This is the post I didn’t want to write.
I wanted to pretend it wasn’t a problem. Wasn’t an issue. Wasn’t the elephant in the room.
The first time I heard this accusation I was flummoxed. What? Of course Reform Jews are Jewish. Where did that even come from?? Where do people even get these things from?? How do people believe these things about us?
But I think I understand things a little better now. And that’s good news and bad news. This blog has helped crystallize for me what exactly the issue is. In Judaism, there’s a teaching:
I’ve learned much from all my teachers. But from my students most of all.
That’s how I feel about all those who read and comment on this blog. And here’s what I’ve learned (and please hang on to the end; this is like a geometry proof. If you hate geometry, hang on anyway; it’s like a recipe):
1. Orthodox people define Judaism very technically. Either you’re born to a Jewish mother, or you convert according to halacha (Jewish law).
2. However, Reform Jews (I think) define Judaism more conditionally. If you feel Jewish, act Jewish, raise the kids Jewish, were raised Jew-ish, you’re Jewish.
3. In some cases, the Orthodox view will be more inclusive (like when a born Jew celebrates Christmas, wears a cross, burns the Israeli flag, and eats pepperoni pizza, he’s still as Jewish as Moses, according to Orthodox philosophy).
4. In some cases, the Reform view will be more inclusive (like when someone is born to a Jewish father but not a Jewish mother, he is still Jewish if he behaves Jewishly, according to Reform philosophy).
5. Therefore, since Reform Jews tie identity with behavior, they think Orthodox Jews do, too.
6. Therefore, a Reform Jew who isn’t very observant might assume that the Orthodox don’t consider him Jewish, since he figures that if he were Orthodox, he wouldn’t consider himself Jewish.
7. This is not true, since the Orthodox tie identity to technical status only (while acknowledging that observance is very important but simply not a condition for status).
8. That’s the good news.
9. The bad news is that since Orthodoxy asserts that only technical status determines Jewishness, conversion can become a sticking point.
10. However, this is highly dependent on personal circumstances and each situation is taken case-by-case.
11. Finally, I consider issues of personal status to be extremely private and unless there’s a practical reason that someone is asking me or needs to be told for halachic (Jewish law) reasons, I don’t intervene in this area.
12. Of all the things I deal with in Jewish education, this is by far the most sensitive and potentially hurtful: who is and isn’t a Jew?
13. I wish I never had to hurt anyone’s feelings and that my religious beliefs and standards never had to make anyone feel bad.
14. In the vast majority of cases, they don’t.
How are you used to thinking about identity – Jewish (technical) or Jew-ish (behavior-based)?
UPDATE: May 8, 2012 – Due to the unprecedented number of comments below, you must scroll to the bottom of the page and click “load more” to view the more recent comments.
numbers 5 & 6 were a very valuable insight for me – thx
This is a very interesting insight. I think that you are right. I am a convert and I feel fairly comfortable telling this to most religious Jews, but I rarely tell nonreligious Jews and never non-Jews. Over the past 26 years I have found that the first group considers me to be a Jew, but the second group? not always. and the last? I really do not like the reactions I have received.i am interested to read other people's reactions.
I don't think it is or will be or even "can" be, but I sort a wish it boiled down to actions and behaviour, basically good behaviour earns you the title , general bad behaviour excludes you from wearing it.
An interesting wish. But then we would never have to own anyone who behaves badly… (is that the good news or the bad news?)
I think its important for things to be factual, as in the author's use of the word, "technical". I would compare it to a spouses status. If a man is married to a woman, she is his wife, even if he is in love with a different woman. The husband's behavior, his love for another, doesnt change the fact, the status of who his wife is. I think when trying to seek/uncover truth, technical should be more important than behavioral. It should also be comforting to know that even though you can't mitzvah your way into Judaism, you can't sin your way out either.
OOh – I LOVE that. That last line is brilliant.
Ruchi, this list explains the concept from both sides so well. The position you're in, being active with all kinds of Jews, really helps those of us on the outside (or inside, as the case may be) to see the bigger picture. You're doing great work, and anyone who knows you knows that you would never attempt to hurt someone, so if it happens there's got to be a good reason.
2. However, Reform Jews (I think) define Judaism more conditionally. If you feel Jewish, act Jewish, raise the kids Jewish, were raised Jew-ish, you're Jewish.
While there may be some Reform Jews who feel this way, this is not the official position of the Reform movement. An individual is Jewish either through conversion or if the following conditions are met: born to a Jewish parent AND is reared solely as a Jew AND identifies with Judaism to the exclusion of all faiths.
(See here for the actual Responsum on this issue: http://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/respdisp.pl?file=38&year=carr)
Thanks, Frumesarah. I added the parenthetical "I think" – I know that I don't know the official position, so your comment is helpful. Presumably the official position of the movement is also in understanding that Orthodox Jews do, indeed, acknowledge Reform Jews as Jews. This piece is directed toward that misunderstanding by the laity.
Also, FS, this is just my hypothesis. If you have other insights on this pervasive accusation, I'd be interested in you sharing it. Thanks.
I don't think the movement takes an official position on what other groups/people think of Reform Jews.
The Rebbetzin is correct when she says that the Movement does not take a position on what other groups think.
What is of particular interest is that while Reform Judaism accepts an individual's Jewish status if he or she has a Jewish father/non-Jewish mother, most Reform Jews are ignorant of this and believe that only a Jewish mother "counts." Clearly, education is lacking within our own movement.
Ladies: do you have another possible explanation for why R Jews think that O Jews do not consider them Jewish? Do you think it's mainly the patrilineal descent thing? Or do you think it's because O Jews really do think so?
Two-fold.
1) I imagine that quite a number of R Jews have had conversations that have resulted in being told by O Jews that they are not Jewish.
2) R Jews who continue to feel inauthentic as Jews. Their own misgivings, lack of knowledge, lack of education, lack of ritual observance all feed feelings in inadequacy, etc.
per #1, do you mean apart from the patrilineal/conversion issues?
Yes, #1 & 2 from FS, and yes – apart from patrilineal/conversion. I myself was told this on many occasions by people who really what they meant was "the way you are Jewish is not really Jewish" because of course, halachicly there would be no argument that I'm Jewish. It does not help that Orthodox Jews in the public, mainstream, such as Norman Lamm, chancellor of YU, say things like, and I quote, “The Reform Movement may show a rise, because if you add goyim to Jews then you will do OK.” He is referring to patrilineal descent, but of course, it can be read any way. Full article here:http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/38071/yu-chancellor-non-orthodox-judaism-on-the-way-out1/. This was from an article where he informed the public he would be saying Kaddish for the Reform and Conservative movements because, in his opinion, only Orthodox Judaism could survive. So, you see, how the problem immediately becomes much more complex. It becomes a pervasive attitude, sadly.
Ruchi, I'm curious how you would address the very public comments made by a leader in O-Judaism. I have had many, many non-O people ask me about this – I'm trying to address it both through sharing this post and by equating it to Governor Kasich making a bold, negative statement and people from Indiana assuming ALL Ohioans feel that way. We know, of course, that all Ohioans would not agree with the Governor, but the PERCEPTION is created. thoughts on how to address this?
Leah, are you talking about the Norman Lamm link or another recent story?
The Norman Lamm link, in addition to other public statements by one other person – when I find the link I'll let you know.
I'll wait to read it and then respond.
can't find the link and don't feel comfortable with the potential L"H b/c I don't have the link. I guess the Lamm quote will have to do.
also, btw, we had a similar issue w/something some macher in R-J said and OH the damage control . . .
There's a big difference between what he said and how he said it. I have seen in my life that most things can be said in a nice way, even if they're not palatable. If both parties are (best case scenario) emotionally intelligent and working on reducing ego, it can be done. I don't know why NL felt compelled to make this public statement, but clearly the language is incendiary.
Would you like to know if I agree with the actual content? He made two statements:
1. Non-Orthodox Jewry will be disappearing
2. The "goyim" line (oy)
As far as #1, who knows?? No one is a prophet today. Perhaps NL knows more than me; he's certainly been around more blocks than I have. The bottom line is, it's a projection, not a fact, and even if he's right, what goal does it serve to say so?
#2: Offensive language aside (not that the word itself is offensive but it can certainly be perceived this way, especially in this context) this is basically the patrilineal/conversion debate. Factually, he's got a point, but I find the tone rude and again wonder: what purpose do statements like this serve?
This really goes back to the Jewish unity thing. Based on what I've learned in my education, there is almost nothing more important than getting along.
Right, all of this is true. But what I'm asking you is how you would address the issue to people NOT in your community – for example, let's say I have an irate congregant come up to me seething with resentment who says something like, "SEE? Those Orthodox hate us! Why on earth are you friends with them? They don't even think we're JEWISH! Look, the leader of their mainstream seminary SAYS SO!"
Well for starters, I'd point out that no one speaks for all of Orthdooxy. Then I'd say that even that very same leader has said different things on occasion – such as in the 70 Faces of Torah essay I linked to earlier.
Finally, I'd say the denial of legitimacy to the other is the curse of the Orthodox movement – even among themselves. There are leaders among them who deny that the very 'mainstream seminary' is even an Orthodox (and hence, in their eyes Jewish) institution! What would we gain by emulating them in their divisiveness?
Larry, if you were a Reform leader, that's what you would tell your community?
RR: really hard to know how I would respond to that if I were a Reform leader, because it's so foreign to me and I'm not emotionally invest. But I can project what I *hope* I'd say:
"It's true that his language and tone are rude and offensive, and I totally disagree with his first point, but let's try to put offense aside and examine the facts. If you look at the two major Reform innovations in personal status, patrilineal descent and altered conversion requirements, you do see how a large chunk of the Reform community would not be viewed as Jewish by other segments of Jewry. And quite honestly, I see where they're coming from. WE changed the rules, not them.
"That said, I deplore rudeness and polarity wherever it might reside. Can we assert that we're immune? I guarantee you that the Orthodox Jews that I am friendly with do not speak this way or denigrate others – and THAT'S why we're friends.
"Let's take it upon ourselves to combat this by increasing Jewish unity by behaving the opposite way – with love, tolerance and understanding – to all Jews, even those who don't behave the way we'd like."
Ruchi, I think one reason that the argument of "We'll cause a split with the Orthodox" didn't hold a lot of weight with the Reform leaders was there perception that what they did didn't matter to the Orthodox anyway – they would never get any respect or recognition in their own right. Even today, the recent trend towards greater ritual observance in the Reform movement mostly gets the reaction "Good – hopefully they are on the way to realising they are wrong about everything and they will become Orthodox." Lack of respect, unfortunately, tends to produce an equal and opposite response.
There's a joke (even funnier when you know the history of early Reform) that the O, C, and R movements get together and agree they will each maake a sacrifice in their theologies to show their support for Jewish Unity. The Reform movement announces they will give up their belief in the human origins of the Torah. The Conservative movement announces they will renounce the driving teshuvah. And the Orthodox announce they are giving up the second Yekum Purkan.
Exactly. Which is why each movement has to work on respect despite the VAST issues.
Personally, I find that joke offensive.
I think the issue is really with R Jews. They believe that O Jews are distressed concerned about their level of observance, so don't consider them to lead Jewish lives and therefore aren't Jewish. As you stated above their understanding is solely through if you feel Jewish no matter how much or little you do than you are Jewish.
Also, I think the only O Jews they see in action is from the news of the Hareidim in Isreal. Many R Jews have never met nor had any meaningful conversation with an O Jew. This might be the root cause and it is really just confusion.
Ruchi, EXCELLENT response. Thank you for your thoughtfulness there. Good one.
Larry, dude, that's not funny.
Anon. I am going to dispute your statement that Reform Jews "understanding is solely through if you feel Jewish no matter how much or little you do than you are Jewish." If you read through this lengthy and informative comment thread, you will see this is not, in fact the case. You cannot, for example, be a Baptist, walk into a Reform shul and proclaim yourself Jewish because you "feel Jewish." One of your parents has to be Jewish, or you have converted.
I believe the issue is not with R-J alone. Most R-Jews I know are unconcerned with what O-and-C-Jews think of them. The issue only comes up with sticky halachic situations such as we have been writing about, and believe me – EVERYONE in these situations have "issues", not just R-Jews.
I would also say the reverse is true: Many O-Jews have never had a meaningful conversation with R-Jews. The only R-Jews they may see are in the media (Jack Black, for example, singing Had Gad Yah on Conan) or the few they encounter in the workplace who may be uneducated or not active Jews. Responsibility lies on all sides, IMHO.
I'm sad that two people I'm coming to admire a lot have said my joke wasn't funny, and implied that it offended them. I'll be glad to delete it if that is desired. Let me add one of the bits of historical context that makes it humerous to me – back in the start of the Reform movement in Germany, one of the first innovations of the Reformers was the removal of the first Yekum Purkan(*) prayer. Many rabbis opposed this, arguing that any innovation in the siddur at all would open the door for radical changes. So the concealed humor in my joke is that the Orthodox are offering the very innovation they opposed 200 years ago.
(*) There are two Yekum Purkan prayers in the Shabbat morning liturgy, one immediately after the other. The first asks Hashem to shower blessings on the scholars in Babylon, and the second asks for the same things, in the same words, for the local congregations. The Reformers suggested that since there hadn't been a significant Jewish community in Babylon for 1000 years or so, maybe the prayer could be skipped.
You're still one of my best readers – hands down. And I know you didn't mean it in an offensive way. Pretty much any joke containing three types of people is not going to sit well with me.
Anon: I'm beginning to see that my original assertion that if you "feel Jewish, act Jewish…" was incorrect. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. Also, the problem of not having a "face" to connect with is very real – a big factor in starting this blog. And, I daresay, it's been working. I hope. And pray!
RR: See. This is why we're friends!!
Larry: I know you didn't mean it offensively. And I totally got why you thought it was funny RE the history of the Reform Movement – which I think is why I didn't think it was funny 🙂 I'm with Ruchi – those kinds of jokes are not my "thing"
Ruchi: 😀
I'm sorry you don't find it funny. I love this sort of humor – I have a similar joke for science, but I will spare you.
I don't get #10. What's the antecedent for "this"?
A convert's status. I like people who use the word antecedent.
Well, it's pretty clear that it's only dependent within Orthodox conversions. Otherwise, it's pretty clear-cut from the Orthodox perspective.
(And I appreciate that you didn't have to look up the word! :))
How do you know I didn't? 😉 only me and my hairdresser will know!
For me, this comes from comments when I was a child – I was raised in a Conservative synagogue and my Orthodox friend told me I wasn't really Jewish. I have heard this more than once as a child. I had two Jewish parents but I simply wasn't as observant as the Orthodox families. It was very confusing to a child who attended services every Shabbat, kept Kosher, and celebrated the holidays much the way my Orthodox friends do.
Recently I was with my very Orthodox family for Pesach. They were wonderful to me, but I couldn't help noticing little comments like, "what you consider keeping kosher." So I think it comes down to attitude. I recognize that the standards are different among different people. But this attitude (from both sides of the "fence") can be divisive.
I totally get that, Susan. Kids are so black-and-white like that. With each of my kids I've had to teach them carefully that driving on Shabbat or eating non-kosher food (or women wearing pants and guys not wearing a kippa! lol) does not mean you're not Jewish! I think it comes from the child's logic that we do certain things because we're Jewish therefore it must follow that someone who doesn't do those things aren't Jewish.
Sorry to hear, btw, that you felt there was a condescending attitude from the family you were at for Pesach. That's a shame.
Ditto. But questioning the nature of kosher is different from questioning the practitioner's Jewish status.
Ruchi – you are correct, but for people who may not have as sophisticated understanding of the distinctions (most lay people in my community), it FEELS as if someone is questioning their status – even though you and I know there is a difference.
You are absolutely correct. That is important.
Little O kids have to be taught this point. Since the only world they know is observant, the assume all Jews are observant. They only know that which they are told, but once it is explained to them they are cool with it.
I had talked about something like this in this post:
http://frumanista.blogspot.com/2011/06/are-we-really-that-bad.html
But if the Reform consider a Jewish father to be sufficient to label a child "Jewish," then that does make things complicated. Yo momma is Jewish, you are Jewish, no matter how you live your life; it's a racial thing as much as cultural, halachically.
Saying "I feel Jewish!" isn't sufficient to gain official "Jewish" status by us O; that's why there is such a rigorous conversion process. You really want to be one of us? It's not easy. We don't proselytize. Are you sure? Let's take a few years to see.
Good point, and nice post there. Example: my 5-year-old and I were discussing what he should do if he gets lost. He though hard, then said: "Find a Jewish person!" There's only so much complexity I'm going to offer a 5-year-old on that. He meant, someone who dresses in an obviously Jewish, observant way (yarmulke/kippah for the guy, long skirt and head covering for the mom). At a certain age, you have to let your kid live in a black-and-white world. As they grow and mature, they need and deserve a multi-layered view of our fellow Jews and fellow humans.
(In the end I told him the best thing is to find a Jewish mommy with kids, because she will probably know him, or if he can't find a Jewish mommy, he should find any mommy with kids because she will probably know how to take care of lost kids. Good thing his face screams "I am a Koval!")
Also: the not proselytizing thing. Y'know, sometimes I feel that it is more PC to not proselytize (Jews certainly take offense to being proselytized to) and sometimes I wonder if it's more PC to reach out and include (call it whatever you want). Which is why, while we should always be nice, PC isn't a reliable arbiter of behavior.
Yes, I do wonder what you [Ruchi] see yourself as doing here sometimes-'proselytize' sounds very Christian to me. Kiruv/outreach makes sense. I would love to hear more about this, although I know you are rather reserved on the blog about your own views and purposes apart from Jewish unity and respectful exchange. I like the idea of it NOT being outreach, personally, but just contact or basic 'discussion', because otherwise I feel like it makes me into someone 'outside' who needs 'reaching out to', a Jewish charity case, which I don't feel I am and would feel a bit demeaning.
By "here" I assume you mean on this blog. My goal is two-fold: one, de-mystify Orthodox Judaism by being a real face, one that is hopefully normal, friendly, reasonable, and kind. Two, foster open dialogue between the denominations that is safe and respectful so we can mutually understand one another.
And if someone feels drawn closer to their Jewish soul or feels more inspired to try some Jewish practices because of it, well, I think that's beautiful.
In my work I get asked if my goal is to "convert" people. I posted about that here: http://outoftheorthobox.blogspot.com/2011/11/are-you-in-cult-or-are-you-trying-to.html
As if I could convert a Jew…or *make* any be Orthodox!!
As it so happens, conversion with a Reform rabbi is also a lengthy and rigorous process. Including, for a majority of Reform rabbis, milah (ritual circumcision) and t'vilah (ritual immersion).
FS can you describe more about that? I think it's important for people to know exactly what it involves. Also, you say "majority" – is this a movement-wide policy, or does it vary by the specific rabbi?
The Movement "encourages" the use of traditional gerut rituals. R rabbis have the authority to determine whether or not they require said rituals. One generation ago, my father was one of the few who required mikvah and brit and stood out among his colleagues. Now, I am not certain if I know any colleagues who do not have their candidates perform the rituals.
When I work with a candidate, there is a period of study that is supplemented with ongoing sessions with me. Reading, learning, living Jewishly. Synagogue attendance. I also have my candidates keep a journal throughout the entire process. I have had candidates ready to complete the official process after a couple of years and have had some who take longer.
Working with gerim has provided some of my most cherished moments in the rabbinate. Their passion, enthusiasm, and fresh perspectives have opened my eyes to nuances in Judaism that can oft time remain hidden to those who are fortunate to be born into it.
Princess Lea,
Not racial, tribal. Judaism is intrinsically tribal. A tribal group went into Egypt and emerged as a nation of tribes. Membership in a tribe is a set of mutual obligations to accept the rules of the tribe. Membership in a race is a biological process. You can change or add to your tribe, you cannot change your race.
