Alvin Ailey performance a year or so ago, I felt a little uncomfortable about the male dancers in very tight costumes. Wouldn't keep me away, though, if I had a chance to go again.
P.S. My daughter spent a summer in Rachel Factor's dance camp (see DG's link) and had an amazing time!
So I am learning a lot here, I think, about shades of O, so to speak. You are out there looking at naked Catholic saints (I love that stuff myself) and bulging dancers (Ailey's group to me has lost its luster, lives off an old reputation); and I suspect Ruchi would not be ok with that stuff. In part because (I am guessing) it violates (her interp of?) some commandments and in part because it (I'm speculating) opens the door to lots of exposure to non-Jewish stuff. I feel like Ruchi is about surrounding herself with Judaism, making it the medium she lives in as much as possible. And what you say indicates that you're not so much about all-Judaism-all-the-time in the same way.
I'm not going to answer for either of the others; but part of surrounding oneself with Judaism is not just to keep out secular material, but to be more absorbed in Judaism. My friend had a young son who was at a video-watching stage (20 years ago); she decided that if he was going to be watching a video anyway, she'd prefer he was watching Uncle Moishy (and presumably soaking up more Torah) than watching Barney (which was not objectionable but lacked Torah content).
In terms of earning a living, there is much more latitude to be involved in a secular profession; most people understand that there are not enough jobs as Torah teachers, wigmakers, and scribes for everyone in the Orthodox community.
Tesyaa, even with the understanding that secular professions are necessary, my chosen career path definitely takes me beyond the typical O boundaries. But I am not a Renaissance scholar. My academic focus was on 19th century American art and history — all pretty tame stuff, and my professional focus is much more on databases than on the art itself.
SBW – I think you are correct. I intentionally, knowingly, live with a foot in each world — Orthodox Jewish and mainstream American. I am clear within myself that if I had to chose, the Judaism is more important, but I am fine with participating in both cultures. I'd define myself as Modern Orthodox if I was forced to pick a label. I work in a non-Jewish environment, went to non-Jewish universities, am encouraging my kids to get a top-notch secular education at secular colleges. Torah, mitzvot, and conscious awareness of Gd's instructions for life guide my actions but are not the only context of my life.
(P.S. I find Barney and Uncle Moishy equally insipid and annoying. Just because it has Jewish content doesn't mean it is well done.)
SBW:
Basically, if the chant were religious in nature, and that religion were idolatrous, it would not be advisable to listen. Whether it would outright forbidden, I'm not sure.
Whether you understood the language or not seems to me irrelelvant.
This includes Buddhist chants that are religious in nature, which is why some yoga classes are problematic from an halachic standpoint. I've learned a bit about yoga (there are lots of yogis in JFX) and om is "the sound of universe" – not religious in nature per se. (It's also a great word for Words With Friends.)
You ask, "Can O Jews study Christian prayer as a cultural formation–like if they work as anthropologists or something?" My guess is yes.
You ask further: "And a big one: Is Christian prayer seen as a sin against God when Christians do it? If yes, what are they supposed to pray, and where?" My best guess is no. But I think that it depends on the nature of their prayer. Whether Christianity is a monotheistic religion or not (anything other than which would constitute idolatry) is unclear. If a Christian is praying to God, that would be wonderful. If a Christian were praying to Jesus, that would be considered problematic from a Jewish perspective.
As far as kids' books go, I don't get Christmas, Halloween or Easter themed books or movies. But if it crops up unexpectedly it's not a big deal. It's not a "forbidden" issue, I don't think, but maybe a combination of idolatrous glimmers combined with glamorization, as tesyaa said. Although, if the Jewish holidays are being celebrated fully, I don't think you really need to worry about the glamorization.
While I do like to surround myself with Judaism, I don't consider myself extreme (ha! does anyone?). I do allow my kids to watch movies and read books that are not Jewish, but I screen, as miriambyk said. I imagine our screening processes would filter differently, but so what? Don't all parents screen somewhat? The difference might be in where we draw the line.
Yes, we go to the Science Center – I don't know too many O Jews who wouldn't, actually.
And FTR, I love Uncle Moishy.
Incidentally, we learned all about the Nutcracker in our music appreciation classes at the Hebrew Academy. And we all read Little House on the Prairie. It's considered really kosher in O circles.
Regarding the glamorization of Christmas, as a kid I always felt lucky that we had eight days of Chanukah, whereas the Christians had only one day of Christmas. Definitely no envy. It was only a few years ago that I finally understood why Jews envy Christians for celebrating Christmas: because not only don't they really celebrate the Jewish holidays, but they don't even realize there's something they're missing out on. If "celebrating" Chanukah consists of just lighting a few candles, if Passover means reading a book that you don't really understand (conceptually, even if you read it in English and understand the words) and eating a few ritual bites of something before you can actually have dinner, if you've never even heard of most of the other holidays, then of course you'll envy people who seem to be having fun. If you do celebrate Jewish holidays (and we have a lot of them), you certainly won't envy Christians for their two one-day holidays.
I grew up traditional but not Orthodox, but neither me nor anyone in my family seemed to have the slightest interest in celebrating Christmas. The most Christmasy thing I remember is my dad sending holiday cards to keep in touch with a few old business acquaintances – hardly a religious endorsement.
SBW, any religious theme, even a Jewish one, that's not approved by an OJ source would be problematic. Most OJs (at least on the right wing) would avoid a movie such as Disney's "Prince of Egypt", for example.
So Barchu as a theme might be problematic because it's a prayer, but so would the verses of Psalms, because any artistic interpretation of them (by a non-OJ artist) would not be traditional.