Zusel ben Shlomo
Frume Sarah,
You have identified the core of the difference! Reform "encourages" O "expects," even though many Os may not live up to "expectations." The disconnect occurs with non Othodox individuals who perceieve that some Othodox indivduals have different expectations for ritual practices than for some social or interpersonal practices.
ZBS: Firstly, welcome to OOTOB and thanks for your interesting comments.
On your first point: Judaism is both a race and a tribe. And a religion. We kind of defy category, and encompass all. You can't convert into a race, but you can convert into Judaism. You can't be biologically tribal if you weren't raised in the tribe – but if you're Jewish, you can. You can convert out of any religion (I think) except Judaism. That's part of why I think Israel is so completely confounding. It defies every rule, category, and logical constraint.
On your second point, I think you are spot-on. Reform encourages and Orthodoxy expects. Bingo. This spotlights the major difference between R and O conversions: one of the rules of halachic conversion is acceptance of halachic living. That's an expectation, or no conversion. Reform may encourage mitzvot, or not, as Maya observed. When Orthodoxy cannot accept a non-Orthodox conversion, it's not because of the denomination as much as the likelihood that wholesale acceptance of halacha – a basic requirement – did not take place.
Do you really think Judaism is a RACE? I have a lot of trouble with this idea. I thought "race" was anyway a made-up pseudo-biological idea whose origins coincide with the rise of African slave trading (to help 'biologically' justify enslaving other human beings). Are you trying to say there is something 'biological' that binds Jews, or something 'natural'? Is this a translation of a Torah term?
Of course it's a race. We're first and foremost the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Biologically driven. But that's just the beginning, because we're a spiritual race too. You can join if your soul is Jewish, even if your body isn't.
However, the Reform movement, in 1885, stated thus:
We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community, and therefore expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning the Jewish state.
Not sure if that is still the case, or if "nation" is being used as a synonym for "race."
But is a 'race' just any group of offspring of someone? Can I be the start of a new 'race' if I had a lot of offspring? Is there a Torah word for this that might help, like "descendents of"?
I could accept the idea of Jews as "all descendents of" plus converted and their descendents, but that to me is not 'race' but lineage, ancestry. Can new 'races' come into being'? I think the term 'race' is much more modern than "children's children et al." as in the Bible.
Nation is a little trickier for me, and not at all a matter of descendents, but if you mean it synonymously with 'race', I guess I understand how that could be interpreted so. But to me 'nation' is not the same as 'race'. Nation accepts more a cultural-geographical point of convergence rather than a pseudo-biological one.
I think you probably like 'race' because it corresponds to the (metaphysical, we called it) idea that Jews are through-and-through different, with different souls than other people. So 'race' solidifies that absolute difference. I worry about that idea of absolute difference and the idea of biological markers of those.
I will await more knowledgeable answers about what the 1885 statement meant.
I think at this point in history the term 'race' detracts rather than adds from understanding. As you and Zusel both stated above, Judaism can be thought of as a tribe, as well as a civilisation, a religion, a people, and a nation. But I think the terms race and ethnicity have too much baggage for them to be helpful in describing who and what we are as a people.
Tribe seems closer to what we are than race – as children many of us read stories of the American West in which lone settlers were adopted by various Indian tribes. Few people speak in terms of joining a race or ethnicity.
When I think about the conversion situation today my mind is drawn back to a story where in order to join the tribe a man had to walk between two rows of men who would hit him with clubs. If he could make it to the end then he was in. Obviously, the attitude of the men in the line had a lot to do with whether the 'conversion candidate' would make it or not.
Great list. Very clear. And indeed the #5-6 are illuminating, because identity vs. official status can get confusing and your analysis of how a Reform person might think an Orthodox person would think that a Reform person isn't 'really Jewish' is helpful (much clearer in your words than in my summary).
Now, that said, there would be HUNDREDS of posts I could paste in here from other blogs out there in the J-blogosphere where Orthodox Jews comment about Reform services, Conservative practices, Reconstructionist customs and so on, and add, "What do they know, they aren't even real Jews?" or "That's not even Jewish!" Maybe those people are ignorant, but they still say those things. About people and practices that, at least within their own circles, identify as Jewish.
So that suggests to me that Ruchi has the official line on WHO is Jewish correct but there is a lot of casual interpretation–of people AND esp. of practices–that don't fit into this line.
Ugh, why am I in the Pacific time zone where there won't be any time for a good dialogue before you all start Shabbat??
Uch. Fellow bloggers.
🙂
I wonder if you would push those people against the wall and say "But are they still JEWISH???" they'd say, well, yeah!
It's not just bloggers. It's teachers and rebbeing. My teen was explicitly informed that reform are not Jewish by her parshah teacher. I had to do a lot of re-education before I finally pulled her out.
I think a lot of it is the patrilineal descent issue. And the rest is simple cognitive dissonance. Many orthodox Jews see their religious lives as more taxing, more difficult- kosher food, shabbos limitations, tuition prices, etc. So they want something to show for it. They want to say they are the authentic thing, the real Jews and everyone else is a poor imitation. – MP
* rebbeim 🙂
Maybe. I never heard anything like that growing up.
Ok, here's another thought. Reform Jews are less worried about 'who is a Jew' because the criteria for Reform Jews are 'looser' and self-identification and patrilineality are among the criteria. Orthodox Jews, as Ruchi points out, have a certain laxity insofar as self-identification and other criteria (I love the pepperoni pizza-Christmas Jew) don't even matter if the halachic criteria are met. And I am still loving Ruchi's analysis of how Reform Jews could PROJECT onto Orthodox Jews an idea that they are not 'really Jewish' because the Reform Jews take behavior and identity as significant criteria for Jewishness and Orthodox don't.
But maybe where non-Orthodox Jews feel more slighted, or frankly *I* feel more sensitive, is not about 'who' counts as a Jew but WHAT counts as Jewish. What practices, what beliefs, what customs, what cultural elements. Actually I think this is as least as sensitive as WHO counts as a Jew.
This is where it can seem as though Orthodoxy defines WHAT is Jewish and what is not–because it finds its own interpretation of Judaism to be NOT an interpretation at all, but 'the real thing'. So Orthodoxy takes itself as the authority regarding WHAT is really Jewish, and seems thereby to belittle non-Orthodox practices and customs that differ from Orthodoxy.
Interesting (I've been waiting for you!).
What do YOU think is Orthodoxy's position on which behaviors qualify as Jewish?
Yeah, the time zone thing is a bummer, I always feel 'too late', or if you post in the evening, 'too early'. And Fridays everyone disappears too early for me.
So what do I think O-Jews think is really Jewish behavior? Warning, it's about to get circular, but it is meant respectfully in any case: I think Orthodox Jews take as 'really Jewish' behavior that which conforms most to their own interpretation of Judaism, which they actually don't perceive AS an INTERPRETATION but AS Judaism per se (while nonetheless acknowledging that interpretation or analysis of the Torah is required to make it consistent and fit with modern life).
And this is mainly a pretty literal reading of the Torah as interpreted by the genealogy of Talmudists et al. by way of the rabbis, as then translated into very specific rules about specific behaviors–and the more stringently one follows those, the 'more Jewish' the behavior is.
But wait. Here I thought you were going to specify specific mitzvot like shabbat, kosher, etc. And instead you're just saying Orthodox people think being Jewish is what Orthodox people think being Jewish means. So maybe I misunderstood, or maybe you'd prefer not to be very specific…? Not sure, but I'd love for you to develop this thought a bit since I believe we're on the brink of something valuable.
Thanks for the followup. I did mean the circularity in my answer, because the role of interpretation in what is Jewish practice seems to me central for all Jewish practices, even for O-Jews, which to me means that things are not as cut-and-dry as we human beings would like them to be, and likewise (in my view) what counts as Judaism might not be as cut-and-dry as some Orthodox people might want it to be. So for instance "keeping Shabbat" is yes a Jewish practice–but figuring out what 'keeping' and 'resting' and 'work' are has required huge elaboration and interpretation, and so differences have arisen, and why should the O interpretation of what these words mean be considered the "real" one? Please know that I mean that last question genuinely, not plaintively. Really, why?
For instance, I guess God doesn't say in particular that you can't carry a purse on Shabbat, instead that interpretation of 'work' was decided by interpreters along the way, and then the Eruv got brought in, which makes things more practical. All of which I respect and understand as interpretive interventions by human beings in trying to follow what they interpret as God's law.
So to answer your comment about the mitzvot, from what I understand, O-Jews consider Jewish practice a life that attempts to follow what they consider the 613 mitzvot in the Torah–I write 'what they consider' only to point out that even that number has been debated, there is a history to how to count those and which lines count as commandments and so on. For me the historical character of Judaism and the interpretive work that goes into it are part of what make it fascinating, so none of this is meant as "why I'm not Orthodox". Rather I am puzzled by the view, expressed in comments to this post, that O-Judaism is the real one and other interpretations of Judaism are not.
It really boils down to the concept of "mesorah" – Orthodox Jews attempt and purport to follow an unbroken chain of tradition stretching back generation to generation from Sinai.
Maybe they sometimes fail in that mission, or maybe mistakes have been made through the long and circuitous centuries, but that's the goal and that's the claim. Yes, some customs/traditions have been added or faded away but the basic 613 will never change, no matter what.
The idea is that there's an outside, objective source that we are looking to for guidance – it doesn't come from within ourselves.
That's why Orthodox Jews think their practice is the "authentic" one – that's always been our goal – to retain the authenticity in its original as much as possible.
I don't think Reform Judaism (and again, please correct me if I'm wrong) even tries to discover what ancient Jews did, because isn't the whole idea to autonomously choose what is relevant/meaningful, and to update and "reform" as the generations progress?
I do not mean this with disrespect (it's hard to convey tone in print). Just stating that the goals are just different.
Orthodoxy attempts to preserve the original, while Reform seeks to continually evolve with the times.
Am I wrong?
If you're willing to spend a little money, you might try looking at Reform Responsa for the Twenty-First Century: Sh'eilot Ut'shuvot. I only have the previous volume, Teshuvot for the Nineties, which is organized into 4 sections Orach Chaim, Yoreh Deah, Chosen Mishpat, and Even HaEzer.
Wading into the fray here…
Reform Jews *do* try to discover what ancient Jews did. The idea isn't to autonomously choose what is meaningful/relevant, not exactly. The idea is to make informed decisions about mitzvot based on a thorough examination of the mitzvah's history, how it's typically observed, reasons behind it, etc. For example, a Reform Jew might examine the rules of kashrut as regards wine, and learn more about the reasons why you couldn't drink wine made (or touched) by non-Jews – by examining source texts as well as reading responsa. Finally, he or she would make a decision based on that information – such a decision might be "No modern wineries make wine intended to be used in idol worship, and therefore the need for a hechsher is obselete, so I'll drink non-kosher wine" OR the decision might be "This is a long-held custom and should be upheld for the sake of being able to have other Jews feel comfortable drinking wine in my home." Both of those decisions would be valid. On the other hand, a Jew who says "I don't require kosher wine because it's too inconvenient and difficult that way" is being lazy, not Reform.
Ultimately Reform Jews don't recognize halacha as directly from Hashem – it's seen as the best attempt of some very intelligent and dedicated men to determine the best way to carry out the mitzvot from the Torah (as in, the five books… not the entire body of scholarly Jewish work that O Jews call Torah.) We have more information than they did, our challenges are different, the world is different. The mitzvot still apply, but we need not apply them identically.
Did that make any sense? I feel like I should offer a disclaimer that this is my understanding and may be quite flawed.
I have so much else to say about this issue, but I'm tired of typing for tonight. Here are some of my main (unelaborated) points; let me know if you want to hear more about them:
1. The perceived insult is not about Jewish identity and all that legality, it's about the validity of non-Orthodox Jewish practice.
2. There is a difference between the intention and philosophy of Reform Judaism and the real-life practice of some Reform Jews. If you're going to judge Orthodox Judaism by its best adherents, then we need to judge Reform Judaism the same way.
3. My background has been pretty varied: Conservative day school, Reform summer camp, and then worked for an Orthodox rabbi in a student outreach organization. Working with said Rabbi really helped me to understand why, to an Orthodox Jew, there is only one *right* way to observe the mitzvot. That's not going to change. Hence Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Humanistic and other Jews will always be able to accept Orthodox practice as one valid form of Jewish observance, but Orthodox Jews will probably never be able to view non-Orthodox practice as anything but misguided, flawed, or flat-out wrong.
Hm… guess I wasn't that tired of typing.
Thoughts?
I appreciate this post a lot, really clearly put.
SCJ, yes, thanks for your eloquent points.
I hope I've addressed some of your ideas below. For now, I'd like to address this:
"There is a difference between the intention and philosophy of Reform Judaism and the real-life practice of some Reform Jews. If you're going to judge Orthodox Judaism by its best adherents, then we need to judge Reform Judaism the same way."
I would differ. I don't think "Orthodox Judaism" or "Reform Judaism" should be judged by its best adherents. I don't even think it should be judged by its code of behavior (although some would disagree with me, as in "don't judge Judaism by the Jews"). I think it ought to be judged by the philosophies and behaviors of the *majority* of its members.
SCJ WOW that was awesome – excellent description. excellent! Ruchi. If, what you said in your last paragraph is to be applied, I do not think either of our groups would fare too well.
SCJ, re #1, that's NOT what I hear from people. If they said that, I'd completely understand where it's coming from. It's not about the validity of the practice, it's "Why don't you think we're Jews?"
#2: So how do you, Leah, feel it ought to be judged? By its best adherents, even if there's a huge gap from there to the majority of the practitioners of the movement? By its behavioral code, whether halacha or something else?
I simply don't think it ought to be judged. At all. Live and let live, I say.
Leah, of course I don't mean judge for the sake of judging. But if a newly married couple, for example, were synagogue shopping, and coming to your congregation to determine if they wanted to join, what would you prefer they look at: Reform *philosophy*, its best adherents, or the general community as a whole?
both Fairmount Temple's best adherents AND the community as a whole. They both represent our community – i really cannot say one or the other. If I were shul-shopping, I'd look at the best adherents myself, because those are generally the most active members and that is whom I would be participating with. I would also certainly look at the general community as a factor, but second, not first.
…and the actual philosophy of the movement?
Ruchi, this is so individual – if the couple is unsure where they fit it, then of course they're going to have to look at philosophy and ideology, assuming they have the bounty of choices we are lucky enough to have here in CLE. But ultimately, I think individual shul communities should be judged as stand-alones. because one frum/Reform shul in Monsey is not the same as frum/Reform shul in CLE.
I think that look at its best adherents to any shul is ineffective. Let's say the best adherents do all halacha but are engaged in a prohibited relationship as defined in this week parhsa.
You then have to look at the philosophy. Either you believe this law is violated because it came from Hashem or you think it was made by men and is obsolete. The best adherents in any shul Reform, Conservative, or Orthodox are probably going to be good people who you would want to associate with.
It really comes done to what you believe happened on Shavous. Belief/Philosophy matters.
Dear SCJ, I think you are describing a Conservative approach to halakah and behavior rather than a Reform one. I believe it would be VERY unusual for any lay Reform indivual to have the knowledge or access to the sources to more than superficially examine the sources and implications of most Jewish practices. [I strongly recommend the Florence Melton Adult Education program for all serious open Jews.]The Conservative movement has historically posed responsa based on temporal or technical changes in circumstances, (i.e. wine and geletine) but until recently changes based on changing social circumustances (driving on shabbat) were treated as the less bad alternative.
The positive Shabbat experiences you describe in your own blog validate the deeper benefits of approaching Shabbat with a greater recognition of Halakic commitment.
ZBS, I agree, I just didn't want to be the one to say it.
I think there's an overlap between the validity of practice and the recognition of who is a jew –
very few O congregations recognize R conversions as valid (validity of practice) and thus R converts are not jews (recognition of jewry). Arguments I've heard from multiple O rabbis about R (and C and H and RC) conversions is that it doesn't matter if the ritualistic aspect is fulfilled, since the Rabbi(s) on the beit din belongs to movements whose interpretation of shabbat differs from O interpretations, they are by definition not shomer shabbat, and so their conversions are, by definition, not valid.
And that propogates through generations – my children aren't jewish by O standards, because my conversion is, again by O standards, by definition not valid.
I had a dunk in the mikvah, I had the blessings, I had a fully rabbinical beit din (which is a chumrah, not halacha – halacha is 3 men who are shomer shabbat, no rabbi required), I live my life with conservadox observance. But the validity of the practice is questioned despite the rituals fulfilling halacha, and so my status as jewish is questioned. As is the status of my children.
Which I'm not all that upset about, btw – a protestant can't get married in a catholic church, nor can the protestant children without converting, yet everyone in that example is a christian.
However, I do wonder about the possibility of a non-O rabbi who holds O standard shabbat – are they still by definition not shomer shabbat?
Ruchi, thanks for your post. Hoo boy, is this a potentially explosive topic, and I love that you discuss it in such a dispassionate and clear way.
Coming from the perspective of someone who grew up very Jewishly identified, but had a mother with a non-Orthodox conversion, it was one of the most painful experiences of my life to find out that I "wasn't Jewish." Not as, I had assumed, in a "well, those crazy Orthodox people don't consider you Jewish, but everyone else does, honey" kinda way. Like, actually, not halachically Jewish. Ouch.
Looking back 10 years later, I am grateful that I had the opportunity to really make a hard and fast commitment to Torah that meant no going back, no changing my mind (I wonder what would happen if more ba'alei teshuva had to go through some kind of process like this, instead of just geirim).
But I cried throughout the conversion. I cried when they were asking me the questions. I cried in the mikveh. Because even then, it didn't seem fair. I felt so Jewish! I always had! The geirus didn't change how I felt about myself at all!
You can't bring up matters of identity without hurting the person in question unless you have a solid relationship. Now being on the other side of the fence (so to speak), I would be horrified to think that people thought me hateful or close minded for believing in Orthodox standards of halachic status. But I could understand that it causes a lot of pain, even if i meant no harm.
So for now, I'll let Ruchi do the talking 🙂
Wow.
You stated this more eloquently than I could have.
Funny how I can say some things in person that I can't say on the blog, and I can some things on the blog that I can't say in person.
I think there is another unfortunate aspect to this you are missing. I've often heard O Jews address non-O Jews using the phrase "You are Jewish, but the religion you practice isn't Judaism." In the eyes of some of the O Jews who say this, they are extending an olive branch. They don't seem to realise the branch is poking out the eye of the person to whom they say it. So I'm Jewish, but the faith practiced by my parents, by the rabbis and my Hebrew school teacher, by my spouse and my children isn't really Judaism? I've rarely seen this phrase result in increased tolerance and understanding for the O point of view by those to whom it is addressed.
Guess what? Everyone thinks they're right. A little emotional intelligence would go a long way. There's a fascinating study cited by Malcolm Gladwell in "Blink" where avowed non-racists show racist tendencies when asked to make spur-of-the-moment decisions. Frightening.
Everyone does not think they are right for whom? Lots of heterodox Jews will say their observance is right for them, but if someone wants to live a more observant lifestyle that is fine with them. That is in contrast to the standard O view that as expressed by anonymous that anyone who is not following O is objectively wrong, and most likely ignorant of 'true' Judaism.
Larry, that may be so on paper but I have found that that in real life, it's often not so. I know a number of people raised Reform and Conservative who would love to be more Orthodox, but are intimidated by family backlash.
It might also be helpful to choose different language. Do Ruchi's number of people raised Reform and Conservative who would love to be more Orthodox really want to be more Orthodox? Or do they yearn to be more observant? Because those are not identical. Furthermore, it is possible, as I can attest, to take on mitzvot that appear from the outside no different from the most stringently-observant, but are being observed by a Reform Jewess and in concert with Reform theology.
Does that make sense??
FS, you're right. I used those two words interchangeably – many folks do (like Larry) – and it can be confusing. I meant Orthodox, actually, because they have come to view the commandments as binding (as I clarified below, I hope correctly) AND wish to observe more.
I have learned from you and Leah that there are observant Reform Jews, and this has been enlightening to me. To be honest, it interests me greatly and I'd love to go out for coffee with the two of you and learn more. I guess the blog will have to do for now 🙂
That would be fun – what an interesting conversation we would have!
as an orthodox FFB, i have always thought of reform and conservative jews, as jews who have lost out on what God intended for us, the beauty of the brilliance of Torah and a Torah life. most reform and conservative jews could say that their ancestors were orthodox, whether one or more generations before, and who lost their orthodoxy either because of persecution or because they chose to belong to a more progressive judaism that wanted to choose the traditions that they liked and toss the ones that didn't fit for them. it doesn't make it not judaism, and it doesn't make them not jews, but it makes it very watered down judaism. it's like saying i believe in God, but i don't believe the Torah is relevant today; it's second guessing the original manuscript, which orthodoxy believes to be the blueprint for life. it's almost like writing a new testament that believes that the Torah is just a story. orthodoxy believes that the Torah is a living Torah, and that its wisdom is as true today as it was when it was given. i just don't understand how someone can believe that God gave us the Torah and everything in it, but our human mind can decide what is and isn't relevant today.
I think in fact that some of the Orthodox discussions around non-O Judaism get caught in several conflicting claims: They [C and RJ observance] are Judaism, but watered down; they are not Judaism, because Judaism is not anything less than adherence to the whole Torah [as O-Jews have interpreted it]; non-O Jewish practice is 'not as Jewish' or 'not really' Jewish . . . . because it's not 'real Judaism', which is 'what we do' because our Judaism is the real one, and also it's 'more'. 'More' and 'real' are both problematic categories, and here they are on one hand taken synonymously and on the other hand work against each other.
Anon – this is your opinion, to which you are certainly entitled! No question, many people agree with you. But it simply isn't kind or right to tell someone that. Not that I'm suggesting you do – perhaps you don't. But many, many other O-Jews do. And it's offensive.
Because I am a Reform Jew, and the Torah for me is a Living Torah, it's wisdom is relevant today in my life, and I am a religious person. I am not "missing out" – I am embracing my history, my ancestors, my DNA. For someone to tell me otherwise is simply offensive. Again, I am not taking issue with the opinion itself – everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs – absolutely. I have no problem with this. I have my own a few of which I imagine you would find offensive if I actually said them to you. Which is why I don't. And I think that is the point Ruchi is trying to make.
Some of you may be wondering why I published Anon's comment. I did so for two reasons:
1. I (hopefully correctly) discerned that it was not intended with disrespect, although I am fully aware that it came across that way
2. I think it's very important that this point be aired and discussed. I can't tell you how important it is that we are talking about this, and not fighting.
Thank you for hanging in there and continuing to plow through the issues with me.
I think anon unwittingly revealed a truth about difficult conversations: Saying "I don't hate you or feel contempt for you. I love you and I feel sorry for you." is not always a winning debate technique, sincerity notwithstanding.
To me it also doesn't feel like a stab at accomplishing Jewish unity. It is not loving nor kind, it is tolerance and pity in my view.
Essentially, nobody wants to be "felt sorry" for. Pity is unwelcome.
So anonymous, I understand your philosophy, but invite you to think about how your expression of it makes others feel. And I'm sorry I'm using you as an example, but I hope you understand the spirit in which it's offered.
The issue here is not just religius behavior, it is commitment and self identity. To step outside of our main topic,(hypotetically) My rabid baseball friend cannot understand how I can possibly enjoy going to a game where I don't know all of the stats on every player as he does. My rabid literary friend cannot understand how I can waste my time on the "trash" that I read on vacations and -to get back to topic… my intense O friend is concerned that I don't acknowledge the beauty and blessings in my life by reciting 100 blessings each day while my intensely R friend cannot imagine how I sacrifice my personal autonomy for the rantings of long dead power seeking rabbis.
All four (totally hypothetical) friends have to be happy with who they are and more importantly accpting of what I am.
Tackling this issue takes a lot of courage. What adds to the courage is that unlike posts you've written on other hot-button issues, this post will not solve the problem. It's not like people who know of this issue can come to the site, read this post, and say, "Well, THAT solves the problem!"
Every passing year for the last 30 years, the percentage of people actively involved in the Reform Judaism Community who qualify as technically Jewish by the Orthodox standards you have explained so well shrinks dramatically. This has the very real and painful effects. For those who are active in the RJ world but whose lives intersect even in passing with the world that respects Orthodox standards, it is a pain that is intense and unremitting. For those like yourself and the growing number of Orthodox Jews who wish to create a bridge of respect and outreach, the world of those to reach out to becomes smaller and smaller and smaller. And that limbo world grows and grows. In many places, it has already grown to the point that it is no longer accurate to say "They're Jewish, but not observant." When a person's assertion of Core Identity is denied by others whose opinions are respected, it makes a big gooey psychological mess.
Which leads to point 11: You might not want to get involved, and might want to respect other people's privacy. But Shuls and Schools and Minyans don't have that liberty. They have to be "mean".
(If you want to keep this comment off your website, I understand.)
A lot of my more recent posts aren't solving a problem but opening up people's eyes to "the other way of thinking about things." Solving problems is probably too ambitious for this blogger, but mutual respect and understanding, that's where I'm going.
And to your list of shuls, schools, and minyans… add mohels. Not so fun having to balance two of your dearest values: veracity of Torah, and being kind to everyone.
Don't underestimate yourself. I think you've solved tons of problems on this blog. Sometimes clarification is all that is needed to make things better.
Well, thank you. I hope so! And if so, thank you for being part of the solution!
RD that was very sensitively put. And, I'm going to be truly honest here, it is a divide that I, IMHO, do not think we will be able to bridge. If there were 10 million Ruchis and 10 million Leah's, halacha is still going to be halacha. And O-Jews, minyans, mohels, schools, shuls etc will still have to make these decisions and it will still be painful for all involved. It's what it is. What's important is this kind of discussion to promote at least the understanding of both sides, if not the acceptance.
Irreconcilable differences are generally grounds for divorce. We've been there before several times over. Maybe it's time yet again?
Um, who would be divorcing whom in this analogy? Orthodox divorcing Reform? That would be one way to get closer to Jewish unity–kick out the people who don't fit your criteria?
Eeps. I don't like the way that sounds. I think Leah means – agree to disagree.
I was referring to Ben-Yehoshua's comment about divorce. I think Leah was much more about accepting unbridgeability and having discussions within that unbridgeability–which in my view is also about as much unity as we can expect, and frankly is as much as I would want, because anything else would either require 'divorce' or someone giving up what they hold dear.
I don't like it either. I am all about Jewish unity and am very cognizant of the fact that our enemies don't make a distinction between us. However, if we mutually decide that one party doesn't have any right to meddle in the membership criteria of another and the facts on the ground are such that this makes a huge difference very fast – what is the solution?
That someone from the outside wants to come and join a warm and welcoming Reform congregation is wonderful. However, when that person thinks she is joining the Jewish people and finds out decades later (or more common and worse yet – her kids find out) that for most Jewish people (1.8 mln Reform out of 13-16 mln Jews worldwide) she is not – who has the responsibility for that pain? That is no longer wonderful.
Ben-Yehoshua, what if there ISN'T a solution? There may not be. This may be an issue that is painful and ongoing. And that's ok. Not great, but there it is. What family members do you know that get along fabulously all the time? The Jewish people are no different.
Most Reform rabbis I know inform potential converts of all of their options, and give them all the info in order to make an informed choice, including what geirut means in Conservative and Orthodox Judaism (remember, it's not just Orthodox Jews who accept only matrilineal descent, and a Reform conversion doesn't always fly in Conservative circles either). The convert goes into this understanding the potential ramifications. It's up to them to decide how they want to proceed and deal with future children, etc.
I have family members who have had repercussions because of certain things that weren't done in infancy and other family issues, and it was handled with diplomacy and respect on all sides, and the adult involved did not blame anyone, and other family members moved on. I'm not going to say there wasn't pain, there was, on all sides. And no one made compromises, by the way. The adult in question adhered strictly to halacha as directed by his Rav, and everyone else attended to their needs. But ultimately everyone found a way to have "shalom bayit".
Dear TRR,
There is ALWAYS an answer to the acceptance "problem" of the disputed maternal convert. A new conversion. I know of at least one person, in addition of the person on this blog, who chose that option. You personally may not like it. You may consider it demeaning, but it would be your choice and your values at stake.
On a personal basis, I would like to see the development of some sort of reaffermation or return ceremony developed in halachic circles modeld after the notion of the stolen child concept but it is not my role to poskin for the congregation.
ZbS:
First of all, an unnecessary gerut l'chumra may result in two otherwise suitable people not being able to marry if one of them is a Cohen. Secondly, by the time we are talking about the validity of a maternal grandmother's conversion, half a dozen or more such conversions may be required. There can be ripple effects – if the son of the woman whose conversion is now being questioned was a witness for a get, then the get is invalid, and some people may abruptly discover they are mamzerim. And so on and on – as the Talmud says in another context 'ayn sof l'dvar' – there is no end to the thing (unless an end is decreed).
But up against the wall they would likely not yield on the question of whether my practice/interpretation of Judaism is "really Jewish". See Larry's comment below on the 'olive branch' that pokes out the eye.
And they would say "yes they are Jewish" but have contempt for what they perceive as the non-Jewish practice that 'passes' for Jewish (in their view, not mine). And even more contempt, from what I have seen, for Conservative and Modern Orthodox Jews who 'should know better' because they are not as 'ill-informed' as Reform Jews but nonetheless do not follow proper Judaism.
Um, Larry above. Last comment meant as a response to Ruchi's response where she says O-Jews would against a wall admit that non-O-Jews are Jewish.
I think the three possible reactions would be: contempt, ignorance, and curiosity. The same three that would probably be coming from the other direction as well.
i'm so sorry you ascribe the orthodox feeling towards conservative jews as contempt, and i feel very sad that you should think that. i can assure you that most orthodox that i know, feel simply that the conservative missed out and simply werent taught. in fact, i believe that someone like ruchi would agree that the conservative folks who are learning at JFX have never heard of the beauty of judaism, and are soaking in the Torah that they missed out. this is far from contempt. for me, all i want is to share the beauty of Torah life with those who missed out.
Although is not meant with contempt, this post comes across to me as insulting. To say that Conservative Jews missed out, weren't taught, and have not heard of the beauty of Judaism? So ONLY Orthodoxy is beautiful? ONLY Orthodoxy is Judaism?
What are your feelings towards Jewishly educated heterdox Jews? My wife and I had to choose between egalitarianism and living in an observant community, and reluctantly chose the latter. I know people who chose the former and I can't say they were wrong.
As a heterodox from birth I can say that most FFBs have never heard the beauty of the voice of a woman leading prayers, or the experienced repeated pleasure of watching a woman cry the first time she publicly reads Torah after she waited most of a lifetime to do so, or the simple ease of being a woman and doing Jewish things that the Orthodox associate with men without it being considered transgressive.
Larry, I hear your reluctance loud and clear, but why did you ultimately choose to go with the observant community?
And if I've heard the beauty of a man's voice leading prayers, and I've heard the beauty of a woman's voice leading prayers for women, and I've experienced the pleasure of watching a young man from the former Soviet Union read Torah after waiting most of a lifetime to do it, or watch a young Down's Syndrome girl celebrate her Bat Mitzvah…what exactly have I missed out on? As an Orthodox woman I have never felt left out of the richness of Jewish life.
I'll chime in here from personal experience – growing up in the Conservative, Egalitarian "movement." I had every opportunity a woman might "want" in contrast to Orthodox Judaism. I was a "feminist" par excellance, consonant with my liberal NY upbringing. I read Torah, I chanted Haftorah on a regular basis at Shul, I led minyanim, I had an awesome bas mitzvah, I even wore a Tallis for a time (albeit briefly). I had a group of friends that all thought the same as me – one is even now a Rabbi in the Conservative movement!
But, honestly, in my later high school years I started to really (really) delve into the meanings behind the differing responsibilities for men and women in Orthodox Judaism. And at first I was struck because it didn't seem so "crazy" to me. I thought I would be outraged and instead I was intrigued. Then I dug deeper and the authenticity, the tradition, and the (frankly) overarching message that women were exempt from some mitzvos because they could be, not because there was anything wrong,all resonated with me. And as I started to explore the Orthodox world I appreciated most of all the dialogue that teachers, mentors and just regular Orthodox people were willing to engage in (similar to this blog).
I think that women, overall, including myself, tend to look at what we don't have because that's what the feminist culture around us has inculcated. I believe that I had a great benefit in that I took the time (and had people to talk to) to look at what women DO have in Orthodox Judaism and WHY. And that, honestly, changed my outlook and the trajectory of my life forever.
Chavi, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I'd love to hear other readers' thoughts on your experience.
The overwhelming majority of Orthodox women in my community are largely satisfied with their roles. But I live in a Modern Orthodox community, where one could, if one found that life intolerable, leave for the local conservative shul without paying a social penalty in terms of being ostracized by their friends and family, so those who feel that way have done so. Also, there is a smal minority of women who participate in such things as Women's Tefilla Groups etc and are happy with that compromise.
The longer I live in an O community, the less I think it is possible to have some sort of mixed egalitarianism such as the C Rabbi Joel Roth tried to support with his Roth teshuvah. (Standing on one foot, he suggested that women who took on the obligation to daven 3 times a day could thereafter function the same as men with respect to leading prayers, while women who took no such oath would remain unable to do so.) If my suspicion is right and a community can't survive half egalitarian and half non-egalitarian, I have to reluctantly support the non-egalitarians. They were here first, and they have nowhere else to go at any price.
What an interesting post! Great subject. The difficult part for me to accept in Orthodox Judaism is not that women and men are seen as different (and therefore have different roles), but that women have no public decision making power. They cannot be Rabbi's, they are almost never President of a Shul or another Orthodox Organization ( I don't know if this is actual Halacha or just social stigma against women in leadership positions).
Hi! And thank you!
I've blogged about this here:
http://outoftheorthobox.blogspot.com/2011/08/mythbusters-2-orthodox-women-are-second.html
But your stance is understandable. Again, as I've mentioned elsewhere in this (increasingly long) comment section, if it's about clarifying what is the mesorah (unbroken chain of tradition from Sinai), then it's on me to reconcile what I want with what I feel to be truth.
And again I reiterate what I've mentioned elsewhere: never have I felt left out, undervalued or misunderstood as a woman in my upbringing or opportunities as an Orthodox woman.
Ruchi, thanks for sharing that post. While I can understand your point about the private sphere (the women's sphere, according to Orthodox Judaism) not being valued as much as the public sphere, some of the reasons I've learned about why women cannot be Rabbi's and hold pubic leadership positions don't hold water with me. Some kind of make sense, like women not having time bound Mitzot ( so therefore, why is someone who isn't obligated, to say daven Mincha, leading mincha), but other reasons seem downright sexist. These include the idea that it's not tznius for a women to lead a man in prayer (even if she's dressed tzniusly) and of course then there would be the issue of Kol esha (men can't hear women sing- I think that's what it's called?). Another reason I learned is that women are better at multi-tasking than men and therefore don't have the ability to focus on one specific task (say studying to be a Rabbi), the way men do. This last reason is exceptionally ludicrous to me. I guess it seems strange to me to have very educated and successful women (say as a Torah Teacher or in the secular world- Doctor, lawyer etc.) and then tell them they cannot lead and are unable to contribute to public decision making processes in the Orthodox Jewish world.
I've never actually heard the third reason. Is there a source for that?
I learn with a chevrutah through Partners in Torah and she taught me that. I will ask her for her source.
Any congregational rabbi who is not good at multitasking will quickly find themselves out of a job. Just saying.
OOTOB, this is really a tangent (albeit an important one) but I'll say this:
One of the things that Orthodox Jews believe about Judaism is that the commandments are here to stay, whether we discover reasons for them that resonate with us or not. The "reasons" for mitzvot are not described in the Torah, and purposefully: because (and this is an advanced concept, so stay with me) we are meant to do things because God said so, and He created us and knows what is good for us.
That said, we are encouraged to seek insights/reasons that resonate with us to make these practices more meaningful and fulfilling, but my observance of the mitzvot should not hinge on my discovering that reason. So any reasons offered for why women aren't rabbis are *possible insights* (take them or leave them).
The law, however remains.
I know this flies in the face of how the world at large approaches life, and it's, like I said, an advanced approach that not everyone will be able to accept.
Parts of the Orthodox movement are chafing against this restriction and are moving toward ordination of women. When they do, they take themselves out of the Orthodox movement.
For me personally, I get it. I look at how women in politics, for example, are viewed and treated and discussed, and how men in politics are, and I go back to the notion that God didn't feel it was the most opportune way for women to achieve spiritual greatness – by being held up in the public eye and having to be a man in a man's world. For some this will resonate, and others will be highly critical of my words and feelings, and that's OK.
Ruchi, thanks for responding to my questions. Sorry about the tangent! I think this topic (the one of the post, not my tangent) is a very sensitive issue but is so important to talk about. I was raised in a Reform Community and I'm so thankful to have a Jewish mother (albeit a non-Jewish father) but MANY (I'd say up to 50%) do not fall under the category of halachically Jewish according to Orthodox Judaism. I didn't understand this growing up, but once I learned about this in college it made me very sad to know that people in my "Jewish" community, weren't actually considered Jewish at all.
Ruchi,
You said "Parts of the Orthodox movement are chafing against this restriction and are moving toward ordination of women. When they do, they take themselves out of the Orthodox movement." I do not belive that Rabbis Weiss, Riskin, Angel, and others will "take themselves out of the Orthodox movment" but they may be expelled by parts of it. Neither will the Rabbis of Beth Shemesh who assault young girls "take them selves" out of the rational Orthodox world.
ZBS,
Semantics. Ordination of women is known to be outside of normative Orthodoxy. There is a difference between your two examples. Rabbi Weiss, for example, is pushing the limits of Orthodox Judaism into the world of egalitarianism (or Conservative Judaism, if you will).
The Beit Shemesh guys are not entering any new denomination. They are just acting badly, hands down. No denomination will sanction what they've done. You can't take "people who behave badly" out of Orthodox Judaism. If you do, it's like ethnic cleansing, where only perfect people are left to be identified as Orthodox Jews (it will be a mighty small denomination). Orthodox people have to own those in their midst who behave badly, while decrying their bad behavior.
Ordination of women is not in that category at all.
I've blogged about Beit Shemesh here: http://outoftheorthobox.blogspot.com/2011/12/religious-extremism-and-me.html
and about general bad behavior by Orthodox Jews here: http://outoftheorthobox.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-im-thinking-when-orthodox-make.html
I think certain subsets of the Israeli charedim – with their promotion of universal kollel for men, the creation of separate sidewalks for men and women, the blurring of women's face in photographs, the refusal to mention wives and daughters in obituaries, the requirement in belief in chazal's literal correctness where it contradicts modern science, and so forth are at least as far from traditional Jewish values as anything espoused by Rabbi Weiss. I wish there was 1/10th the protest of the innovation of women as the principal or even sole breadwinners for their families as there is of the movement towards granting women public spiritual leadership roles.
OK, now we have an interesting about Orthodoxy, which I raised about Reform but did not get an answer. I saw in one of the Reform responsum the term "yesh gvul" which means, "there is a limit." Reform Judaism determined that its outer limit to the left was belief in God. What is its outer limit to the right, I asked?
Likewise, if Orthodoxy's outer limit to the left is ordination of women (per RCA, I believe) or mechitza, or driving on Shabbos (or all of those), what is its outer limit to the right?
Larry suggests the above behaviors should be outside of Orthodoxy to its right. If so, what are they? Harediism? Chassidism? Ultra-Orthodoxy? "Not Judaism"? Is that as rude as calling Reformism "not Judaism"?