I am not particularly interested in dance, but many OJ women are. I imagine they would limit their attendance to classical pieces and OJ-themed performances.
I'm at the science center. Egypt exhibit. Lots of idolatry here.
I wonder if there's a difference between viewing ancient idolatry and modern-day idolatry. No one in the world practices the ancient Egyptian religion anymore. No one viewing it would feel a desire to worship in that way. (Well, practically no one, I can't say no one, for sure).
But seeing Christian iconography might spark someone's interest in Christianity as a living religion. Just a guess.
Interesting point, Tesyaa, about whether there is no danger in getting persuaded to a defunct religion. On the other hand it could be fodder to produce some new-age hetero-Jew stuff. But then again, anyone could take ANY cultural material as fodder for some pseudo-Jewishy worship practice.
But I am pretty interested to hear that Ruchi is taking her kids to see that stuff. I thought that non-Mod Os wouldn't do that sort of thing.
Ruchi has my email address, would be very happy to correspond, BTW.
I see that Ruchi seems to be staying on the sidelines for this, so I'll pipe in
asaik, torah judaism (a term I personally prefer to "Orthodoxy", as imo truly judaism has no "sects") prohibits getting any sort of enjoyment from any foreign "religion", this being determined by the author's beliefs at the time of his/her composition. It has nothing to do with language or specific art form used.
and yes, lots of "o" girls and women go to ballet classes as a fun sort of exercise.
(so no, I wouldn't take my children to see the egyptian exhibit at the museum.)
While in our own communities Torah Judaism (or Torah True Judaism) might be a comforting and reassuring way to refer to ourselves, I suggest that in a place where Jews of many backgrounds meet it is a poor choice of nomenclature. While Orthodoxy does claim to be the sole legitimate version of Judaism, a name that constantly puts that claim front and center can't help but be off putting to those who disagree.
Rena's quotation marks around the word "religion" got me wondering if in fact the point behind strict non-exposure to other "religions" is because O doesn't see them as religions at all. As in, not only is it a matter of one God, but also of One Religion. So in a strict interpretation, I am speculating, it would even be wrong to SAY "other religions" because that would imply that Judaism is one among others. Except biblical peoples, like Canaanites and such, are acknowledged in Scripture as having other 'religions'. Or maybe I'm wrong on that.
I can see why a lot of non-Os, and also Mod-Os, would be offended by the term "Torah [True] Judaism", as it appears to insinuate that they are "Torah False" or heretical Jews. And I see why "Orthodox" is not a well-liked term to Os. I like calling them/you Os. Not even OJs, which reinstates the denominational issue. Just Os. It can stand for Orthodox or Observant or whatever . . . although it does remind me of Akiva Tatz's overreaching interpretations of the simple circle dance.
SBW, this brings back memories of my proto-orthoprax days. When my oldest was about 4, she asked me what other religions were (I'm sure it was around the Christmas season). I explained that people who aren't Jewish worship God in different ways, have different prayers and holy days, etc. My husband wandered into the room and said nonchalantly "but we're right and they're wrong" – something like that. My proto-orthoprax self silently wondered "how is he so sure"? I put the question out of my mind for another 10 years.
At times when I had those doubts, I would remind myself that Rabbi X was a great rabbi and he believed in the truth of the Torah, so it must be all good. It took many, many years of reading (and introspection) to realize that Rabbi X is indeed very smart, but he is starting with assumptions – the chain of mesorah, etc – that I don't agree with. This was a long process.
Judaism isn't based on English, so I can't see how "Os" (as you put it) can have any opinion about whether other "religions" are religions. I don't have any problem calling them religions. If anything, the question would be whether Judaism is a religion, i.e., whether it fits into the definition that applies to all other religions. In some ways it does; in some ways it doesn't.
The Hebrew word for religion, "dat," originally meant "law" or "command." As far as I know, the Bible doesn't have a word for religion as we understand it today. The other nations have practices, gods, etc.
Larry, do you consider my description of Rabbi Kamenetsky above offensive as well?
The "Prince of Egypt" is problematic for me because it's somewhat sacrilegious to bring our holiest ancestors down to cartoon level.
I'm pretty sure the idolatry thing has nothing to do with likelihood of following. It's just to be avoided like the plague, across the board.
"Religions" indicates that they are considered "false religions." I know that is highly incendiary, but the Torah is pretty adamant on this one. I just want to be clear that monotheistic religions are fine, like Islam for example, as long as its adherents follow the seven Noahide laws (no idolatry, immorality, murder, stealing, abusing live animals for food, cursing God; and they must set up court systems). In the Torah the terminology is not to "serve other gods" and in fact the same exact word (elohim) is used as that used for God (capital G indicating the real deal). The word literally means "powers." When you say that Hebrew word, and you mean God, you don't pronounce the full word. It's customary that, aside from proper prayer, to pronounce the "h" as a "k" to alter its meaning, since it's holy. Whereas if you use that same word to mean false gods, you DO pronounce it fully.
Tesyaa, I am curious. What would be your answer to your children now? We're both wrong? Anyone might be right? Each way is right for its adherents?
I don't mind your calling Rabbi Kamentsky 'one of the leaders of the Torah world today." How would you feel about someone calling Rabbi Neil Gillman the same thing? How about referring to Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel or Rabbi Saul Leibeman as 'two of the great Torah scholars of the past century?'.
I would say that no one really knows the truth about God, and I don't believe that any faith can claim to be following God's will. All faiths think they are right and others are wrong. This is going to sound trite, and antithetical to what I practiced for 25+ years, but the main thing is to help others and to leave the world a little better than it was when you came into it. If faith helps you do that, that's a good thing.