[Sidebar: I find the woman breadwinner/kollel set up to be remarkably egalitarian.]
Uninformed response to fascinating questions:
If it's true that R- and C- have governing bodies that are recognized by all R- and C- congregations, I guess they determine the 'leftward' limits as described by Leah and others (I don't agree with the left/right language, but ok). The 'rightward' limit is probably not something of concern to Reform congregations because the INDIVIDUALS who want to observe other things can join C- or O-congregations, so that it makes the R- and C- congregations rather self-selecting? Does that make sense? I'm not sure yet.
If Orthodox congregations do not all recognize the same governing bodies, I guess that is why we get such a range of 'group' behavior (don't know if Beit Shemesh's scandal was congregation-driven). The deplorable behaviors are not part of Orthodox Judaism per se–except there is no governing O-J body to tell those people so? And their own congregation is in agreement with them?
This makes me see a different side of the "Jewish unity" problem–that it is really a big problem within O-J because there is no unified governing body?
Another aside: While living in Germany I attended the equivalent of a Reform service and there was separate seating for men and women! And then I tried a 'more observant' (rightward??) congregation, probably "Conservative" (and a lot of Americans) and the seating was mixed and the rabbi was a woman! Boy was I confused.
Well, that's a very good question.
Most countries with an Orthodox presence have a Chief Rabbi (all Orthodox, as far as I am aware?). The US, notably, does not. Anyone know why? I don't.
But this brings up a tangent I mentioned earlier. If a Reform Rabbi wants to open a congregation, what happens? Does he/she have to be certified/approved? Certain key decisions are left up to clergy, right? Like officiating intermarriages or same-sex ceremonies, for example. How does that work with the "governing body"?
Part of the issue is that ultimately non-Orthodox denominations are pluralistic, so huge divergences (and I've seen huge divergences within both the Conservative movement and within the Reform movement, from one cong. to another) aren't perceived as contradictory. In Orthodoxy, which is not pluralistic, they would be.
The Germany thing: fascinating! Would love to hear someone weigh in on what THAT is about.
The unity thing: maybe I'm nuts, but I don't think it's such a problem. We need to work on it, it's a goal, but I wouldn't say Orthodox Jews as a whole are more disjointed than Reform Jews as a whole or Conservative Jews as a whole. AT ALL.
We pray for each other, help each other, know all about what's going on in each others' communities. It's like a big huge messy family. We don't always get along, but we're all in touch. (Usually.)
I think Jewish unity in general is more of a problem.
Hence, this blog.
you're right, it probably does sound somewhat condescending, but it's how i feel. i believe that God is great, and God is good, and He didn't give us a Torah that is irrelevant. So if you believe part of the Torah, you have to believe all of it. I believe that God and His Torah is not only beautiful, but brilliant, and choosing to keep only part of it, is therefore missing out.
I came a little late to the party on this one, but after reading through all 120+ comments, and trying to follow the many varied tangents that developed, I keep coming back to these comments from Anonymous. So I hope Ruchi will allow my response.
Anonymous, I share many of your thoughts – I believe that God gave us the Torah, and we are supposed to follow it faithfully. I believe that God, and Torah, are beautiful and brilliant. But I think the component that is missing in your comments is acknowledging that following this mesorah the way you do is a CHOICE. Hashem gave all of us free will. Can you truly respect someone who has applied their divinely granted intelligence and free will and reached different conclusions than you have? I believe I do, and from what I have seen on this blog, I think Ruchi does.
It may be harder for you, as an FFB, to see. You are living in the way you are raised, in the way that most people you know live. Yet, you, too have made a choice to live this way. Must that choice include judging/ devaluing/ pitying people who have made different choices? Perhaps we can leave the judgement to Hashem, the True Judge, and focus on accepting varied human choices.
Miriam, this is a helpful view for me into what an Orthodox view could mean when combined with acceptance of other practices. It sounds like this, and maybe also from Ruchi, that O-Jews might have an easier time accepting or acknowledging INDIVIDUAL Jews who practice differently (i.e. not Orthodox practice) than they have acknowledging MOVEMENTS that diverge from O-Judaism. Am I misunderstanding that?
I think this is entirely correct for many Orthodox Jews. Paradoxically, this means that in many ways such people find it easier to get along with completely secular Jews than with seriously religious heterodox Jews.
An interesting (and from the O view, somewhat left of center) perspective on Orthodox relations with both heterodox Jews and heterodox movements can be found in Rabbi Norman Lamm's essay 70 faces of Torah. Start on page 137 and read as far as Google books will let you.
Miriam, thank you. I would just qualify the word "choice" as I did elsewhere here – everyone has the right choose, but I don't think all choices are equally valid.
Yes, SBW – I think that is exactly correct. I totally understand a Jew who says, "Wow. Shabbos. So beautiful. I get it. But I just can't do that. Too hard, too complicated, I'm too old…" But to institutionalize that non-observance, and vote to make it OK, this is problematic for me to accept.
Ruchi, this is really fascinating. You "understand" the "lazy Jew" (not meant insultingly, but descriptively as a shorthand) but what does that understanding mean?
Because according to some of the posts here about Reform Judaism, from which I have learned a lot (e.g. SCJ and Leah) I'm actually not a very good Reform Jew, I'm a "lazy Jew"–which honestly sounds more like me and I don't take it as an insult (although I know that for people for whom Jewish practice is more significant, it would be). Like I have not really considered how the mitzvot apply (e.g. in an age where winemakers don't operate with idol-worship in mind) although I like the idea of doing that examination of the mitzvot. So if I say, I'm a very minimally practicing and believing Jew, that's easier for an O-Jew to accept than "I'm a Reform Jew"? What kinds of 'judgments' go with that? This blog is mostly not judgmental, but I gather in the larger O-world there would be some. The O-world (not this blog, which has shown incredible restraint and openness toward others) has less 'distaste' or 'smugness' or 'difficulty accepting' the non-sectarian-identified 'lazy Jew' than the proudly identified Reform Jew?
And now I want another round of this whole post where REFORM Judaism is at the center-what counts, what doesn't, what's lazy, what's lax, what's on the spectrum. But I know that's not Ruchi's specialization.
I don't have a problem with either *Jew* – I do have a problem with organizational decisions rendering non-observance OK.
As I said above, I have no problem with individuals but I find certain philosophies problematic.
I think, based on many things I've read here, that the dearest value in Orthodoxy might just be authenticity. And the dearest value in Reformism might just be autonomy. Is that right? Because if so, each is a threat to the other.
And then you add in disputed personal status, due to the two contested concepts of patrileneal descent and conversion, and you have practical as well as philosophical disagreement.
How much this should bother me is an excellent question.
My two dearest values are veracity of Torah and being nice to everyone. When they clash…?? Even if I'm "nice," my ideas can be hurtful. But as I ended the original post, in the vast majority of cases, people get that I'm not trying to be judgmental or rude.
I hope this whole conversation has been a step toward that awareness.
SBW post coming forthwith! Funny you should mention it – it's been in the works since this morning (it will be a guest post). I do not think the dearest value in Reform Judaism is autonomy. The dearest values in Reform Judaism are God, Torah and Israel. Interpreted and observed markedly different from other forms of Judaism, but those are the dearest values. Not authenticity, not autonomy.
And I'm in the same boat. I have beliefs and feelings that even when I'm at my most diplomatic and "nice", they are painful for others. It's what it is. I try not to let it interfere with my personal relationships, but sometimes it does.
SBW, I think the reason it's easier for Orthodox Jews to accept a "lazy Jew" than a serious, observant Conservative or Reform Jew is because you can say of the "lazy Jew" that Orthodoxy is the Judaism she doesn't practice. LJ's (Lazy Jews), at least to the Orthodox, agree that the entire Torah (including mishnah, talmud, all of halacha) is divine and binding, they just won't do anything about it. Other movements, though, dispute the divinity of the Torah – and that's where it chafes against OJ.
Ruchi, am I on the right track?
Yes. Except I would just reiterate that I don't have a problem with either JEW but rather with the IDEOLOGY.
RR – of course God, Israel, and Torah. Orthodoxy would agree with THAT. Question is, by what mechanism do you determine what that looks like in actual daily living?
If "authenticity" is the answer to that question in Orthodoxy, what would be its parallel in Reformism (is that the noun?) – informed choice? Something else?
Hm, I'll be eager to see what knowledgeable people will say to that last question. I can imagine that Reform doesn't have a 'parallel' value to authenticity. I think you're looking to a source for authority.
SBW, what do you mean by your last line?
Sorry to have scrambled and then cut off that thought. I meant that you sounded like you were looking for a Reform principle, parallel to O's principle of authenticity, that would explain where Reform Judaism comes by its authority, where its bindingness and authoritativeness come from. For O-Jews it sounds like the authority is based on the 'authenticity' or unbrokenness that you ascribe to the teachings going back to Moses. I will be curious to see if the more informed Reform people will say that there is such a 'bedrock' foundation for Reform Judaism. I think, but don't know at all for sure, that Reform Judaism is a bit more comfortable without that same kind of absolutely solid sense of being grounded on an objective and ahistorical truth. I know I am, i.e. that the less-than-solid ground is part of the appeal.
Ruchi, can you explain what you mean by "authenticity"? I might be better able to answer your question.
What I mean is, how do I figure out how to honor the values of God, Torah, Israel? I try to determine, based on the sources and people from previous generations, what God intended when He originally gave the Torah at Sinai. What does authentic Torah look like.
When Reform Judaism tries to determine how to honor those values, what process is used? Based on how you described the wine thing above (was it you?) it seems like ultimately each person's intellect is the final decisor – as a culmination of study, talking with a Rabbi, etc. That's why I thought the "parallel value" in Reform Judaism might be "autonomy" or perhaps more accurately "informed choice."
I also think (this is a tangent), based on what I've learned here, that many people call themselves "Reform Jews" who are not. They are marginally observant, and call themselves Reform.
The last point Ruchi makes is in my view a potentially inflamatory one, but it interests me greatly.
Here's my 'lay' perspective, I know others here are much more informed about R-Judaism. Because R-Judaism, for its own theological reasons, has the least demanding sheer amount of observance, it attracts people who are less interested in performing as much observance for different reasons, AND it also attracts [and likely was created by] people who in a more self-conscious and informed way definitely want to follow specifically Reform observance for carefully thought-out reasons [e.g. the contemporary wine-maker example]. And then in addition to that, R-Judaism also accepts [in my lay experience] individuals who might not believe or have firm belief in God or other beliefs central to O-Judaism (including divinity of Torah)–but as indicated by Ruchi's response to my question about whether a person could practice Orthodox-style and believe none of it, a lack of belief in central tenets seems to be also a possibility for any person belonging to any of the "denominations", although beliefs [and lacks thereof] for *individuals* are different than what may be stated as official positions of those groups.
So yes I know a lot of marginally observant, and sometimes also pretty uninformed, Jews who call themselves Reform. Definitely not like Leah or And who ARE Reform, because if you belong to the shul and call yourself Reform, that's enough, even if you don't believe the official position of R-Judaism and don't practice–or so I have always thought. So I think in a way R-Judaism becomes a placeholder for Jews who are more culturally identified and less doctrinally or observance-ly concerned. I have to think of another way to defines these Jews–or just myself–than just "lazy". I think I'm both Reform (in outlook) AND lazy, which somehow sounds bad but I feel like there's a defensible position in here somewhere–as a position, and not just a deficiency.
*meant to say Leah or FS, and there are others as well here.
The distinction between 'talks the talk' and 'walks the walk' is present in all denominations. Listen to a discussion oh HaEmtza sometimes about the differences between charedi and charedi-lite, on the one hand, and MO and MO-lite on the other. Then there is RW MO, LW MO, LW Charedi, RW charedi – I'm pretty sure we could generate sub-denominations down to the level of individual neighborhoods, if not to the level of individuals.
See Varieties of Orthodox Judaism for an example.
SBW, I think you're right. "Place-holder" rings true for me, but I don't know if Reform people would agree.
I want to add two things:
1. An Orthodox Jew who struggles with belief in God – that's considered a problem. He/she will likely feel very uncomfortable with it, may reach out to a Rabbi to help with it, and/or may eventually fall away from Jewish observance because of it. It's not really compatible with Orthodox practice over the long term.
2. (And this addresses Larry's comments as well) – an Orthodox Jew who "walks the walk" but "doesn't believe" is still Orthodox since he/she is observing many, many commandments that are different from mainstream living. Think Shabbat, kosher, mikveh, outward appearance. However, since for a Reform Jew, outward observance is not mandated, how would that schism present itself in real life? If a person calls themselves Reform, but doesn't actually believe or even know what Reform philosophy is, in what way are they "still Reform"?
OMG so many things to address in this comment section but I will stick with one right now because this has gotten too big to address properly here. SBW is correct, R-J is kind of a "place holder" for people who do not want to be very observant, or who are not educated enough to choose that, or who simply want to be culturally identified (or not even that), because it is, for better and for worse, the most open and accepting of the 3 major denominations (Recon and Renewal are also, but they are not nearly as widely known, and that is another, whole long post).
Truly? To belong to a Reform community, you do not have to believe in the Divinity of anything, or actually practice anything, and while the movement itself is explicit in the necessity of belief in God, on an individual level we don't go around making people sign a statement of beliefs to join the shul (no one does this).
I will argue that the simple act of joining a shul is a statement that you want to "belong". People who are truly agnostic or atheist do not join shuls (mostly – I'm sure there are exceptions). People, quite often, as you have experienced, Ruchi, are searching – many times they don't even know for what. But they know, deep down, that they are a part of the Jewish people and want to be a part, even nominally, of a living Jewish community. And our doors are wiiiiiide open. It is on us, the people who serve these communities, to engage them and support them in any way we can. To give them a positive feeling that yes, they are Jews, and our Jewish community loves them for who they are, and perhaps in time, through this positive reinforcement and love and acceptance, they will want to become more engaged, more involved, more observant. We model this in our home and in our daily lives – not so different from you! That is not to say that being Jewish in our community is a free pass to do nothing – oh of course not, although many people use it as an excuse, sadly. But one must start somewhere. And if one wants to walk through our doors and begin that journey on their own terms . . . Baruch HaBah/ah.
I wasn't going to reply to this wonderful post, or the ongoing discussion, but I can't help myself.
As a Reform Jew (a Reform Rabbi, even), I want to jump in here. I understand what you mean by authenticity–and I recognize that we define that idea differently. But, personally, I see Reform Judaism as authentic Judaism. I personally believe that halachah was always intended to be evolving, and that as the latest link in the chain of tradition, it's my responsibility to interpret Torah (and lower case torah, for that matter) for myself, for this age. I believe that's how God intended us to be.
Again, I recognize that you mean something different when you say authenticity…
rabbiisa, welcome to OOTOB and thanks for weighing in. You weren't going to? Why not?? 😉
Ah – this I find truly interesting. I *thought* this was the case, that's why I kept searching for the "Reform parallel" to the Orthodox "authenticity." Now I'm hearing it would be the same. Question: is this your personal view, or something that is movement-determined (this is another tangent we could travel – where Reform clergy are given leeway to form personal policy that is either not specified or contradicted by Reform philosophy)?
Because it sounds as though you are saying (correct me if I am putting words in your mouth) that Reform IS an halachic movement; however halacha may be defined in different ways. Yes? RR, would you agree with this?
RR, to your point: what do you think of this – Orthodoxy does not consider synagogue affiliation to be telling at all. Belief in God is far more telling. If a person believes in God (one of the top ten) but doesn't belong to a synagogue, how does Reform Judaism view that individual? (I'm intentionally leaving observance out of the equation, since we've already established that that's not telling.)
Rabbiisa, this elaboration of 'authenticity' as also belonging to R-J (albeit understood differently than in O-J) is very illuminating, thanks.
I grew up as a Reform Jew before patrilineal descent was accepted. I know people who converted because their father was Jewish but their mother was not. And since that change in Reform policy happened while I was in college, I've also known people who did not have to convert (but i also know that many of them have been made aware that while the Reform movement recognizes their "Jewish"ness other denominations of Judaism might not, and they might want to consider conversion). I've also known people who converted from other religions (in my immediate and extended family), however many of them have been told that since their conversion was performed by a non-Orthodox Rabbi, they would not be considered Jewish by the Orthodox community.
I was raised that Reform Jews are Reform and not Orthodox because they make choices about the observances they follow. And the continuum from very little ritual observance to almost Orthodox-like ritual observance is extremely wide among Reform Jews and that as you "move up" in denomination (from Reform to Conservative to Orthodox, not really sure where Reconstructionist falls as since Humanistic seems to be ritual without faith or very little faith in HaShem, I tend to lump that at the same "level" as Reform) the expectation of observance is greater.
I've also always been taught that you don't ask. If a person says they are a Jew, then ok. That you're not supposed to question how they are a Jew (through their Mother or via conversion) because you aren't supposed to treat the converted any differently from those who are born into the religion (it is up to them to meet the obligations that they have made through conversion).
Anonymous, thank you. This is very enlightening.
I have one comment. You write: "I was raised that Reform Jews are Reform and not Orthodox because they make choices about the observances they follow."
This sort of confuses me, because I was also raised that we all have choices. It's called "free will" and it is a basic endowment of God that is core and central to the experience of being a human being. We make choices every moment of every day, and this was a huge piece of my Jewish education.
I think it might be more accurate to state that the Reform movement doesn't believe that mitzvot are binding, and that one can choose which obligations will be binding for him or her. Whereas Orthodoxy states that we are obligated in all the mitzvot, and that we have free will about which we will keep and which we will not keep (or keep in part, or sometimes, or half-heartedly) but that at the end of the day there will be consequences for our choices.
If I have this wrong on the Reform piece, someone please correct me.
Reform Jews can choose not to follow specific mitzvot without sinning. Orthodox Jews lack that capability, according to their theology.
I think, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, that Reform Jews *do* consider the mitzvot as binding. What isn't binding is the halacha. Mitzvot straight from the Torah (and by this I mean the written, NOT oral torah) are binding on Reform Jews. Things from the oral torah/ mitzvot miderabbanan are not binding on Reform Jews.
SCJ and LL, it seems your explanations contradict each other. Maybe someone can clarify.
SCJ: following mitzvot straight from the Torah without Talmudic input is often more stringent than with it, and I don't really see Reform communities (or even its clergy) observing that way.
SCJ and Ruchi – no mitzvot/halacha are Divinely binding.
Outside of the 10 commandments. I'm pretty sure everyone accepts those as binding 🙂 Now, you may ask why those and not the others? GREAT questions! and it has about 1000 different answers.
Well, Leah… you're venturing into murky territory. Shabbat, belief in G-d…? (this reminds me of the recent conversation on your blog).
Belief in G-d…?
The Reform movement has a specific teshuvah stating that congregations that belong to the Humanistic Jewish movement (which espouses a doctrine call 'ignosticism' which basically says that nothing meaningful can be said about God) may not be accepted in the Reform movement, since they (the Reform movement) require belief in God as a pre-requisite for congregational affiliation. (Their attitude towards individual atheists is more nuanced.)
Shabbat is a better example. The Reform movement agrees to 'remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.' They simply don't accept the rabbinical mountains suspended by the hair of the biblical law. (That's a phrase from the Talmud, by the way). They also aren't Kararites, as suggested by SCJ above. I am not aware of any Reform teshuvah that forbids eating the hindquarters of a cow, or even just eating (non-kosher) hamburger because it has a chance of containing bits of the sciatic nerve. They don't support the law of ben sorer u'moreh. The early foundation documents of the Reform Movement (such as the Pittsuburg Platform specifically say they regard the ethical commandments of Judaism as binding and not the ritual ones. To quote from the document I just linked to:
3. We recognize in the Mosaic legislation a system of training the Jewish people for its mission during its national life in Palestine, and today we accept as binding only its moral laws, and maintain only such ceremonies as elevate and sanctify our lives, but reject al such as are not adapted to the views and habits of modern civilization.
4. We hold that all such Mosaic and rabbinical laws as regulate diet, priestly purity, and dress originated in ages and under the influence of ideas entirely foreign to our present mental and spiritual state. They fail to impress the modern Jew with a spirit of priestly holiness; their observance in our days is apt rather to obstruct than to further modern spiritual elevation.
Note that the Reform movement has changed significantly since those days. After the founding of the state of Israel, Zionism became acceptable. In the past 20 years there has been an increased interest in ritual.
Larry is entirely correct. Also in his assertion that the last generation has seen observance of ritual laws and customs come very much on to the scene, in some significant ways. This does not, however, change the status of these laws in the eyes of the Reform movement – they are not binding, with, of course as Larry mentioned, the belief in God. You can, in fact, choose not to acknowledge the sabbath (or any mitzvot) at all and be a Reform Jew.
Interesting stuff. Never knew this, or at least not specifically.
Rebbetzin rocks – I didn't know that, and now I'm a bit confused… must go and do some reading.
RR can you clarify about belief in God. Can you not observe that and still be a Reform Jew? I ask based on an experience with a Reform Rabbi – not sure if it was isolated to that congregation, or OK with the general movement.
Again, only citing teshuvot and other documents and not based on real life experience:
Responsa on a humanist congregation asking to join the URJ. Also contains thoughts on individual atheists.
Is there anything I have to believe or do in order to call myself a Reform Jew?l
I think your disclaimer is important, btw. And thanks for these links, and the others. I have found them hugely interesting.
Me too. I didn't realize, for instance, that Reform Judaism is doctrinally Zionist (see Ruchi's recent post on Israeli politics). What is also really interesting is that the Reform Responsa says the same thing about the Humanist congregation that the O-Jews here say about Reform Judaism: individuals can reject certain parts of practice or belief and still 'belong', but a congregation/institution that wants to share a 'name' with us (Judaism [for O-Jews], or Reform Judaism), is a different story.
Again, and I've addressed this in several of my own posts, the mandate of the movement is belief in God. That is non-negotiable. Larry has linked to accurate and informed sources. I have no idea what happened with that rabbi, I'd be happy to discuss it, but the movement is very clear on this issue. One's personal feelings/beliefs, as you well know, are a different matter. I am certain that there are people of every Jewish stripe who question God's existence, and some of them may even deny it. I think each of us can cite examples of people we've met or known from all denominations who fall into this category. PUBLICLY and by its institution, this is not acceptable in Reform Judaism. PRIVATELY, those of us in the Jewish "professional" world often encounter people who are searching and looking for guidance.
What you are struggling with, and it is apparent to me that I have not made it clear, is that "belief in God" does not necessarily mean "belief in the anthropomorphized God of the Torah". You can believe in the Almighty, HaShem, HaMakom, whatever you want to call, but not necessarily in direct revelation. The two are NOT mutually inclusive/exclusive in Reform ideology.
Yup. I get that.
Basically the Rabbi stated from the pulpit, at a bat mitzvah, that he doesn't necessarily believe in God.
So I guess this particular Rabbi has deviated from normative Reform theology.
"anthropomorphized God of the Torah" is somewhat incendiary.
The Talmud spends a lot of time explaining that any anthropomorphisms used in the Torah are only there as a way of speaking and are not to be taken literally. Onkelos gets rid of most of them to the extent possible in his translation. Rambam goes as far as saying it's impossible to say what God is, the only thing we can do is say what he isn't. In other places it's mentioned that the best way to describe God is "nothing". And of course the pronoun "he" is just as applicable as "she" or "it" since God isn't gendered or animate the way we understand it. The fact that some people get hung up on that is a major symptom of lack of understanding this basic concept.
What's the major difference between direct revelation and "divine inspiration" in terms of it's materialistic plausibility? Why split hairs on this point?
Um, YEAH. I would say he deviated from normative Reform theology. Also? Kinda weird to make that statement at a Bat Mitzvah. Or, frankly from the pulpit at all.
BY – I apologize if I have offended you. What I meant to say, was that many Reform Jews believe in God, just not necessarily God that "wants" or "needs" or "loves" – very human attributes. As you say, God is not gendered or animate. Often, the people I encounter believe in a Divine "force" or "power" if you will, rather than an active being that has a literal hand in things.
I am not "hung up" on gender – Hebrew is a gendered language, so there you are. I really don't think it matters what gender or pronoun you use – God is certainly more than the sum of human parts.
I really cannot address the difference between direct revelation and Divine inspiration – WAAAAAY to big a topic to attempt here.
RR, are you saying that the Reform vision of God does not have a hand in our daily lives? Isn't a personal God? Help me understand.
RE: conversion. Here's an interesting piece from my friend Allison at jewinthecity.com:
http://www.jewinthecity.com/2010/08/changing-teams-amare-stoudemire-and-the-orthodox-perspective-on-converting-to-judaism/
Thank you Ruchi for sharing this post! I think the conversation is an important one for people to have, who may not otherwise have a forum to do so!
I have found that another reasonable way to frame the conversation is to see that Orthodox Judaism views Jewish Identity as more akin to Citizenship. It's a Legal Reality of belonging to a Nation. All Nations have laws that define natural-born citizenship, and define who remains a citizen and cannot be deported no matter how many laws they break. Patriotism would not be enough to define a citizen. In my observation, those who do not subscribe to Halacha are more accustomed to thinking of Jewish Identity as a Personal Faith Community which should be entirely or almost-entirely definable by personal identification. The pain remains.
RD, Your analogy to citizenship is great, helps me to understand this much much better. But I I can't figure out from the post what your view is here. What pain, do you mean that non-O Jews don't feel acknowledged by O Jews?
It's not a matter of what my view is per se. Halacha is clear on this point, and the feelings don't change that. But I have seen the emotional anguish that non-acceptance has on people who consider their inner identity to be Jewish but who are not accepted as Jews by the Halachic community. And I empathize very strongly with that pain.
Hidden within the citizenship analogy is the presumption that only Orthodox courts and rabbis count. Otherwise the current situation would be as if one gained American citizenship in New York, and was told by Arizonans that you weren't "really" American.
I don't want to belabor the point, but since you asked LL, here goes: I've given this analogy some thought. Here's how I see it applying: According to the Orthodox POV, the Talmud's rulings (including its ruling on matrilineal descent) are analogous to the acts and rulings of the National Congress or Supreme Court. Any rabbinic opinion after Talmudic times, and there have been plenty, is at best analogous to a State Government's law. So any rabbi or Jewish group that seeks to change the Talmud's definition could at best and at most generous be compared to a court in Wyoming overturning an Act of Congress or ruling of the Supreme Court.
LL,
to your analogy..Don't try to come into NY with your pistol that you can leagally carry as a citizen in Texas. So to bring it to our co religionist context, You don't have to like it, but you can't bring your paternal grandmother's reform conversion in to your potential daughter-in-law's Orthodox shule.
So if O-Jews think that only O-Judaism is Judaism, what is Jewish unity?
Now THAT is a great question.
Unity (of any kind) is the ability to love and be kind to people even when you disagree with their choices or behaviors.
It's not that Orthodox Jews think that only Orthodox Judaism is Judaism – it's halachic observance that defines Judaism. Groups or philosophies that start uprooting and altering defined practices and observances, or claiming certain foundational beliefs are invalid – those are the ones that begin to fall out of the realm of "normative" Judaism from the perspective of the more broad-minded Orthodox folk (others may already dismiss them).
Back in the day, people from different backgrounds – at least in Out of Towner communities, like where my parents are from – people from Orthodox backgrounds married others from Conservative or Reform backgrounds without much issue. Mind you, these are people who themselves are more laid back in their approach to Judaism.
Back then, there wouldn't be any major issues from such a practice, because all the Orthodox people knew that a potential spouse had two halachically Jewish parents. The advent of patrilineal descent and cultural identity has thrown a giant monkey wrench into the works. Now people don't know who to trust – added on top of an increase in particular-ness about minutiae of observance and stringencies that further drives people apart.
Jewish unity is a paramount value, but it seems that people tend to find more excuses to push it aside, rather than finding reasons to come together, despite philisophic differences…
I think your first line is central to the disagreement I have with a lot of the posts here. 'Halachic observance" is not just a two-word phrase, it's got a lot to be unpacked. In my view, it is already an INTERPRETATION. What the rules are, how they apply, and what it means to observe them are NOT straightforward but historically determined and have even evolved. I get what Ruchi's saying about believing in 'the 613' and the unbroken reception thereof, but can one practice Judaism and NOT believe in unbroken reception?
Maybe this goes back to the 'isms' post we had awhile back, as in which 'isms' determine your values. I'm not so worried about a perfectly coherent and intact 'ism'. They are all muddy and we live with them muddily. It doesn't make it wrong, invalid, not-beautiful, on the contrary, it is part of what makes it more compelling and beautiful. To me.
SBW: in a way you're right, and in a way it's not so.
Does Reform Judaism consider itself an halachic movement? If so, what does that mean? To me, halachic Judaism means that there's an outside code, that we hope and believe is as close to the original intent as possible, that will never be relaxed as times change.
No vote, no Rabbinic board, will ever repeal an existing halacha. Even if what exists is already an interpretation, a LAW (note I do not refer to customs) will never be repealed, no matter what.
Does Conservative Judaism consider itself an halachic movement? If so, how is it different from the Reform halacha?
I think these are important questions and I would be grateful to have them clarified by those that are knowledgeable in these areas.
Reform Judaism is not an halachic movement. I cannot speak for Conservative Judaism.
Theological question here for O-Jews: If I practiced like you, and tried to fulfill as many Mitzvot as possible in the same ways you do, but did not accept the "original intent" and "unbroken lineage" ideas, would that be within O-Judaism? I realize it probably never happens that way, but I am trying to understand how practice fits with belief, and with which beliefs, for O-Judaism. Actually I guess I'm trying to figure out in a more self-interested way where we are furthest apart, i.e. in practice or in belief.
Good question. I would say practice.
I find the two biggest differences between Orthodox Jews and most non-Orthodox Jews, in the real world are:
1. Knowledge of laws and traditions and customs
2. Practice of the above
Belief is a whole other kettle of fish. Rarely I will come across a very observant non-Orthodox Jew. My husband actually asked a very observant Conservative Rabbi (keeps strictly kosher, won't drive on Shabbat) – What is the difference between you and me? Why don't you term yourself "Orthodox"? And he answered that he doesn't believe in the Divinity of the Oral Law (although he did practice much of it).
But I think this is the exception rather than the rule. I think people like to hang out with like-minded people in terms of similar practice. Beliefs, perhaps, are more private.
Also, I know a number of Orthodox Jews who practice and affiliate Orthodox yet struggle, sometimes mightily, with what they believe.
What does that mean – divinity of Oral Law? We obviously would not need most of the Talmud (or even Mishna for that matter) if it was that simple. The mere fact that the Rabbi's argue means that no more than one opinion can come from Moses and even that is not likely.
In fact the Talmud itself has a story to illustrate this point (Bava Metsia, 59b) – An incident where in the course of a halachic dispute, Rabbi Eliezer quotes enlists the Heavens to testify that his opinion is correct and a "heavenly voice" supports him. Then Rabbi Yehoshua, his student(!) quotes the book of Deuteronomy "It (the Law) is not in the Heavens". And the final decision follows the majority.
As a side issue Ruchi, should this discussion ever end :>) it might be interesting to explore a few classical Jewish stories where the Orthodox and heterodox have radically different understandings of what the stories mean. Off the top of my head I suggest:
1) the story above of the oven of Akni
2) Moses' visit to Rabbi Akiva's academy
3) "These and these are the words of the living G-d".
While I'm not sure what you mean (you have a much stronger knowledge of heterodox philosophy that I do), it might be. Also, how each group arrived at that understanding.
Larry, time to update your blog so I can figure out better just where you're coming from. 🙂 Is there such thing as heterodox-Reform? Or heteroprax-Reform? Maybe I need to go shopping for a new designation…?
But I also see much better now how O-Jews resent the other movements more than the individual practice variations–but then for that same reason I also see how practice variations NEED a 'movement name' in order to define themselves NOT just as 'deficient- or lazy-O-Jews' but as BEING an actual 'brand' of Jew in their own right. Which is precisely what O-Jews will have trouble accepting.
Good luck pinning Larry down to a category 🙂
As has been noted earlier, as a Reform Jew – grew up entirely non-practicing/observing, embracing Judaism (in addition to "Jewish-ness") as an adult – the more I have come to know the full spectrum of Jewish practice and identity, the more I have felt accepted and the more I have accepted my own Jewish identity.
I know many an Orthodox Jew, including rabbis, who have never, ever questioned my being Jewish. Whether they would eat in my home or offer me an aliyah – that's another matter. Which I understand and accept from my end – now that I know more about Orthodoxy.
Rather than a black-or-white definition of (as someone above said) WHO or WHAT is a Jew, we should be speaking more about a Jewish continuum or spectrum. Indeed, I think that is how it is being defined in this discussion. There is always a Jew who is more observant, more knowledgable, more committed, than I am – than all of us here. It was ever thus: in the Temple era, in Babylon, in Anatevka, on the Lower East Side, in your own shul, wherever Jews are, there is always at least one fellow Jew "doing more" Judaism or "being more" Jewish than another. And that includes the Jews who never go to shul and may not even know they are Jews. They are still Jews.
Although I cannot cite the source, I have heard Rabbi Michael Melchior – an Orthodox Israeli – teach that the Talmud holds that Jewish identity is never to be questioned or doubted or inquired about. This is true for all Jews, including converts. We are not supposed to even ask a person if they are a convert: once one converts, one is no longer a convert. Some opinion holds that even if you go back to being a pagan or Christian the day after finishing your conversion, you are still a Jew forever.
Torah Judaism itself is flexible and evolving: just ask the original Jewish reformers, the Rabbis of the Talmud. Without that flexibility, that ability to evolve, Judaism – and Jews – would have died out a long, long time ago.
Welcome to OOTOB and thanks very much for your interesting comments. I love the continuum model – and I believe that is how G-d views us. Furthermore, I believe each of us is traveling a different continuum and one cannot be compared to another.
Continuum sounds nice, except it is linear and this seems always to end up with "Orthodox" being the "higher" end. I like a circular continuum instead. The comment below by Savta sort of echoes that problem, of some brand (wrong word I know) feeling like they are 'more' and 'more real' Jews.
The more I think about it, the more I have to go back to Ruchi's statement above that "everyone thinks they are right". I can see WHY O-Jews believe sincerely that their Judaism is the REAL one, but I also can't "jump over my shadow" as they say in other languages and not think that MY idea is right that Judaism is historical, not monolithic, even contradictory.
The Reform community does not simply accept anyone who "feels Jewish" as a Jew. Who came up with that one? The child still has to have a Jewish parent (modern DNA testing could eliminate suspicion) AND has to be raised exclusively as a Jew. To push the citizenship analogy: a child of any US citizen is automatically a citizen, whether or not the other parent is a US citizen – but the parent has to assert that right if only one is a citizen and the child is born somewhere else.
It is sometimes said that Reform Jews have a greater capacity to live with ambiguity. I'm intensely uncomfortable with people who have all the answers to ANY problem.
I sometimes have the same reaction to Orthodox people "welcoming" me to the "way of HaShem" as I do to Christians offering me the inexpressible joy of knowing Jesus. They are just trying to be nice. But it feels more like disrespect than anything else, a smug belief that my life (or my death) would be so much better if I believed exactly what they believe, if I would just change.
Hi SavtaV,
Take this example (which I do not believe is isolated): I was talking to a Jewish woman whose son married a Korean woman. The mom said that while her daughter-in-law has not converted, and is not interested in conversion, she is "more Jewish" than her own son, since she is planning on raising the kids Jewish (her son does not feel strongly about it) and enjoys celebrating Jewish as opposed to non-Jewish holidays. Were this family to "join a Reform community" – would this women be accepted (by the laity) as a Jew?
I am not sure what you meant about people who have all the answers – can you elaborate on that?
As far as your final point, what are your feelings on an active, vibrant Reform community welcoming an unaffiliated or secular Jew, or a traditional Conservative community welcoming a former Reform Jew? Do you think there is also a (smug?) belief that your life will be better/enriched by belonging to their particular brand of Judaism? Or (and I am honestly asking the question) do you feel that the smugness is unique to the Orthodox?
Hi Ruchi,
In your Korean daughter-in-law example, of course she would not be considered a Jew by anyone. The real question is about the children. It's not enough to "raise the kids Jewish" by celebrating holidays. They need to be educated by the community (attend religious school, Hebrew school, etc.) all the way through confirmation (generally 10th grade) so that they have enough knowledge and maturity to understand what they are confirming.
When you talk about "all the mitzvot" you mean your understanding of the mitzvot. If you say that there is only one list of mitzvot and that those are the ones you follow, it sounds to me like you think you have all the answers. But even if I were to accept as binding everything in Talmud and all the sages up to, say, the year 1800, that would still not dictate to me what I should do with the light in my refrigerator on Shabbat (I don't care), or whether I could eat imitation crab that is certified kosher (that's something I wouldn't do – a topic for another conversation).
Our Reform community is wide open to anyone who is curious, and we welcome them in every way we can. There is great beauty and meaning in our prayer, in our observances, in our support for each other, and we love to share it. But I honestly do not think that our particular brand of Judaism is right for everyone. For example, I would never try to convince you that you'd feel so much better on a hot summer day at the playground if you just took off your wig – and that HaShem wouldn't mind at all. But you might believe (whether or not you said so out loud) that I would feel better if I put one on!
Ruchi, I won't speak for Savta, but your example of the Korean woman is interesting. At the Reform synagogue we sometimes go to, I imagine people would be friendly not care about whether she is a Jew or not. Probably privately people might be interested that an Asian-appearing person were present, but in a way it's no one's business 'what' she is, she's at the service and participating and so she is one of the congregation at least for this morning.
SavtaV, I don't have all the answers. Not at all. In fact, the more I learn, the more humbled I am by the depth and breadth and infinity of it all. I do, though, believe that there are 613 mitzvot and that the more of them I can keep the better off I will be.
As far as your wig example, I don't think anyone feels better with a wig on. They're so annoying. I wear it because I think it's the right thing to do, not because I enjoy the experience. I do think if you wore one it would be a mitzvah, but I'm wise enough to understand that it's ridiculous to suggest it.
But your point is well taken. You're saying (I think) that Reform Judaism is by definition pluralistic and therefore not for everyone; it maintains that there are many correct ways to be Jewish. Parenthetically, I find that many individuals don't act according to this in the real world. Which is understandable; many Orthodox Jews don't act according to their denominations' edicts either. But when a real-life Conservative Rabbi, for example, discourages people from becoming Orthodox, it doesn't seem so pluralistic.
Orthodox Judaism doesn't claim to be pluralistic. It has always attempted to remain true to mesorah (unbroken chain of tradition). So its inability to proclaim all streams as equally valid, while uncomfortable for many (on both sides) is simply consistent with that long-standing approach.
Trust me, I wish I could be more pluralistic sometimes. It would make my life a lot easier. But I simply don't believe that there are many valid ways to be right on every issue, and I can't disregard that.
I must reiterate, and I hope this is obvious, that I form my opinions about *denominations* and *ideologies* and strive to remain positive and loving and accepting of all *people*.
Ruchi, you said it so much better than I did. Please remind me to read ALL the comments next time!
Your final statement illustrates what so many people find difficult: in a very absurd twist, Reform and Conservative Jews often wish that Orthodox Jews would love and accept them for *what* they are – serious, observant Jews – and not for *who* they are – individual people. It's like the Xtian philosophy of "love the sinner, hate the sin" – it's well-intended, but can feel insulting nonetheless.
Kudos to you for writing about this difficult issue, and kol hakavod to all the commenters for keeping it so respectful. I've enjoyed reading this.