Some more thoughts about 'the leaders of the Torah world.' It seems to be the case that inclusiveness flows more strongly towards the world of observance than away from it. C teshuvot (written halachic decisions) often cite O rabbis, the reverse is essentially never the case except to dispute them, and that rarely. I've don't recall seeing a C teshuvah cite R rabbis.
Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox discusses how the academic work of Rabbi Lieberman relating to the influence of the Greek language on the Talmud was used by the O movement in conjuction with a policy of never citing him by name.
So calling R. Kamentzky 'a leader of the Torah world' may not be offensive to someone heterodox because R. Kamentzky is part of his Torah world as well. Call O Judaism Torah Judaism is offensive because it is specifically designating what the heterodox see as part of Judaism as being the whole of it.
Perhaps someone who is actually C or R would like to give their opinions and spare me the embarrassment of trying to deduce what is or is not offensive to them?
I'm Conservative and find the "Torah [True] Judaism" thing horribly offensive. It sets my teeth on edge, perhaps because nearly every time I've heard it used, it's been a prelude to a bunch of denominational bashing and insistence that you can't be observant and non-Orthodox, that non-Orthodox Jews are ignorant and/or [i]apikorsim[/i], et cetera. But even without that, I find it an incredibly condescending way to refer to Orthodoxy, and it doesn't generally put me in a mindset that is geared toward any kind of productive dialogue about much of anything relating to Judaism or religion.
On the other hand, referring to a particular rabbi as "a leader of the Torah world" doesn't necessarily raise my hackles in the same way, because the fact is that whether I agree with a rabbi's positions or not, I can still concede that he (or she!) is learned, has contributed to the understanding of Torah, et cetera. So sure, Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, for instance, was a leader of the Torah world, though I suspect we would have disagreed on virtually everything about anything. Of course, as Larry says, it cuts both ways. I also think that Rabbi Heschel is a leader of the Torah world. I do not think that most Orthodox Jews would share that view, but I could find myself surprised by the reality, which wouldn't be the first time.
Also, referring to another religion as a "religion," to me, is the absolute height of disrespect. Yes, the Torah says that they're not true. No, I don't believe that Jesus, for example, is the Messiah. It doesn't matter. How would a non-Jew feel, seeing their religion referred to in that way? I know how I've felt when people have referred to Judaism as a "cult," or have informed me that the victims of anti-Semitic persecution are in Hell, because they didn't have a saving faith in Jesus. The latter attitude, in particular, was what helped drive me away from Christianity once and for all. It's one thing to articulate your beliefs in a matter of fact way as part of a larger dialogue. It's something else entirely to refer to someone else's religion using scare quotes, as if it's not actually a religion or a belief system. You're never going to get to the dialogue part if you do that, because why in the world would anyone trust you enough to have that kind of a conversation? I certainly wouldn't talk to a Christian about religion if their opening salvo was, "Just so you know, Judaism as it's practiced today isn't really even a religion at all." First, because according to the modern, non-halachic definition of "religion," that's a patently ridiculous statement. Second, because if someone can't even extend me the basic courtesy of respecting that I hold particular beliefs, regardless of their position as to the truth of those beliefs, we really have nowhere else to go, discussion-wise. I'm not going to converse about something as intimate and personal about my religious beliefs with someone who won't even acknowledge that what I'm practicing is, in fact, a religion.
Honestly, I think that writing something like that on a blog that's supposed to be about kiruv and religious dialogue is a chilul Hashem. Not only is it going to leave non-Jews with a hugely negative impression of what Judaism is about, but it would drive most of the heterodox Jews I know away from traditional observance, as well. I'm not talking about saying, "No, we don't believe that," or even, "Well, per Judaism, that's idolatry," but to talk about non-Jewish religions as "religions"? No. It's snarky and rude and just awful. On the other hand, if your goal is to avoid honest but respectful dialogue with people of differing viewpoints, I guess it's really effective, so there's that.
Are you addressing me or rena?
I don't understand why people are getting so worked up about the quotation marks. I can see why you'd be frustrated with someone insisting that your beliefs are not, in fact, your beliefs (I would find it highly annoying and not want to continue such a pointless conversation), but I don't think anyone on this blog is saying that followers of other religions don't/didn't actually believe in them.
Whether something is genuinely a religion depends on your definition of the word "religion." Of course, every dictionary defines it slightly differently.
Merriam-Webster: "the service and worship of God or the supernatural." (The capitalized "God" excludes idolatrous worship, but "supernatural" presumably doesn't.)
Macmillan: "the belief in the existence of a god or gods"; "a system of beliefs in a god or gods that has its own ceremonies and traditions"
American Heritage: "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe"; "A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship"; "A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader"
Incidentally, it doesn't particularly bother me if Christians think I'll be spending eternity in hell. They can think what they want. I think they're wrong.
Larry, Reform and Conservative movements are pluralistic, so by definition they accept Orthodoxy as an acceptable way to practice Judaism. Orthodoxy is not pluralistic, so it doesn't have that same openness. (But if Reform and Conservative believe that Orthodoxy is acceptable, then that, too, should be accepted.)
If that doesn't answer your question, I am happy to answer it further privately.
I'm responding to whomever is under the impression that referring to someone as practicing a "religion" is acceptable behavior that other people aren't going to find hugely dismissive and offensive, and that because the Torah says that only Judaism is a real religion, that somehow mitigates making other people around you feel like garbage.
I don't understand why people are getting so worked up about the quotation marks.
Because it's blatantly disrespectful and condescending. "Oh, look at those cute little Hindus, they think that what they're doing is practicing a religion, but we know the truth, don't we?" That's basically what's being said here. You know, they don't refer to scare quotes and air quotes as "douche fingers" for nothing. It's one of the very best ways to completely insult someone anyway, without using that approach to refer to their religious beliefs. It says, very clearly, that you don't respect their religion- more than that, you don't even think that their beliefs actually qualify as religious beliefs in the first place. I don't see how saying, "But the Torah says so!" is going to mitigate that for anyone who isn't Jewish (or, maybe more accurately, Jewish with the same view of Torah and halacha as you). Why the heck would they care if the Torah says that that's acceptable when they don't believe that it's a holy document? I usually laugh when someone tries to convince me that Jesus was the Messiah by quoting the New Testament, because seriously, what relevance could that possibly have to me? None, that's what.
I sense that we're starting to wade into another of those conversations that makes me wonder what on earth I'm doing on this blog in the first place.
It would be good if you could specify to whom you are addressing your comments. Frankly, your summary does not reflect the way I feel at all, so I will figure you were not addressing me. If you do have an issue about something specific that I wrote, I'm happy to clarify.
"Religions" indicates that they are considered "false religions." I know that is highly incendiary, but the Torah is pretty adamant on this one."
That, to me, sounds very much like a defense of referring to various non-Jewish religions as "religions." You acknowledge that this is highly incendiary, but the impression that I took away from that comment was, "Well, it's what the Torah says, so what can you do?" Even if the Torah says that non-Jewish religions are false religions (which is pretty basic, really, because every religion's default position is that they're right and the others are wrong), I don't think that excuses being dismissive and condescending about it. Which is how I take putting quotation marks around the word "religion" when you're talking about faiths that are not Judaism, and I don't think I'm particularly unique or overly sensitive in that regard, except possibly in the sense that I'm willing to say something about it.
It's entirely possible that part of the reason I'm reacting to this so strongly is because I have had people do the exact same thing to me. I'm not a Jew, I'm a "Jew." And it's totally fine to refer to me that way (and treat me that way), because that person's interpretation of the Torah backs them up. That's not how you talk about someone you respect.
Diplogeek, I agree with you 100%. Do unto others, and all that. We must treat people of all types and all faiths and all religions with the respect we desire for ourselves. It isn't my blog, but I think you absolutely belong here, and it is valuable to have these conversations that sensitize people to the perspectives of others.
Diplogeek, before I answer, explain, defend, I want to clarify something. I don't know what your starting point is with me, but it seems that sometimes you react strongly and accuse me of things/attitudes that are not accurate. I don't know if your starting point is that I am judgmental and arrogant, and therefore you are seeing that in my words. If you do feel that way, it is indeed a mystery to me why you would keep reading.
But if your starting point with me is that I'm a pretty nice person and not judgmental, then even if you disagree/dislike some of the things I say (although on the issues themselves it seems we agree more than disagree), you could think, "Gosh, that sounded pretty condescending. Let me clarify if that's what she really meant." In other words, to give me the benefit of the doubt. Because with all this talk of being condescending and dismissive, I'm feeling judged by you. You don't really ask me questions about what I meant or what I believe. You rank me out.
Sometimes, I actually just type too quickly and am not discerning with my words. If I really were a closet bigot I would never in a million years start or maintain a blog like this.
So let me clarify. In the quote you italicized above, I was using rena's wording and answering SBW's question about her comment, following the quote marks as SBW did. I personally do not use "air quotes" to refer to the religions of others. Not only don't I do it because it looks bad, it's not in my orientation to make fun of others. It really just isn't. I don't even think condescendingly of others, usually. (I'm not perfect.) (I'm usually too busy worrying about others looking down on me for my odd ways.)
I never said that no religion other than Judaism is a religion. In fact, I clearly stated that any monotheistic faith is. I would add that when I see/hear/learn of other faiths, even those that would be Biblically considered idolatrous, I still note that its adherents are faithful people and are seeking to connect spiritually, and I admire that, and I know that I can learn something from everyone. The Torah itself notes this.
Ruchi, I'm aware that there are occasions where I shoot first and ask questions later, and for that, I apologize. My opinion of you, based on what I have read here, is much more in line with the second paragraph of your post than the first, which, I think, may be why I sometimes react so strongly to some of the things you post (or, as more often tends to be the case, some of the things fellow readers post). It's like a big splash of cold water, reminding me, "Don't get too comfortable, because ultimately, this blog is still espousing a lot of views that you find hugely problematic. Ultimately, the person writing this stuff probably doesn't even consider you Jewish." In the second case, I freely admit that that's my own insecurity and issue to deal with. But in the first, particularly in cases where we're discussing how we relate (or are supposed to relate) as Jews with the non-Jewish world, I sometimes (and lately, it feels like more often, though that may just be my perception) read things that really bother me here in this comments section, usually due to the insularity or dismissiveness that I see in what's written.
Lately, I've avoided reading the comments sections on posts where I think it's going to degenerate into this kind of stuff, because I know it's going to make me irritable and frustrated, which isn't what I aim for when I get out of bed in the morning. In this case, it's a post about Hebrew names; you wouldn't think that that would be very controversial. But I do understand that discussions wander and things get away from the original subject.
Here's the thing: when someone talks about non-Jewish people, they're talking about my friends, my colleagues, and my family. So yes, it does hit very close to home when someone posts something that appears to be completely dismissive of the piety and devotion of all these people that I know who take their respective faiths very seriously and would be incredibly offended and bothered to read that someone doesn't consider what they're doing to be a legitimate religion. And even saying, "In fact, I clearly stated that any monotheistic faith is," leaves out a heck of a lot of religious traditions, speaking as someone who lives in a place where the vast majority of people who practice a religion practice some form of non-Abrahamic, monotheistic religion.