Ruchi, just one clarification: you wear a wig because you "think it's the right thing to do", which trumps physical comfort. So on balance, you feel better wearing one than not. I feel the same way about many of the mitzvot I observe as a religious Reform Jew. And I certainly agree with you that there are many issues for which there are NOT many valid ways to be right. We just disagree on the details.
Thank you so much for this exchange. It has been really interesting and enlightening.
SCJ:
Thanks, first off. It *has* been a difficult but important, and hopefully important conversation.
Second, I *do* view many non-Orthodox Jews as serious, proud, educated and observant. Especially the more I come to understand the nuances outside of Othodox circles. (I know this is uncommon; it's a byproduct of my work.) However, I can't reconcile Reform and Conservative ideology with what I know and hold dear about mesorah. So it's not "love the sinner" – any mitzvah that any Jew does is precious and beautiful, and it's not for me to judge that which they do not do. Maybe I'll be judged more harshly for my mistakes since I've done more studying.
This is where I have to interject that denominations are man-made. All Jews are on a continuum of observance, from little to a lot, and, no, Orthodoxy doesn't necessarily come out on top because God judged us each as individuals based on a hugely complex algorithm, of which I am (thankfully) not privy to.
For me, two things remain:
1. The more mitzvot the better
2. I strive to remain as faithful to mesorah (the original intent of the Torah and Talmud) as possible.
SavtaV: thank you for the clarification: Yes, that is right. And thank YOU for your important contribution to this conversation.
Amendment: I didn't mean to say "Orthodoxy doesn't necessarily come out on top" – I meant to say that if you're Orthodox, you don't necessarily come out on top.
… a child of any US citizen is automatically a citizen, whether or not the other parent is a US citizen….
Actually, not necessarily. There are some very specific rules and requirements that even American citizens must meet in order to transmit citizenship to children born to them and a non-citizen (at least, in the case of kids born abroad- obviously, this does not apply to children born in the U.S., as all are citizens immediately). This, as well as a few other reasons that I just don't have time to discuss at length right now, is why I'm not a big fan of the "Jewish status is like citizenship" argument. It differs in a few really specific ways, and popular an analogy as it is in certain circles, it's not the greatest one, IMHO (not least because it essentially calls non-Orthodox converts illegal immigrants, which really isn't a great base on which to build a compassionate and respectful dialogue about Jewish status). Personally, I find it condescending and somewhat offensive every time I read it. This could be because I deal with questions of citizenship and immigration status as part of my job, of course.
Hi Diplogeek,
Truthfully most analogies are just that: imperfect analogies that are useful in some or a number of aspects and off-kilter in other aspects. I find the citizenship analogy useful in terms of how those that wish to join from the outside need to prove themselves, while those that are born in are "allowed" to be unpatriotic to a certain extent without being stripped of citizenship.
But "patriotism" isn't required of any citizen, born or naturalized. There is no patriotic litmus test involved with becoming a citizen. There's a short test of American civics and history (which requires memorizing facts, not patriotism), there's a residency requirement, There's a citizenship oath pledging certain loyalties to the U.S. (but then, we as a country allows dual citizenship, as well, so how does that work?), there are a few other things, but there is nothing that obligates new citizens to be patriotic. Perhaps because every person likely has a different definition of what constitutes patriotic behavior. And while many new citizens are certainly patriotic people in the sense that they are proud of their new status and love their adopted country, there are also some who are not. We do not make a practice of taking away people's passports or questioning their citizenship based on things like whether we consider them to be sufficiently patriotic. And, of course, using patriotism as a benchmark also calls into question the Jewish pride of non-Orthodox Jews, which is also likely to upset and offend.
Orthodox Jews are considered Orthodox, by and large, because of their interpretation of and commitment to following Jewish law. You can be as proud to be Jewish as anyone out there, but that doesn't make you Orthodox (or, if you're a convert, Jewish at all, depending on who you're talking to). The problem is that the analogy doesn't fit when you speak in terms of law, because, of course, anyone in the United States, whether citizen or not, is subject to American law, so instead we end up using nebulous things like "patriotism" that aren't easily defined and don't actually apply to the question of citizenship at all.
And while I agree that analogies are helpful, I think some are more helpful than others. As someone who has read, more than once, the "non-Orthodox converts = illegal immigrants" trope explicitly spelled, I question how helpful this analogy really is, accuracy aside. I think it encourages people to think of certain denominations and certain people of questionable status as interlopers of some kind, and that's probably not a great attitude to convey.
I hear you loud and clear. I've learned something new from you, and I appreciate it.
Question: is there anything a would-be citizen might do that would prevent citizenship from being granted? Any allegiances, affiliations, practices?
Interesting that I just found this line in one of the Reform responsa that Larry linked:
Similarly, an American citizen is free to declare the Constitution a worthless document, while applicants for citizenship are in a different class regarding their affirmations. Their admissibility is judged on the basis of that very Constitution.
That's true in a sense, but aside from taking an oath to the principles of the United States and the citizenship test that everyone hears about, it's not as if applicants for citizenship, the government generally takes citizenship applicants' word for it that they mean what they say when they take the oath. And if a citizen decides the day after taking their oath that in fact, they disagree with X, Y and Z amendments to the Constitution, no one is going to retroactively declare their citizenship null and void. Ditto if someone gains citizenship and goes out a week later and gets busted robbing a liquor store. They might be in jail, but they're not going to lose their status. That is not, unfortunately, always the case with conversion.
I'm not really trying to argue about the analogy; I'm aware that it's a very popular one (in circles other than Orthodox, as well, though I've heard it from Orthodox sources the most frequently). It doesn't matter much to me whether it's a Reform rabbi using it or an Orthodox one; I find it equally off-putting in either case. Like I said, it could be because it's too close to home for me, but I don't think that's the only reason. If one takes this analogy to a few of its natural conclusions, I think it can foster a lot of attitudes that cause more harm than good.
And another response….
First, I agree that many non-Orthodox Jews are not embracing of Orthodox Judaism and set a boundary on pluralism that only includes liberal Judaism…it makes me sad when I see that, and I think it takes us several giant steps backwards in terms of pluralism and a sense of peoplehood.
But to get back to the question of the Korean daughter-in-law. In my experience–where I am now and in other synagogues that I've worked at/been a part of, non-Jews in the synagogue are non-Jews. Their commitment to raising Jewish families is appreciated and sometimes even honored (it is not uncommon for a non-Jewish parent to be the parent more active in raising Jewish children, but that's an entirely different conversation). And they are welcomed as members of the community. But they are not recognized as Jews. There are things that they cannot do (such as have an aliyah or serve on the Board of Trustees). Sometimes, they end up converting–sometimes they don't. They are part of the community, but they are not Jews.
Joe Jew in the Pew may or may not notice the difference; I never really thought about that aspect of the question. They themselves tend to be aware of their own status within the community–and tend to respect it.
rabbiisa, thanks so much for this honest and elucidating response. It's helped me understand a lot, and also highlights for me that in many areas we are more alike than different.
Joe Jew in the Pew – love.
Diplogeek – I think it's worth clarifying that once someone converts if they later change their mind and stop observing the mitsvot they are still considered Jewish.
diplogeek, Regarding the citizenship analogy. Citizenship can be voided I believe if based on a false application.
Also, accepting US citizenship need not demand "patriotism" but it does preclude behaviors that are permitted by other systems, but which would be contrary to the laws of the Constitution, i.e. honor killings.
Thank you for tackling an obviously difficult issue.
I think, that the current issue is not so much as to the conversions, or who is considered Jewish – as it is to those who wish to get married later on.
I am afraid that if this continues, marriage between the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews (and all denominations thereof) will become far fewer. Not just because it's really hard for a person with one hashkafic background to adjust to another's, but because there may be some doubt as to the other person not being considered intermarriage on some level. I am afraid that what this will accomplish is to completely split the Orthodox and other communities wide apart. This is my main issue with the differences between the communities.
For instance, if an Orthodox man falls in love with a Reform woman who is considered Jewish on her father's side – what is the status of the children?
What happens if or when those in the Orthodox community cannot consider marrying Jews from other denominations due to uncertainty of their halachic status as Jews?
Gives a whole new meaning to "shidduch crisis."
Hi Sparrow, and welcome to OOTOB!
You're right, and there's another problem attached. The Orthodox folks who will consider your point problematic will be blamed by more liberal Jews for the problem, and the movement that are OK with it will be blamed by the Orthodox for the problem.
So now we have a crisis, mutual blame, and a practical impasse.
Yuk.
Hey Ruchi Koval, and thank you!
I'm sorry I took so long to respond.
Exactly – it's this point that I think may be at the heart of so much of these issues.
"You guys are being exclusionary!"
"Seriously, what do you believe in?"
"Do you have any idea why you do what you do?"
"Why don't you ever think for yourself?"
"Are you really a Jew?"
It's that last question, underneath the rhetoric, that I think is the main sticking point (and impasse). You're right, it is a cause of blame. More than that, I think it's a cause of hurt.
I think the ones really being injured in this case are those who are caught in the middle – deemed Jewish by one side and outsiders on the other side. I wish I saw some way of resolving that issue.
It's enough of a trouble in the present, but I'm concerned that, because of this, Orthodoxy in its various forms will no longer interact with Conservative and Reform Judaism as Jews on any level in a generation or so.
Exactly. And as ben-yehoshua has asked, "Who is responsible for that pain?" It's possible that when the Reform movement adopted patrilineal descent and its own standards for conversion, it was hoping for more inclusion and greater observance, perhaps not realizing the unintended circumstances that would result.
Sometimes it feels to me as though Orthodoxy is being blamed for not accepting these standards, and that doesn't seem justified.
Ruchi, I never thought about it this way, thanks. How much do you think the pain over the patrilineal/conversion differences is due to the question of Israeli standards and their relationship to O-Judaism vs. questions for Jews living in the U.S. or elsewhere outside Israel?
Boom! The can of worms is now open.
Israel is a whole 'nother story, and as I've indicated in other posts, hugely, enormously, and irrevocably complex. There is no way American Jews can fathom the political/religious confusion there. I actually will choose not to comment on the situation there.
Bottom line: there is plenty of pain and confusion HERE, without coming on to the debacle in the State of Israel.
Ok, I respect the choice not to comment. But you might be the best person out there to explain it, since you have an O perspective and also a compassionate and diplomatic style.
Thank you. Despite having lived there for 5 years, and having immediate family members living there since that time, I don't even fully understand it myself: because I am American. I am used to separation of church and state, and how it both protects me as a Jew, and can make my religious observance more complicated.
Understanding what goes on in Israel requires a keen understanding of the difference between the spiritual Land of Israel and the political State of Israel, where they intersect, and where they differ. It also calls into question the difference between the spiritual ramifications of there being a political State of Israel, and those spiritual attitudes post facto.
All more complex than I can analyze, and more controversial than I am willing to address.
Sorry…
No question O-J is not responsible on an institutional level for this type of circumstance. The problem, on BOTH SIDES, lies with lack of education and derech eretz. Reform and Orthodox Jews behaving badly are a shandeh and a chilul Hashem.
That does not, however, IMHO, mean the Reform movement is "responsible" for the pain – I'm going to be totally honest here in the most diplomatic way possible: Institutionally, denominations should not care what the others think in the sense that it cannot influence their decision to act on their principals and beliefs. It simply did not matter that O & C Judaism would not accept this decision by the Reform movement. And members of the Reform movement, to whom it is important to be accepted everywhere and by everyone can make the choice to convert elsewhere (or convert at all, if their father is Jewish).
For example, the pain that is caused when someone who thought they were Jewish, turn out not to be in the O-J family they are marrying into, is unfortunate and O-Jews may have compassion, but that does not change the legal fact – the legal fact that adherence to halacha must come first – one cannot sacrifice deeply-held beliefs and a Divine imperative for the sake of someone's feelings – we've acknowledged that here. And that is ok. When done with compassion and derech eretz, the pain may exist, but in the end, water under the bridge.
The same is true on the other end. Upholding deeply-seated beliefs, that are influenced by both community and theology, motivated the acceptance of patrilineal descent, even at the cost of pain on many sides. One of your parents is Jewish, you are raised Jewish (even partially), and you want to be completely Jewish in your life? We accept this, not for convenience, as many people suggest, but because of deeply held beliefs, both ideological and theological that have their roots in our tradition. And the pain – and, believe me, there is pain – that this causes is, while unfortunate, if dealt with, with compassion and derech eretz, will eventually be water under the bridge.
And, of course, on all sides, there are times when pain does not become water under the bridge. And, in response to B"Y and others, who is responsible for that? The individuals in question. The original pain inflicted, yes, may not be from them, but the choice to remain angry, bitter, and possibly vindictive is completely on them – whichever side they are on. That is my opinion. I am certain it is not a popular one. But, that is how I see it.
For example, I could have chosen to be bitter, angry and passive aggressive about several situations in my life that are not far from what we are discussing here, and the other party could have as well. But we have chosen, consciously, to contribute to shalom bayit and blending of families as far as our beliefs can take us, because it is obviously the right choice and the best way of living out a Torah life as we see it.
RR, the victim is responsible for the pain?
Ruchi, first off all, kol hakavod for writing such a sensitive, well-balanced post on such a painfully sensitive subject. The nasty, nasty things I've seen on some orthodox-centric websites about Reform Judaism – well, suffice it to say it sounds like it would be preferable to not be Jewish at all than to be the shallow, pale, heretical farce that is apparently Reform Judaism. Your balanced perspective and your quest to seek the middle ground and make issues clear are heartfelt, honest, and sincere, and as a Reform convert-in-the-making, I truly appreciate your efforts.
Rena, I'm not Frume Sarah, nor am I a rabbi, merely a person converting through the Reform Movement. My converting rabbi defines living Jewishly in two ways: one, by taking on more observances of aspects of Jewish life and ritual (observing Passover, celebrating Shabbat in a way that is personally meaningful, attending services), and integrating into the community. I'm certainly aware of mitzvot and am trying to think of how I can incorporate them into my observance, but seeing as how I'm at the very early stages of my process and still focusing on the URJ's "Intro to Judaism" class part, I don't know how much/little observance of mitzvot will be emphasized as I go on. I will say this, though: my rabbi has a sincere love of Judaism and seems to want to encourage people to take on as many mitzvot as possible, in a way that makes sense for their lives. Does that make sense?
Thank you Maya for your kind words and input.
Wow… This is a very raw and sensitive issue that could have easily exploded and I am impressed by everyone keeping their cool.
While lots of good arguments were brought up by all contributors, I think a few more points bear mentioning:
1. The Orthodox "stance" of considering Heterodox practice "not Jewish" is not unique to O's. I think one issue that binds us much more than Israel is the visceral exclusion of Jews for Jesus and/or Hebrew Christians. Even though their attitude on Torah from God and mitsvot tend to differ little from the Orthodox and the Reform should appreciate their right to "interpret" various "texts" (especially Isiah 53) as they see fit.
2. Does the exclusion of Humanists from the WUPJ imply that they are not "Jewish (enough)" for the Reform? (Side question – can any Conservative/Open Orthodox shul join? Do they have to be Egalitarian?)
3. If there were to develop an ultra right wing Jewish group, which saw a form of Jewish Jihad as their main expression of Jewishness. Let's say their principle definition of "Jewishness" was whether one served in the IDF elite units and is ready to show "the Arabs" who's boss. Would the liberal Jews find it hard to claim that their practice was neither beautiful nor Jewish?
4. In the end of the day, who owns the labels? Who bears responsibility for changing definitions of accepted terms?
Hi BY and welcome to OOTOB.
Thanks for these interesting questions. I would love to hear other opinions on this.
some more questions that came to mind after reading through all comments here more carefully:
1) what is "heterodox"?
2) if the rabbi doesn't determine how one should keep a mitzva, only you yourself, according to your own understanding of the scriptures, then does s/he have a function aside from sermons in the temple?
and thank you so much to all the contributors for this wonderful, knowledgeable clarification of so many issues!
1) Heterodox is a quick and hopefully inoffensive way of saying 'all Jewish movements except the orthodox."
2) We're not Protestants. No one I'm aware of holds that Jews should reach conclusions using sola scriptura. The Reform movement holds that indvidual Jews should make informed decisions, and the rabbi serves as a teacher to make you informed. That covers a lot more ground than simply sermons.
Also, a rabbi is a pastor – hospital visits, chesed work, funerals, weddings, bar mitzvahs, baby namings, counseling, teaching . . . chief cook and bottle washer in most places 🙂
I wish to clarify rena's question.
Since, in Orthodox, a major function of the rabbi is to clarify and guide with halacha. The rabbi knows more halacha, and therefore can issue "psak" – decisions – as well as "eitzah" – general moral and spiritual guidance with life's dilemmas, based on Torah wisdom.
The life cycle stuff is kind of secondary to all of that.
So I think that rena, and many other Orthodox Jews, when thinking about how Reform Jews are not halacha-driven, might wonder, if their rabbi did not serve that function, what would he do?
Hence the question.
understood. see above. that is what at least 1 rabbi i know does 🙂 but yes, the majority of his time is on the above, not being a posek. although there is some of that – but the majority is above.
if I understood Frume Sarah and Maya correctly, the reform stance to mitzvos is acceptance on your own personal comfort level, not dictated by your rabbi nor black and white like the orthodox.
did I get that right?
and Frume Sarah: yes, I know that even amongst the reform, geirut is a process which includes study, but I'm intrigued to hear if final acceptance of an individual as a Jew is dependent on keeping the mitzvot (however the individual interprets them?) or mainly synagogue attendance?
I must thank you all – I'm learning a lot here!
Hi Rena,
I'm sorry it's taken me so long to reply to you. The mitzvot are the mitzvot, but yes, they're going to be interpreted by my comfort level. So, I am probably never going to ever observe Shabbat the way an Orthodox person would (no turning on lights, driving, etc), but I do make an effort to make the day different. I cook a wonderful dinner. I clean the dining room table. I buy flowers. I light Shabbat candles and say the blessing, I do Kiddush, I bless the bread. But I don't do each thing every week. That's to my comfort level. When I began I first started with candle lighting, then gradually I felt it was time to start saying Kiddush, then blessing the bread.
My rabbi is now having me transition to developing a prayer practice – he wants me to start davening for 10 minutes a night using Mishkan T'filah, the Reform Siddur, and reciting the prayers for the evening. The goal is to eventually work through all the prayers, but to start slowly and develop a relationship with each one.
In terms of your question of acceptance – B"H so far I've been lucky that everyone is extremely welcoming to me. They find out I'm converting and their immediate reaction is "wonderful, welcome to the tribe!" As long as I integrate myself into the synagogue community, even if I haven't yet converted, I am accepted. Once I meet with my Beit Din and dunk in the mikvah, I will then be called to the bimah in front of the whole congregation by my Hebrew name and will recite the Shema, and that will signify to the entire congregation that I have officially become a Jew. Observance of mitzvot doesn't even enter into it, as far as I can tell, so I would say it's more being a part of the community and attending services regularly.
My rabbi is someone I admire, and someone who I can tell strives to live life as a good Jew, and I look to him for guidance and instruction, but not as the ultimate arbiter of what I should do or how I should do it. Make sense?
I think the best we can hope for is to see the way the term 'Judaism' is used become equivalent to the way the term 'Christianity' is used. There are numerous Christian sects, almost all of them consider their particular form the most correct one. They feel some degree of fellowship with other sects that they don't feel with those they designate as non-Christian. There is dispute on exactly who falls into the category and who doesn't, and the exact list varies depending on who is being asked.
Unfortunately, this works for Christianity for two reasons. One is that contemporary Christianity is a religion alone, while Judaism is much more than that. The second is that they had a series of bitter wars over the centuries that left a belief that yelling about things is better than physically fighting over them. Judaism has been a religion of the powerless – one of the biggest adaptations it is going through in the 58th century is learning how to deal from a position of strength. Intelligence consists of learning from your mistakes, wisdom consists of learning from the mistakes of others. Let's hope we can be wise and avoid literal civil war.