Diplogeek: I think this argument is purely semantic and is getting confused with substance. Obviously, Judaism considers other religions wrong. As you said, all religions do. For that matter, everyone with an opinion on any subject believes that people who disagree are wrong.
But whether something is a religion depends on your definition of the word "religion" (I'd put that in italics if I could; these are not scare quotes). Apparently people here are defining the word in two different ways:
1.You understand it to mean whatever people sincerely believe about God, gods, supernatural forces, etc., whether or not those beliefs are accurate.
2. Some people, for reasons that I don't know, seem to understand it as being limited to one true religion.
My point is that the second definition is not what the word means (look it up in the dictionary), and that the truth or falsehood or someone's beliefs and the rightness or wrongness of someone's practices are totally irrelevant to whether something is a religion. You seem to be assuming that everyone is therefore using the first definition (which would make some comments dismissive and condescending), but my impression is that that isn't the case.
Personally, I prefer "religion" to "faith" (again, the quotation marks are to refer to the words as words and are not scare quotes) because I see it as being broader. Faith refers only to beliefs, whereas religion refers to beliefs and practices.
Clearly, it's condescending to tell people what they do or do not believe or whether they are or are not sincere, but I don't think anyone here was doing that.
Dg, I think maybe this is not about semantics OR substance. I think it's mostly about attitude toward that substance.
But that attitude is being inferred from the semantics.
This is true. I think it's fallacious to dismiss something as just semantics. The way we express ourselves reflects (or should reflect) our attitudes towards things and the way we conduct ourselves. So yes, there is an element of that. The thing is, even if the beliefs being expressed here fall completely under the second possibility DG mentions, I still find that objectionable, because to me it comes across as, "Well, you're very sincere, and that's laudable, but because what you're practicing is not X, it's not actually a religion. If only you knew the truth that I know, well, then you'd try practicing a real religion." I am not saying that this necessarily the intent of people who express this view, only that that is how that view can come across to others. There's a reason that this particular set of semantics is, as Ruchi put it, incendiary. And it's not because anyone who doesn't hold this particular view is such a sensitive soul that they can't handle someone disagreeing with them, I don't think.
As far as why this has hit such a nerve with me, to me it echoes the previous discussions that occurred in the comments section of that posts about what constitutes "Chosen" and the one on intermarriage. SBW articulated this feeling much better than me, so since I am (ironically, given my moniker) not terribly diplomatic, at least at the moment, I'll crib her words instead:
I felt increasingly a kind of queasiness and distaste. I then found myself shaking my head and rolling my eyes–-at myself. Who did I *think* I was talking to on this blog all this time? These are (mostly) *Orthodox Jews*. The real thing. It was all out there explicitly. Dating only for marriage. Swinging chickens for atonement (ok, sometimes money instead of chickens). Asking their rabbis for all kinds of advice on all kinds of matters. All straight from Moses, no changes. And so forth. Kind of interesting and exotic, but not my world. Not what I want to be, not what I want my kids to be.
As she goes on to point out, this is exactly what it says on the tin, so I don't know why I should read certain things and suddenly feel so dismayed when I'm fully aware that that's the position of such-and-such rabbi or Talmud tractate. So I suppose I'm more irritated with myself than anything else. I apologize for taking that out on you, because that isn't fair, and it wasn't my intention when I initially posted (just to answer Larry's question, I promise!).
Diplogeek, I appreciate your honest response.
Now reread SBW's quote from my perspective, complete with the asterisks around the word "Orthodox." Can you see how that would leave ME feeling queasy and distasted? Dismissed? Eye-rolled at?
This resonates with me, and explains a lot of my frustration at still being outwardly identified with the Orthodox community when I don't hold the beliefs anymore. I don't want people to look at me and think "wig, orthodox, anti-marriage equality".
Yesterday one of my co-workers asked if I lived in Brooklyn. I was like, why would you think that?? Then it hit me, he's making the obvious assumption.
When I wrote that it was absolutely intended to indicate eye-rolling. I tried to couch it as a narration of my inward reflection, in order mitigate the dismissiveness I was expressing, i.e. to acknowledge that it was a feeling I had. I'm not sure that explanation is clear. Trying again: the asterisks were, yes, to exaggeratedly show I was feeling dismissive but also that I KNEW that that was *my feeling* and not just an unreflected dismissal. It was to raise that dismissiveness I was feeling as a theme, not just to perform dismissal.
That dismissive feeling came up in the context of feeling like I had run up against some of the most distasteful (to me) things that I imagine Os think. And they/you seemed to me to think it in an unreflected way, i.e. they/you didn't know that they/you "think" it, but just believe it is true. Which, yes, is how belief and most thinking work. And in a way that goes on a lot here, and everywhere.
So I imagine Os think certain things. And some of my imaginings on that point are accurate. But sometimes the blog exposes that I'm wrong with those imaginings, or that there are nuances I didn't get. Which is the fun part, for me. And also if someone else on here gets some nuance thanks to what I say.
I happen to really enjoy, for lack of a better word, operating on the edge of "what I know" and exposing that to discomfiting ideas and challenges. Or at least that's how I conceive of why I enjoy this blog and other things that show me where my own assumptions are and what is possible to expand in my thinking. Being on the edge of uncomfortable with what I think I know can also get me defensive when certain buttons are pushed. Expressing that defensiveness AS defensiveness (with the punctuation around "*Orthodox*") is about as close as I can get to an honest but relatively tactful response.
But I think I have it a lot easier than Diplogeek. First, I'm born Jewish so I don't have to worry about how Os or anyone identifies me. Second, I am far less invested in Judaism than she is. For those reasons I can usually just look at things people with a kind of a distanced, ethnological attitude when it feels "all wrong" to me. Mostly.
Tesyaa, which part of this exchange resonates with you? Diplogeek's frustration with O views of who's Jewish or my eye-rolling (at myself) toward Os?
Sorry to be long.
This is the sentence that resonated with me: "Kind of interesting and exotic, but not my world. Not what I want to be, not what I want my kids to be."
Myself – I don't want to be stereotyped as having stereotypical OJ beliefs just because I look like oan OJ, mostly act like an OJ, and live among OJs. I don't even mind living the lifestyle, if I could be more open about my beliefs. (Unacceptable beliefs, to be sure, but not just extreme beliefs. In my community it was socially unacceptable to have an Obama lawn sign. I don't mean that my house would be egged, but my husband thought it would upset a lot of people and he'd rather we not do that. FTR, he supported Obama too).
But I can't be open about my beliefs without losing my place in the community (to some degree at least). For my family's sake, it's better not to do that.
Tesyaa, I don't like it when people think of me as a stereotypical Orthodox Jew either. And I do identify as Orthodox. So I don't mind if someone thinks, "You're Orthodox so I assume you keep Shabbos" or "You're Orthodox so I assume you believe in God," but I do mind if someone thinks, "You're Orthodox so I assume you read only Jewish books" (I read secular novels all the time) or "You're Orthodox so I assume you wouldn't want anything to do with karate" (which I don't do, but I've thought of doing it).
I guess probably most of us don't like being stereotyped incorrectly. It feels delegitimizing.
I guess I agree, but I have stepped out of the box and I no longer identify with normative Orthodox Jewish behaviors and beliefs (even though I usually model the behaviors). For example, someone who thinks "she's Orthodox so she must be opposed to homosexual relations" would be wrong. Or someone who thinks "she's Orthodox so she believes in modesty" would be wrong. (I do dress modestly so as not to offend people, and out of habit, but not because I believe it's necessary – I don't think there's anything wrong with someone wearing a tank top and shorts. I don't think there's anything at all objectionable about it).
This is my personal conflict – not that there aren't other people like me, but there are not a lot, and I don't expect the community to change its beliefs just because I have. But I wouldn't mind a little tolerance. Like, I understand people would be upset to see me in a tank top and shorts, but what if I wanted to wear loose pants around my neighborhood? Why should that make me a bit of a pariah?
I know the answer to my own question. The people who have chosen to live in my frum community WANT to be there. They wouldn't understand why would live there if they didn't believe, or didn't want to toe the line on most matters. And they don't want their kids to see their friend's mom doing something inappropriate. How can they explain to their kids that wearing pants is very wrong, if their friend's mom is doing it, without demonizing me? It's awkward. And people I know just don't seem to accept that there are shades of wrong. The people I know think that cutting a fingernail on Shabbos is not much different, morally, than theft or murder. They know intellectually that one is worse (I hope), but it's hard for them to differentiate, from a religious standpoint.
SBW, that's my point. I read it, and it hurt, but I absolutely understood where it came from. (It still hurts to have someone say they don't want their kids to be like you.) In other words, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean it in a snarky or bigoted way, EVEN THOUGH your opinions hurt. In fact, it's kind of like feeling sore after a workout. It hurts, but you're glad you did it. So I wouldn't want these conversations to end, even though they hurt.
I'm asking for the same courtesy from you and Diplogeek, and anyone else who feels as you do.
(DG and tesyaa, I didn't mean to sidestep your conversation. I am following with interest.)
I spent a lot of time last night trying to figure out what I wanted to contribute to this conversation. This morning's comments have clarified that.
DG wrote: "Obviously, Judaism considers other religions wrong. As you said, all religions do. For that matter, everyone with an opinion on any subject believes that people who disagree are wrong. "
DG, why is that OBVIOUS? Do you really think that everyone with an opinion considers everyone else WRONG? To me that is arrogant and conceited. Perhaps it is a by-product of my innate low self-esteem, but I have no problem with the idea that I believe what I believe but I could be wrong. Or that there may be more than one right answer. I know at my core that there is a single Gd, creator of the universe. But I also fully understand why that idea doesn't make sense to a lot of people, and respect that they have reached a different conclusion. I believe whole-heartedly that Gd gave my ancestors a set of guidelines for this world, and that I am supposed to follow those rules. But I can't say I *know* that for a fact. It is a matter of faith and belief. I'd say I'm 95% certain, or some days 99% certain. And I don't believe that Jesus is the messiah, yet I appreciate that my devout Christian friends do. That is what they've been taught, what they've been told, and it makes sense to them. They see support for that in the world around them, as much as I think the evidence is lacking. Why does respecting that have to detract from my beliefs and commitment?
Another piece of this is the idea of judging one another. Tesyaa feels judged and bound by her community. Diplogeek feels judged by the O's on the blog. Why can't we leave the judging for Gd? Is it my place to decide the validity of someone else's religion or belief system, be it Catholic, Buddhist, or athiest? Who gave me that authority? Can't I refrain from it, educate my children to avoid it, yet still respect another person's right to practice it? If there is a Gd, let Him be the only judge. (And if there is no Gd, SBW gets the last laugh.)
Miriam, I so very much appreciate how you put all that. It's so clear. And a great ideal.
If there really is a commandment not to judge others, why doesn't it get more air time? And some of the commandments seem to be group-oriented rather than individual-oriented, so I can see how community norms would end up existing even where individuals try not to judge.