I realize this takes us into what might seem like a digression, but I think it's a really fascinating comparison to consider:
Christianity, as you say, is more an umbrella term for a lot of denominations, but for historical and doctrinal reasons those denominations don't lend themselves to a "linear continuum" interpretation, where it might appear that one denomination is "more observant" and others "less observant", which seems [not necessarily accurately] to be the case with O- C- and R-Judaism.
Observant Catholics, for instance, might consider themselves "more observant" if they go to confession frequently. But then most Protestants would not recognize that as "more observant" Christianity, but only as a specifically Catholic ritual. And then you have Amish and all kinds of other movements that develop various cultural elements around theological elements–they look pretty "observant" with their highly visible old-fashioned ways, but other Christian denominations wouldn't find that kind of "observance" particularly Christian at all.
Because the Jewish 'denominations' have less doctrinal divergence [or do they not have less? divinity of the Talmud, for instance??], and indeed did not [yet] have the bitter wars that drove Christians far apart, it looks like there is more of one single axis for making distinctions, i.e. that of "how observant?" But I like the analogy insofar as it suggests that the CULTURAL evolutions that go along with Reform and Conservative Judaism could be considered part of what makes them what they are. Which of course would not be recognized by O-Judaism as belonging to Judaism the religion. But maybe then the goal is to worry LESS about what the other "denominations" recognize, the way that the Amish don't care what the Catholics think?? But then again, if O-Jews care more about Jewish unity then they will care more than in the analogy to Amish-Catholic. And certainly a lot of Jews wouldn't want to own an analogy to Christian constellations of belief and practice. And they will evoke anti-Semitism, rightfully so, as making no such distinction. But then, do we really want to take anti-Semitism as the guide for how to define ourselves?
Need to think about this, I"m just wondering 'out loud' here. Also I am pretty ignorant of how different Sephardi or Yemenite or Ethiopian Jewish practices or beliefs are–and I also apologize in advance if I use terminology that is not preferred by the groups I'm trying to refer to.
Sephardi, Oriental and Yemenite Jews follow the accepted rules for deriving halacha. As such, even though their answers might sometimes differ and at times appear very lenient (Shabbat is one example) at other times they are more strict (Kashrut, hair covering). Different approaches exist within different Ashkenazi communities as well, so this is not new.
Ethiopians didn't practice Judaism, at least in recent centuries, and as such need to convert to be considered Jewish. However, they have special status since they are recognized as descendants of the tribe of Dan.
There is an organization working on finding other descendents of the lost tribes, notably the Bnei Menashe of Manipour (India)
Thanks for the info. I guess I was hoping for some example of a "brand" of Judaism that didn't just look like "more" or "less" observant, but "differently" observant, inspired by the comparison to the very heterogeneous Christian denominations that each think they are 'the real thing' (presumably, I don't know).
So a thought experiment: the words "Orthodox", "Reform", "Conservative" etc. disappear from the planet (also "Chassidic" and "Haredi" and any other parallel designations anyone can think of). The words "Jewish" "Jew" and "Judaism" are metaphysically-linguistically sprayed with a substance that repels all modifiers. After that we have Jewish individuals, who do and believe things, often somewhat different things. And different congregations doing different things, with people in those congregations doing a range of things that are like and unlike the congregation as a whole.
Would this be more toward Jewish unity? Would the disputes be more or less intense? Would there have to be a re-sorting of congregations and individuals into named sub-groups? If God could peel the name "Jewish" or "synagogue" or "shul" off any of the buildings used by these congregations, would He?
Please disregard the last sentence. He's God, he could already have done that.
For the purposes of Ruchi's thread the more important question is what would happen to the groups of people and how they regard each other?
That's actually how I look at the world. I don't really see denominations and movements. I just see Jews, some are strong/weak at some things, and others at other things.
Why do I see the world that way? Because I've learned that that's how God sees the world.
Actually I find denominations upsetting. This was one of my very first posts: http://outoftheorthobox.blogspot.com/2011/07/o-word.html.
Re: Christianity, that was a really interesting angle. I've been thinking about it all day. Clearly, some things won't work (Christians think everyone should be Christians; it's a belief, not a race) but on the other hand, to some degree it works.
Associated question:
If Reform Judaism is, indeed, about God, Israel, and Torah, could someone be Orthodox and Reform at the same time? Like, if a Reform Jew observes as many commandments as possible, he's still Reform. But if he now begins to believe that they're binding, does he remove himself from the Reform boundary?
Is there anything a Reform Jew could do (on the right-most limit; we've already addressed the left-most limit) that would discredit him as a Reform Jew?
Ragarding differently observant groups, I'd suggest observant Reconstructionists, as exmplified by Mordecai Kaplan himself might qualify. I'd argue early Chassidim were differently observant than the surrounding mitnagdim. Going back to Talmudic times, Pharisees and Sadducees might also qualify. I see an emerging 'differently observant' trend in independent minyan that require egalitarianism, insist on either pure eco-ksashrut or at least a 'green' set of practices layered on top of existing kashrut regulations.
Your hypothetical on unmodified Judaism sounds like what I have read about a lot of Sephardic Jewish practice, where everyone belongs to the same shul, but some members study all Shabbat afternoon while others go to the ball game, but everyone sits together at meals. Most Sephardim lived in cultures that didn't have the same sort exposure to the Haskala (Enlightenment) that Askenazi culture did, so they didn't feel a need to preserve 'Torah True' culture by ostracizing the Reformers.
I think answers in this thread showed that we are not talking about "somewhat different beliefs". How can you get more diametrically opposed than – "There is an objective reality of commandment and its meaning comes from God" vs. "God didn't tell us to do anything, the Torah is just a compilation of national legends and has little if any authority in regulating my life".
In regards to other "Jewish" movements – of the extant ones there are Samaritans and Karaites. Interestingly, a thousand years ago, the situation with Karaites vs. "Rabbinics" (as they call us) was similar to what we have today viz a vie Reform – at one point, they comprised more than half of the world Jewry. In fact in Rambam's Cairo – they were the dominant "Jewish" group. Now they have dwindled down to 50,000 people, mostly in Israel.
The thing is Judaism is not only about religious beliefs. It is also about a shared national/ethnic/tribal consciousness. In the US politician A (name skipped to avoid derailing the conversation) and I have opposite beliefs, both about how to make a better America and what a better America might look like. But we both want what's best for America, and both think of ourselves as Americans. And I at least wouldn't want politician A and his ilk thrown out of the country because they don't believe in the America I do.
Yes! That.
::taking notes:: Thanks for all this great info, LL and BY. Never really knew what Karaites and Samaritans were, although I've vaguely had an idea.
I like LL's Sephardi analysis in particular–eat lunch together but afternoon people do diverse activities. Is that close to Ruchi's view? That sounds like my kind of Jewish unity. Although of course what actually happens at shul might be less easy to coordinate (who sits where, how prayers are done).
Side note: Now I'm realizing that *I* was taught a very positive view of Haskala/Jewish Enlightenment, to the extent that I didn't realize it was something so contested and even reviled. Probably I've alienated a few blog-mates here in referring to it in such positive terms. I'll have to revisit those views but still I think Mendelssohn's a fab thinker. I'm also realizing, as I reread Ruchi's helpful statement about Mesoreh, that my insistence above about the interpretedness of Jewish practice might come off as offensive. I still believe it, but insisting isn't constructive.
Unfortunately, the flip side of the Sephardi tolerance is the attitude 'the shul I don't attend is Orthodox.' That is, while someone might only to to shul for the High Holidays they'd never dream of going to a shul without a mechitza and look down on those who do. People who can't be bothered to follow their own version of Judaism are unlikely to know much about other versions.
SBW, I, for one, have been far from offended by anything you've said here (grammar?). You're sincerity and curiosity just come through. That said: the whole Sephardi discussion reminds me of the South African style. The synagogues are Orthodox and so are the schools – but many of the members (who come every week) are not Shomer Shabbos. And when they come to this country, they often stop keeping kosher and join the Conservative movement – although many affiliate with Chabad. I wonder what Jewish unity looks like down there. Maybe someone can weigh in.
I think everyone understands individual laxity in observance – but institutionalized, formalized, and sanctioned laxity in observance is far more difficult to swallow.
To restate the obvious, given the number of serious heterodox Jews who are contributing to this thread – none of the heterodox movements perceive themselves as formalizing laxity in observance. The Conservative and Reform movements have made a moral decision, for example, that equality of the sexes in the public ritual arena is a good thing, something that Hashem wants. There methodology for deriving the will of Hashem is different than anything the Orthodox would use, but no one said "You know what – it will be easier to make a miinyan if we count woment too. And anyway, it is just too hard to keep track of two sets of laws, one for men and one for women."
Furthermore, there are concepts in Orthodox law that also allow for laxity when it is perceived as necessary. "It is a time for Hashem, overthrow his Torah", "in the face of great loss", "to spare the tzibbur trouble", "the halacha is concerned about the wealth of the Jewish people" are all standard Orthodox practices used to justify lenient (or lax) rulings when appropriate.
Shabbat Shalom.
Larry, I'm talking about the things you quoted from the Pittsburgh Platform: "We hold that all such Mosaic and rabbinical laws as regulate diet, priestly purity, and dress originated in ages and under the influence of ideas entirely foreign to our present mental and spiritual state. They fail to impress the modern Jew with a spirit of priestly holiness; their observance in our days is apt rather to obstruct than to further modern spiritual elevation."
Here we see that laxity in observance, and official repealing of mitzvot in justified for the reason that it will detract from our spirituality to keep them. I know the Reform movement has moved away from these ideas today, but the deed has been done. The vast majority of Reform Jews no longer observe those commandments.
The mechanisms you quoted are built into halacha and are largely temporary measures. None of them would ever repeal forever and existing mitzvah.
Really interesting! I'm learning a lot. So is the question whether the quote Ruchi cites is a "formalization of laxity" (she thinks so) or a "moral decision with a different methodology for deriving the will of HaShem"? And neither can accept the lens of the other for how to do view this step? I feel like this really highlights for me the sources of conflict here.
I don't deny that it's possible the framers of the Platform thought so. Although perhaps they believed they would be considered less strange to the general world (also).
But in any event, ipso facto, one cannot argue that a laxity in observance has been implemented.
I guess the point of divergence would still be, for non-OJ, whether a 'laxity' has been implemented or a 'valid reinterpretation' (where O-J precisely does not recognize it as valid?)?
I think the clergy and laity would answer that question differently.
Another couple of tangential links for people who want to read *gasp* physical books
Two Jews Can Still Be a Mixed Marriage: Reconciling Differences Over Judaism in Your Marriage"
What Do You Mean, You Can't Eat in My Home?: A Guide to How Newly Observant Jews and Their Less Observant Relatives Can Still Get Along
And congratulations to us all on reaching 200 comments! Ruchi, is that a personal best for you?
YES! By a long shot. The runner-up is 84, on the Ashley Judd post. And this post has just gotten nudged into the top 5 – see the right sidebar – with nearly 800 views.
I'm grateful to all of you for this (what I believe might be an) unprecedented conversation.
Side by Side Religion comparison tool.
This is awesome. I agree with almost everything.
Larry, this is EXCELLENT! Great resource just bookmarked it. Forget Google, we've got LARRY – 'JEWGLE'!
so, getting back to the rabbi's function among the "heterodox" (hey, I learned a new word! and thx ruchi, for clarifying my question) – it sounds like he advises ("eitza") rather than dictates ("psak"). This also helps me better understand all the hoopla over "why can't women do that"? you're absolutely right – as a matter of fact, the Lubavitcher Rebbe strongly advised that each and every woman have her own personal woman adviser in all matters not pertaining to an absolute psak halacha – which is, by definition, a man's sole domain, as only he can serve as judge and witness, according to our understanding of Torah law.
[an aside: "synagogue", "temple" or "shul" are exclusively human terms – to G-d they're all the same: a place of worship of Him.]
Cool. That's a really neat insight.
This article from the Huffington Post is perfect for this topic: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rivka-t-cohen/raised-orthodox-not-jewish-enough-sabbath_b_1474682.html
Ow. Yup, there we go. That's the personal face of the issue at hand.
And the comments there look nothing like the ones here – which is the crux of the issue. Just sayin'.
Btw, are you the same OOTOB Fan as previously, or do I (gasp!) have more than one fan?? 🙂
That is precisely the pain I was talking about. It's real, it's acute, and it's here, not in Haredi manipulated Israel.
As if being a safek (of doubtful Jewish status) isn't painful enough, there is a host of other issues involved. Judging by her last name, her father is a kohen. That means that if she's Jewish, she is also halal, a child of a forbidden marriage. For her that means she cannot marry a kohen. Just another slap in the face. And, if her mothers conversion was valid, any brothers she might have will pass that on to their kids in perpetuity.
Great!
I'm the same OOTOB Fan from before, but judging by how many comments are on this blog, you have way more than one fan!
I keep seeing the number of comments (as listed before they all start) as increasing, but no new comments seem to appear. Strange. Perhaps we've maxxed out. Would still love to know what people think would happen if all the "denomination" names and modifiers were to disappear. More conflict? Less? Different?
Uh, duh, now I see how to load the rest of the comments. And I thought everyone had just gotten tired of this conversation for 2 days, which I am definitely NOT. Have a lot of catching up to do here.
Should be, if you look below the box where you can post replies you should see a hyperlink labeled 'load more'. Just click on that to see all posts.
There a couple of good discussions on the topic of Jewish religious pluralism:
One by Rabbi Berger of Aish (registration required).
Another one by Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb
BY, it's a crying shame I can't understand your blog. Thanks for the links; I will check them out after Shabbos.
Growing up as a Reform Jew (descended from a Jewish mother and a Jewish father), I was told that a marriage performed by a Reform Rabbi in the U.S. would not be recognized in Israel. However, according to the site Jewish Virtual Library, this is a misunderstanding — please see http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/whojew1.html for the full explanation. Perhaps most of this debate is fueled by similar misunderstandings/misinterpretations on both sides.
Anonymous, very interesting. One line in particular stood out, as it referred back to something I stated in my original post, which after this whole discussion, I had thought was wrong:
"Also, Reform Judaism stresses the importance of being raised Jewish; if a child is born to Jewish parents and was not raised Jewish then the child is not considered Jewish."
Would the Reform authorities here agree??
Any marriage legal in any country is recognized in Israel. This is the reason why mixed couples in Israel travel out of the country (generally Cypress) to get married. When they come back their marriage is legally recognized by authorities.
In my view, a good reason introduce civil marriage in Israel – it's not stopping anyone seriously motivated and only engenders enmity.
A shout out to Miriam Yudelson Katz for posting this conversation on FB!
This blog post has been very interesting to read. I am somewhat confused by its premise. Which "Orthodox Jews" is everyone in this conversation talking about? Why are the participants satisfied with this title when we all know that, for example, some Orthodox conversions are not respected by other Orthodox Jews, some hechshers etc??? I think its possible that this conversation wants to engage issues on a deep level without taking responsibilty for the nuance that is inherant in Jewish practice.
After all, Rashi only had one sponge
Thanks for weighing in, Anonymous.
I don't think everyone on the blog knows that some Orthodox conversions are not respected by other Orthodox Jews. Would you elaborate and explain what you know about that?
Did you think this was an intentional omission? It was not.
I'm not sure what the Rashi reference is; again, can you explain?
I think that what Anonymous is saying (correct me if I am wrong) is that Orthodox Judaism is not monolithic. There is tremendous discord, and personal pain, that stems from differing interpretations of halacha. Not to mention the Orthodox community is full of politics and other problems.
For example, I received a heter (personal exemption) for a serious personal issue from an Orthodox Bet Din. However, I am sure there are other Orthodox rabbis who would not recognize that Bet Din, or accept their lenient ruling on this matter.
Another example: at the moment in my community two restaurants are about to be forced out of business because the "good" hashgacha has been taken away, and they now have a "less accepted" hashgacha. One rumor is that they lost the "reliable" hashgacha because of genuine kashrut issues. Another rumor is that they bought kosher ingredients from a non-Jewish supplier, rather than the supplier the hashgacha organization preferred. And a third version is that it was purely a matter of not being able to afford an increase in their hasgacha fees. All I know is that way too much lashon hara is spreading through my "orthodox" community.
BTW, the reference to Rashi only having one sponge is commenting that the application of halacha is not stagnant throughout time. What was considered strict enough in Rashi's time (using the same cleaning cloth for meat and milk), which is also still acceptable by some Sephardic authorities, would never past muster in most Ashkenazi Orthodox communities today. (Again, Anonymous, please forgive me if I am off-base.)
Ok, thanks for clarifying.
First off, find me a community that doesn't experience politics and other problems. That's a human thing, not an Orthodox thing. Maybe in Orthodoxy it manifests in "Orthodox issues" because that's the MO (halacha is important to us). As far as lashon hara, I fear some of it is being spread right here. Hard for me to know sometimes what to publish in the context of honest, constructive conversation, and what to omit due to lashon hara.
And yes – Orthodoxy does change – basically by getting stricter, not by getting more lax, as with the Rashi example. I'm not sure if that's considered admirable or reprehensible.
(MO as in modus operandi, not as in Modern Orthodox 🙂
Ruchi, I realize that some of the conversation is edging toward negativity and what I think you might consider lashon hara, but I am appreciating all the nuances being brought out, even including some of the examples, incidents, and 'hearsay' that are being cited to flesh out the differences.
Also it is illuminating to know that within O-J there are such variations and even conflicts. I didn't realize that the R- and C- rabbinical unions make for a (maybe) less conflicted 'movement' than O-J. And it is likewise helpful for you to point out that all passionate groups have their factions and conflicts which can be quite bitter–because everyone is closer in a strange way. [For instance, among political leftists, or rights, things can get very hostile around certain key interpretations of political doctrine vs. political programs–so just because people are wearing black hats et al., doesn't make it more remarkable that the same things happen there.]
I hear ya. And yeah, that's a similar paradigm. But with lashon hara, the ends do not justify the means, unless all the specific conditions are met (positive intent, saying only what's necessary, only to whom it is necessary, not exaggerating….)
One thing that drives me crazy about Orhodoxy is that people assume that practice has remained constant since the giving of Torah at Sinai, or at least since a distant point in the mists of time.
But if you pay attention to normative Orthodox practice , just in my life time (50 years) or even looking back to my mother's generation, normative Orthodox practice has changed in many significant ways over the past two generations.
The objective reality is that Orthodox practice has changed in response to facts on the ground over the generations, just as Conservative and refrom Judaism has. For Orthodox Jews to deney the validity of Conservative or Reform Jews because they are honest about the chages to halacha that take place over the course of history is intellectually dishonest.
I collect and study old siddurim. If you look at siddurim from the middle of the 1800's you see variations from what is done today. This is an eyeblink in terms of Jewish history.
I ofen visit frum discussion groups, I find the vitriol that is directed towards other Jews to be quite shocking, and sadly all too common.
Many posters to those sites tend not to understand the basic heirarchy of halacha, (Torah m'Sinai carries more weight than mitzvah d'rabanan which is more weighty than a relatively new minhag ) this means that they see variations in practice that are based on minhag, are seen as violations of Torah law. I'm sorry, it just isn't the same thing.
We need to remember that not all that long ago, if someone came to a Jewish community and declared that they were Jewish, and lived a Jewish life they were accepted as Jewish. Yes, this was in the Orthodox world as well.
There are mitzvot that are taken incredibly seruiously by the orthodox community that are not takenas seriously by the Conservative and Reform communities. Conversely, there are mitzvot that are essentuially ignored the the Orthodox community but are taken incredibly seriously in Conservative and Reform communities.
There is value in each of the approaches, and certain lacks in each of them too. Deciding that one whose practice is different than yours is not Jewish is just plain sinat chinam.
Hi Sarah,
Thanks for weighing in.
I published your comments although I find your tone slightly offensive (I don't think anyone here would appreciate if I posted what "drives me crazy" about Reform Judaism) because you raise a number of points I'd like to address.