Here's the 'but': Doesn't it take a kind of double-consciousness to accomplish this approach that you have? The attitude of "I know at my core and believe wholeheartedly" combined, truly, with "But I might be wrong and I'll leave God to judge"? It is a hard balancing act. And not because of any self-esteem issue, I think. Wouldn't "perfect faith" not leave open the "but I might be wrong"?
Humility would be the word for this if we looked at it as a character trait. But I think there is something more than character at stake, because it's just not that easy to have a double consciousness. And it is hard to 'persuade' someone to that double consciousness (or to humility).
Miriam, that's not what I meant AT ALL!!!!!!! (Is that emphatic enough?) All I meant is that on any point on which I am convinced that I'm right, I also believe that those who disagree with me are factually wrong. So all religions consider all other religions wrong on certain points (because they must disagree on something or they wouldn't be different religions).
But just because I think someone is factually wrong about something doesn't mean that I think they're morally deficient or not worthy of respect. The two have nothing to do with each other. And there are lots of issues on which I have opinions that I'm not sure of. I'm full of uncertainty. And I often consult other people. But as long as I think that X=Y, I necessarily think that "X does not equal Y" is a factually wrong statement. That's all I meant. It has nothing to do with being right or respecting other people's rights. I think Christians are wrong about certain facts; Christians think I'm wrong about certain facts. OK. So we disagree.
Did you think I meant morally wrong?
Tesyaa, those kids are going to see other people doing things they've been taught not to do at some point in their lives, so their parents are going to have to come up with some explanation at some point, hopefully without demonizing anyone inside or outside their community.
I don't think there's a commandment not to judge… but there's a commandment to treat others as you would like to be treated, and realistically, that would include not judging.
But there's also a commandment to rebuke (in certain specific circumstances), and how can you rebuke unless you first judge?
"Perfect faith" is just a translation of a poetic term, so I wouldn't put too much weight on that. And miriambyk admits to a small amount of doubt (which I think is healthy for anyone). But some people don't doubt, and it does, I think, make them a bit more judgmental. They may be super understanding of a person's issues and a person's unique background, but bottom line, they do feel that a nonobservant person is, objectively, doing things wrong.
Take Ruchi's comment below: That's what I believe about the Jewish soul. Deep down, it does believe. It's just covered over by lots of stuff and distractions.
Personally, although I love Ruchi, I don't think she can know more about my soul and what it believes than I do. But a believer feels somehow qualified to know that. But Ruchi, don't worry, I don't feel offended or even condescended to. Remember, I've been in the believer's seat myself.
I was so touched by that "deep down" statement by Ruchi, although then also weirdly at the same time repelled by it a little bit. I have reread it a few times and am still not sure how I feel.
There is an injunction to give the benefit of the doubt.
The question is, is belief "belief" or "knowledge"? Opinion or fact? DG is stating it more mathematically, and the rest of you more emotionally.
This is all starting to remind me of this post:
http://outoftheorthobox.blogspot.com/2012/07/you-have-right-to-remain-wrong.html
Miriambyk, I am puzzled at your examples of judging on this blog. They only go one way, but I see judging going two ways.
tesyaa, I don't feel qualified to know about your "soul" more than you do. Just as you don't believe in mesorah, I do. And so I "buy" the body of law and thought that goes with it. I didn't one day come up with an independent notion that I am the expert on souls. It's from a place of humility: that I don't actually know anything, invent anything, originate anything. I look to Sinai as my starting point.
I'm not always in touch with my OWN soul for crying out loud.
But if I may I have some questions for you about souls and such.
What DO you believe about souls? Are they real? Do they exist? What are they? Where do they go after we die? I hope you don't mind my asking (one day you can write a guest post for me on "The 10 Things Not To Say To Orthoprax Jews").
I don't know that I believe in an everlasting, noncorporeal soul. I think of the "soul" as the essence of a person's feelings, values, beliefs and needs. While I don't think our soul continues to exist after we die (of course, I have no basis for this, it's just a guess), what we do with our soul here on earth is very important.
I meant to add that while I don't think there's an everlasting soul, it really doesn't matter to me whether there is or not. There is nothing I would change about my behavior if I thought that the soul was somehow permanent. My job is to do my best here on earth. If there's an everlasting soul, that would be some kind of unexpected bonus.
My examples of feeling judged were just pulled from this thread, no deeper purpose. Of course judging – or perhaps more relevantly, feeling judged – goes in both directions. On the other hand, Ruchi, this is your home turf. You are hosting the party, so your view is the starting position for all of our rambling conversations.
Just to respond to my own comment 🙂
I think a 4 year old might be satisfied with the answer that no one really knows the true nature of God or what he wants, but we do our best to keep the mitzvos because it makes us better people. (I'd silently remind myself "usually").
An older child would be more likely to question the point of keeping mitzvos if we don't know if God really wants us to. I would then explain about family customs and continuity: how keeping the Torah connects us to our family; how it's our family tradition (even though I didn't grow up Orthodox, my father's parents were more or less Shomer Shabbos, and we have pictures of my mother's great-grandmother Brocha in her sheitel); and that those are good reasons to keep mitzvos. Of course, I'd remind them how Shabbos is wonderful.
With an older teen I would certainly get into the fact that we have no historicity (aside from the unbroken-mesora argument which I don't buy) to prove that any of this is God's command, so if a commandment seems immoral [i.e. homosexuality as an abomination] we should not abide by it.
And that's kind of what I've done so far, while remaining within the "Orthodox" community. I don't think my husband loves all of it, but it's my obligation as a parent to teach my kids what I believe to be right.
This is fascinating, because it doesn't sound NOT Orthodox to me. Except, I suppose, dismissing commands that seem immoral. But Orthoprax plus "the mitzvahs are our custom and a good way to live" sounds to me–but yeah, what do I know?– . . . pretty Orthodox.
Do Os really have to believe all of it to be O? How much is that belief about what it means to be part of the community vs. what you really HAVE to believe to be O? Ruchi even said that not all Os believe in the angels (I love the idea that they get irritated by Aramaic!). And can belief even be more like "belief", as in, not deep in my deepest heart but sort of ok, I'll accept it. Or, we're not sure but it's how we live anyway?
Does Judaism define what counts as belief? How deep does it have to go?
When I said not all O believe it, I mean the same way some O do other things that are counter to Torah. It's not an Orthodox belief (that angels don't exist), but some Orthodox people just can't believe it.
This reminds me of the Messiah conversation. Yes for, not deep in my deepest heart but sort of ok, I'll accept it. Kind of like how tesyaa describes her proto-Orthoprax thoughts.
You don't have to do anything to be O, because it's not a "real" classification. There's no governing body that decides you are or aren't. Basically, if you're shomer shabbos (don't drive/activate electricity, to strip it to its barest bones), you're O.
Judaism does define it. It's the 13 principles of faith. It's an ideal. If you're Orthodox, you are presumably trying to adhere/strengthen these 13 each day. Here are the 13.
http://www.ou.org/torah/rambam.htm
What is 'perfect faith'? If it's an ideal, and yet you assert it while recognizing you don't have it (which is why you need to strengthen it), that is a paradoxical assertion, no?
When Os talk about strengthening their faith, it usually means making one's beliefs dominant in one's life. For example, even if you sincerely believe that God is always watching you, you might do something wrong. Why? Because while you were under the sway of your desires, they overpowered your awareness that God is always watching you.
This suggests that 'belief' is something solid and static that you can rely on. So is doubt, or wavering, not part of 'perfect faith'? It sounds like it shouldn't be, but then again, can God really expect humans not to doubt or waver?
It's a good question. Consider it one of your favorite paradoxes. Maybe kind of like saying "I love you" to your spouse even when you don't feel loving. It's the right thing to do, and it might just lead to more lovingness. Also, you should be working on your marriage in conjunction with saying the words. Deep down, you really do have love somewhere in your heart. That's what I believe about the Jewish soul. Deep down, it does believe. It's just covered over by lots of stuff and distractions.
Ok, I just had a flash of all of Judaism going to couples counseling (or group counseling, I guess), because it seems from this that the various stripes of Jews are disagreeing about the same things, and sort of for the same reasons, and ending up frustrated with each other. That is: Ruchi suggests that Os think there is only one Judaism anyway (hence O frustration with the 'creation' of C&R, and with the naming of O by same, as 'denominations'); but I guess a believer like I describe above could say, "Yes, I agree, there is only one Judaism, and you Os are making the lines so sharp that YOU are creating the divisions here where there don't have to be any, which makes 'us' give ourselves and you a name so that we can claim our position as a real Jewish position and not just a deficient version of your position."
Maybe this issue is really clear to everyone else, I just never understood it before now. Or never as the same kinds of conflicts that lots of relationships have, around defining who is right and who is being rigid and who is being defensive.
That's weird..we just posted almost the same thing at the same time. Should I tell you what makes me sad? I never like to be shifty about the truth. And I really like to believe that if there's a relationship, a trust, the truth can be shared, and even though it's not always fun to hear it, if it's clear that it's coming from a sincere and caring place, it will be OK. That's why I answer tough questions here truthfully. I will never put out offensive information, but if you ask me a question, I will not avoid it and I will not lie. And I would hate to stop doing that.
I think your analogy is pretty accurate. Except that non-O is pluralistic, and O is just not. And can't be.
What about the nature of the way that *Machloket* functions?
Among the rising generation of young C I also see decreasing tolerance for pluralism, especially with regard to egalitarianism. This decreasing tolerance is not helped by O's 'glad you can be pluralist, but we just can't be' attitude.
Ruchi, I have no doubt you implement this attitude in a kind way. Do you refer to rebbetzinrock's husband as Rabbi? Do you call non-O rabbis 'clergypersons'? Do you think that O's lack of pluralism requires that sort of approach to people? I know people who do.
I listen to MO rabbis who are outraged by the way that the charedi Israeli rabbinate refuses to accept their conversions, and I wonder how much of this is actually midah k'neged midah (what comes around goes around.) After all, chareidi rabbis aren't pluralistic – they just can't be.
Since I believe in pluralism, that's why I don't define myself as Orthodox, but merely Orthoprax, and I'm mainly Orthoprax for logistical reasons.
Larry, I do. And your flippant restatement is dismissive. I am anything but flippant about my inability to be pluralistic. I am in pain over having to choose between values I hold dear and the risk of hurting my fellow Jews.
I am anything but flippant about my inability to be pluralistic. I am in pain over having to choose between values I hold dear and the risk of hurting my fellow Jews.
I think that's a beautiful statement, and I'm sure you would still make that statement if the last word was changed to "humans".
Absolutely.
Adam, I don't understand your question.
Beit Shamai and Beis Hillel were clearly tolerant of each other, yet neither were tolerant of the Tsadukim (Sadducees). "Except that non-O is pluralistic, and O is just not. And can't be." But O should be somewhat *pluralistic*, since although it's not always the case, the Modern Orthodox, Litvish, Sephardim, and Chassidish groups (which are all within the realm of O) should in theory all be able to get along.
While not a child, the OU's recent decision to make certifying the restaurant Jezebel contingent on changing their name is another example of the belief in the power of names. See