1. That people assume Orthodoxy has remained constant. As I stated above: "It really boils down to the concept of "mesorah" – Orthodox Jews attempt and purport to follow an unbroken chain of tradition stretching back generation to generation from Sinai.
Maybe they sometimes fail in that mission, or maybe mistakes have been made through the long and circuitous centuries, but that's the goal and that's the claim. Yes, some customs/traditions have been added or faded away but the basic 613 will never change, no matter what."
2. You level a number of nonspecific accusations against Orthodoxy, such as: normative Orthodox practice has changed in many significant ways, you see variations (in the siddur), there are mitzvot that are essentially ignored the the Orthodox community but are taken incredibly seriously in Conservative and Reform communities.
Can you give examples of those changes, variations, and mitzvot, so that I have a better idea of what you're talking about?
3. The vitriol that you see on frum sites. Unfortunately, all denominations seem to be equally culpable here. That's part of why I started this blog, and am so adamant and careful about tone and respect – to combat just that. I'm glad you agree.
4. "not all that long ago, if someone came to a Jewish community and declared that they were Jewish, and lived a Jewish life they were accepted as Jewish" – again, I'm not sure what your source is for this or if you have any examples. It's possible that until non-halachic conversions became a widespread practice, one could make that assumption.
5. "Deciding that one whose practice is different than yours is not Jewish is just plain sinat chinam." I'm not sure if you are accusing me of sinat chinam, or just making a general statement. If you read the entire discussion carefully I believe you'll have the answer to this assertion.
Disagreeing with an ideology is not sinat chinam. Hating or mistreating a person because of ideology – IS. Everyone thinks their flavor of Judaism is most preferable – that's why they practice it. Let's not pretend we think all brands are equally wonderful in our eyes, or we'd rotate ideologies on a weekly basis and try on all the costumes and customs of all – and disagree with none.
Thanks again for being a part of this important discussion.
Btw Sarah, I just checked out your blog. Very cool!
I think that people should understand that unlike Conservative and Reform Judaism which have one main central rabbinic organization determaning what Jewish law is on any issue Orthodox instead has no centralized authority. As a result Orthodoxy is very diverse from left wing Modern Orthodoxy and religious zionist Orthodoxy to charedi, chassidic and anti Zionist Orthodoxy. Each sub group of Orthodoxy has many elements or Jewish law (Halacha) that they rule differently on. Who is a Jew in relation to conversions is the same. As a result there is a huge mess right now in Israel with Orthodox conversions being recognized by only some authorities within Israel. The retroactive annulment during her divorce proceedings by Rav Sherman (of Ashdod or Ashkelon I forget which) of the conversion of an Israeli woman done by Rabbi Druckman is the most glaring example of this. The scandal and abuse of power of Rabbi Leib Tropper and the Eternal Jewish Family organization is another horror story in the world of Orthodox conversions.
I am an Orthodox Jew and the situation for converts in tragic right now in the Orthodox world. The converts are the punching bags in an ugly political power battle between different factions within Orthodx Israeli society. I have been told that the reason that some Reform and Conservative Jews think that all Orthodox Jews don't consider them Jewish is because Orthodox Rabbis don't consider any Conservative or Reform conversions valid and adhereing to halacha.
What I find odd and reprehensible about the Orthodox Rabbis who annul conversions of Orthodox Jews years later because those Jews are no longer religiously observant by Orthodox standards is that makes only Orthodox converts to Judaism contingent on how religious they are. When they convert with an Orthodox Rabbi they declare they will be observant to some sub catagory of Orthodox standards so if years later they are no longer religious that means they are an off the derech Jew not a goy. The retroactive annulment of Orthodox conversions is condemned by many Orthodox Rabbis but it still happens and some Orthodox converts live in fear of this.
Here is an example of how diverse Orthodox is. My friend who converted to Judaism in Monsey NY had to testify that the world was exactly 5770 years old and agree to wear ultra Orthodox clothing at all times. Another friend who had a centrist/modern Orthodox conversion was free to choose her own understanding of how to dress modestly and could as a scientist still believe in the world being billions of years old etc…
Hi Chana, and welcome to the blog.
To be perfectly honest, I have very little practical experience in the world of conversion. If would-be converts are mistreated – that is a shonda, a shame. If so-called Rabbis are not treating people with derech eretz and respect (that doesn't mean they can convert all of them) – I decry that as being against Torah. That people do bad things – yup, it's awful and a reality of life that makes me very sad.
"I have been told that the reason that some Reform and Conservative Jews think that all Orthodox Jews don't consider them Jewish is because Orthodox Rabbis don't consider any Conservative or Reform conversions valid and adhereing to halacha." This goes back to my original post. My question is, OUTSIDE of conversion, where does this canard come from? For conversion, yes, sure, there are different halachic standards so they create different halachic realities.
It would seem to me that a convert could choose which community/rabbi to "convert though" – no?
Please do edit this freely or don't even bother posting but now that I'm raising my own child in an Orthodox home it occurred to me that when he'll see a Jew driving on Shabbos or a woman wearing pants and perceive them to be gentiles I'll have to explain that sadly they are Jews who don't follow H-Shem's Torah for one reason or another. I think it'd be wrong to say that they're a Jew just like you and me. Because they're not. Yes, they are a Jew, and we must love them but no, they are not like me. I perform mitzvos, I learn Torah, and that is what is important in Olam HaZeh to get us to our ultimate goal of Olam HaBa'ah. We can teach them, show them, even learn from them in areas but I don't need to teach my child that it's OK to drive on Shabbos. For any Jew. And I don't need to apologize for my child's horrified look at someone being mechalel Shabbos.
Chana Rivka,
Welcome. You have highlighted a tightrope that I walk every day: trying to infuse my kids with a love and reverence for following the mitzvot, while according every Jew, no matter what their observance or reasons for such, respect and love. If adults, it's hard to maintain it, how much more so for kids, who view the world in black and white?
Chana Rivka,
It is all a question of where we choose to draw the line. Work of the basics, "Do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with HaShem." It is the details that get us into trouble.
And be sure to teach him not to "dis" others if he doesn't enjoy being "dissed" himself.
well said (from an ffb) this is probably the least hurtful way to have said it
You may be interested to know that not only Orthodox Jews have to be careful how they teach their children to view other Jews. As someone who grew up Reform in a family that decorated an Xmas tree and had Easter egg hunts, along with Seders, Hanukkah lights, and fasting on Yom Kippur(I'm not saying this is what Reform stands for, but it's the way many people I knew growing up in a southern city in the '50s practiced it–think "Driving Miss Daisy" and the author's second play, "Ballyhoo"), I have traveled a decades-long path to my current Modern Orthodox life. When my kids were young, we were Conservative, and I remember explaining to them that "We love Grandmommy & Granddaddy very much, and they are as Jewish as we are, but they don't understand G-d and what's expected the same way we do." At the same time, I made it clear to my parents that we wouldn't visit for winter break if they had a tree.
Good point, BJ, and welcome to the blog. Your story sounds fascinating. If you are so inclined, I'd love to post a guest piece from you about it.
Might I add that Conservative and Reform Jews similarly have a responsibility to educate their children that Orthodox Jews are not to be dissed.
Some day, b'ezrat HaShem, I'll finish my memoir about the journey!
And yes, ALL Jews have a responsibility to educate their children not to dis other Jews. Amusing anecdote: At a wedding my husband and I attended 15 years ago, we were talking to the rabbi, who had grown up in the same city as my husband and me. They had known each other in high school, and the rabbi claimed that he was the only shomer shabbat teenager in that city at that time. "I always wondered what you Reform girls thought of me," he said. "We didn't," I replied. "See, you were snobs, just as I thought," he said. "No we weren't," I insisted. "We simply didn't know you existed."
So, I think it's pretty funny that there are about 30 different comments that include – "The Torah is clear on this point" but they conflict with each other. To me, that's Judaism. The ability to have free will and decide for yourself. What I object to is all of those posts are telling me the "rules" and what constitutes how I should think and how I belong (or don't). How did God give you the right to decide if I'm included, but not me? Religion to me, is an exclusion. It's a group of people who decide to believe in something and everyone else is "not a member" of that group. You guys read the Star Bellied Sneetches? We are all Jews in heart. I don't think God's sitting around and saying, well, these guys, they're really Jews, but these other guys, the ones who aren't wearing the Yamulkes, they're not. Oh, and these men and women sitting together, forget it, they're OUT, and so on. It's silliness. The point I'm making is that when one group of Jews excludes another, it's not really helpful to our overall people, or cause. No matter the reason, or how they've justified it to themselves.
Hey Anonymous, and welcome to the blog (or for all I know, you've been here before).
Can you give me an example of a contradiction?
Also, having rules (the Torah is full of them, whether you differ on the details or not) hardly contradicts free will. There are rules; now you have free will about keeping them. Yet, there are consequences for those choices.
Unless you're a radical anarchist, all systems require regulating and guidelines. Families, corporations, countries. "We are all Kovals at heart," "We are all Americans at heart," is so nice in theory, but doesn't work in daily life. Trust me, I wish it did.
I'm not really sure what angle you're coming from: atheist, humanist, anarchist? (And it's not always the more religious excluding the less religious, as in the examples you gave. To be balanced, it goes both ways.)
May I make the non-topical request that anonymous posters somehow differentiate themselves? People who wish to remain anonymous could either NUMBER themselves ("Anonymous1" et al.) and stick to their number or pick a fake name to consistently post under? I am enjoying some of these anonymous posts, and would love to keep track of who is who here, and there are so many interesting anonymouses (anonymice?)–or maybe just one, how would we know?
Dear Anonymous,
When you say “To me, that's Judaism. The ability to have free will and decide for yourself” you are giving expression to what some observant (note I did not say Orthodox) individuals may see as self serving hedonism. Every ritually observant Jew, male and female, is expected to thank God three times a day for “favoring man with perception and teaching mankind understanding.” Free will is how we use that perception.
Judaism, as a religion, is based on the concept of free will, but the key message of Jewish thought through the ages, is that the exercise of free will has consequences both good and bad: “therefore choose life”, “ pursue justice,” " do not oppress the stranger," “be holy.” The practice of Orthodox Judaism does not eliminate “free will.” However it does identify a specific range of choices (commonly called mitzvot) of proper and improper choices.
Anonymous #1:
Let me see if I've got this straight – you follow, within a specific range of choices EVERY ritual and law in the Old Testament? Really? Follow each and every one?
Nope. So, technically….you're not *really* a jew, because if you are made aware of one and choose not to follow even one of them, then you are doing a little Self Serving Hedonism of your own…..
That's my interpretation, by the way. Feel free to object (That's Judaism…)
Hi Anonymous,
I'm not sure which anonymous you're replying to, but my original point was that being Jew is not contingent on behavior.
I'm confused here. Which anonymous is anonymous #1? And I can't figure out if you are ironic with the "you're not *really* a Jew"–I think you must be, because otherwise you would not have read the whole thread, esp. the opening post.
Dear Anon#1,
Since your “reply” immediately followed my post, (May 8) I assume I am the “You” that is challenged. For the record – I am a member of a Modern Orthodox congregation, but I do not personally subscribe to some of the core tenets of the Orthodox movement (as laid out by the moderator). This has never been a concern to any member of this congregation or any other congregation which I attended including Chabad.
The only time my Jewishness was ever questioned was when the Reform rabbi of the congregation we regularly attended proclaimed to the entire congregation that my public disagreement on a matter of American governmental policy made me “Unfit to call my self Jewish.” Note even to him I was “unfit’ not “unJewish.”
You can't always judge a Jew by his talis.
Zusel ben Shlomo
do you realize that Reform Judaism was present before Orthodoxy? And there are so many different streams of orthodoxy to lump them all together as if they all do and agree with one another is a great disservice.
Debbie, when did Orthodoxy start?
Also, all of Orthodoxy agrees on the basic facts: that God gave the Torah and Sinai; that the mitzvot are binding and immutable; that God is a personal God who cares deeply and is involved in our lives.
Well, according to the lens I linked to above, Orthodoxy started in 1851 CE.Orthodoxy claims to be the true descendent of Torah Judaism from Sinai, but so does (and did) the Kararites, the Sadducees, the conservative Jewish movement, and others.
I agree with Ruchi, though. When I talk to my FFB friends I tell them the difference between Ahavas Achim (the local MO shul) and Agudah and Khal Chassidim (the local yeshivish shul and chassidic shteible) is insignificant compared to the gap between AA and the average C shul. They look at me as if I had two heads, but that really is the case. There's a term for it that is unfortunately pejorative. Please look past the name at the concept of the Narcissism of small differences.
I'll take this opportunity to recommend Must a Jew Believe Anything? which discusses Maimonides' 13 principles of faith.
Larry, you forgot to mention the Samaritans, Christians and Moslems. They all trace themselves to Sinai as well and claim that they are the right form of Judaism (if we define Jews as a group of people who are in covenant with God).
In a way, Debbie is right. Before the advent of RJ there was only Judaism. Each community differed from the next, in little ways. Each had it's own sets of customs and slightly different approaches to Halacha. Their own fast days and holidays. Once the Reform became a big movement, the other group had to be identified somehow, so they were called Orthodox, meaning "of old faith". By the Reform. So, the label definitely postdates Reform since they invented it. And, some people still think that this label is demeaning, while others wear it as a badge.
And some vacillate on the issue 🙂
I don't know about Samaritans and Muslims, but I don't think Christians think they are the right form of Judaism. Pauline theology has to do with superseding Judaism, which is not the same thing as what you describe.
Larry,
I think you are spot on with the Narcissism of Small Differences. Thanks for that.
SBW, at the time of Paul, Judeans (or Hebrews) was an ethnic group (with many admixtures, such as Idumeans, Arabs, Arameans, Greeks, etc). What set them apart was their relationship with God. They had a Covenant (brit) with God and were responsible teaching the world about Him. Pauline replacement theology means that Jews messed up by rejecting Jesus and a new Covenant was formed with those who accepted him. Ethnicity no longer played a part in this ("there is no more Hebrew no Greek").
So, if Jews are people "on God's payroll" – Christians are the new team. The old team was to be fired and dispersed. Eventually, it was rephrased as "retired" – Hebrews still get benefits past contributions.
So – I'll be Anonymous #1 –
I've been reading the blog for about a year. I'm coming from the angle of being raised conservative in a very non-Jewish community.
While I agree that there must be rules – I disagree that you're "out" if you "don't follow them correctly." How dare that guy tell his parents he won't visit if they have a Christmas tree – he believes it's okay to break a commandment over a non-commandment rule? (Honor they Father and Mother as opposed to the rule in the talmud about having other religions symbols in the house? What about the part of the torah that addresses the easter bunny?) And then telling his kids that they don't understand Judaism like "we" do. And feeling "sorry" for those who don't know the religion like you do.
Frankly – I bet every cult in the world's leader told his followers exactly the same things. Exclusion based on not following 1,000 different interpretations of a 5,000 year old text is just nonsense.
I'm a jew, don't teach your kids I'm not, because come the next holocaust – nobody is going to sit there and debate whether or not I'm really Jewish, I go into the fire like everyone else.
Shame on all of you for excluding me based on ANY reason.
And that's why we're having trouble.
Anonymous,
Firstly, please keep the tone respectful so that I can continue to publish your comments. Thank you for being a loyal reader – I truly appreciate each and every one of my readers.
We agree that you're not "out" if you don't follow the commandments – that was the point of my original post (all the way up there). I believe that a Jew is a Jew, no matter what his actions.
Laying down boundaries for loved ones need not violate any precept in the Torah regarding how to treat others. It can and must be done with respect and sensitivity. (That doesn't guarantee anyone will like it.) And, IMHO, that's why people need a Rabbi – to guide them morally when two Torah values appear to clash. (Christmas tree v. honor your parents, for example.)
As I mentioned above, no one likes pity.
I'm sure there are some values that are sacred to you (whether Jewish, social, civil). How do you teach your kids to regard those that don't share your values?
Anonymous#1, I share some of the feelings you expressed, possibly more than any other poster on this thread, but now I'm worried that some of your choices of words are going to derail the chance to get those views really heard, because that way of talking ('nonsense', 'shame on you') can get other people defensive, which produces attacks, and then the 'fight' and the feelings take center stage.
After reading Ruchi's opening spiel I discovered that for O-Judaism there is no minimum threshold of practice and belief for a Jew to count as a Jew (but as has been discussed, there are more controversial issues around matrilineality).
Now I'm really interested in the question you raise about conflicting levels of mitzvot and commandments. The question of the tree vs. the parents–intriguing. And clearly there are a lot of people on this thread who deal with being more or less O than their relatives.
Whoops, Ruchi's comment got there before mine!
Anonymous #1 makes some assumptions about my post above. First, I never told my children that we were better than their grandparents, just that we practiced Judaism differently. I don't think we're better than our Christian neighbors, though we practice religion differently, and I firmly believe that our way is the right way FOR US. Other than an occasional teenage tantrum (obnoxious, to be sure), I think I can say with total candor that I never, ever dishonored or disrespected my parents. They never felt that I had disrespected them. Our relationship was such that we could discuss our differences with mutual love and respect.
Anonymous #1 –
When the Orthodox on this board use terms like "Feel Sorry For" and you, yourself, say that essentially you're more enlightened because of your torah study, you're condescending. That is the part I don't care for.
I teach my kids that their beliefs are different. Not more right or more wrong, but that almost everyone on earth believes something different. Religion to the individual is like snowflakes. I feel differently than my wife, who feels different than her friend, and mother, and coworkers.
Look, our religions came from centuries of storytelling. Pretending that it's the word of god as he spoke it to our forefathers is like believing in Santa to me. Just as foreign. But I don't look down my nose at others for believing it, it makes sense to them. You believe what you want, but please don't teach your kids that my kids aren't as lucky as them. And please don't tell me you're closer to God than I am. Maybe God doesn't like all of the rules that the Orthodox follow because it was a misinterpretation by someone a few thousand years ago and it's annoying to him that you're getting it wrong for so many years.
Who knows?
Anonymous (are you Anonymous #2?),
Let's use a better example. Imagine there is a value that is very, very important to you. Like, to use a super-controversial example just by way of illustration, same-sex marriage. And you believe very strongly that it ought to accepted, legalized, celebrated. And someone else, well, doesn't share that belief. And your kids say, "Mom! How come Aunt Kate wasn't at Uncle Steve and Uncle Rob's wedding??" What would you answer your child there? Truth.
Ruchi,
You just lost me (a little) with your post on race. "Of course it's a race. We're first and foremost the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Biologically driven. But that's just the beginning, because we're a spiritual race too. You can join if your soul is Jewish, even if your body isn't."
Refering to Jews as a race is REALLY offensive to many people. Please be sensitive to Shoah survivors whose families were destroyed because they were of an inferior "race." Referring to Jews as a "people" or a "nation" conveys the interrelationship you are trying to advance.
Race, for what ever it is worth, is a biological classification and I defy anyone to walk the streets of Jerusalem or Tel Aviv and conclude that Jews are of a singular "race."
As far as all being the children of A,I,J etc, "racially" you have to account for David's two non Isralite ancestors, Tamar and Ruth.
BTW, my father's natrualization papers list his "race" as "Hebrew" not "white" so I have identified my self as "other" on intrusive governmental documents.
Racially pure or not, Klal yisrael chaverim, All Israel are companions.
Zusel ben Shlomo
Really? Offensive? Who woulda thunk it? My grandparents are Shoah survivors; I wouldn't have thought of that. As far as Tamar, I am not sure what was non-Israelite about her, and Ruth was a convert – I already included converts above – because we are only a race to a certain extent – we defy categories. Other than converts, though, we ARE, overwhelmingly, a biological race of a particular family – Jacob's children. No one said anything about "purity" – a non-Jewish father would certainly tinker with the "race" while leaving the Jewishness completely intact, so there you go. We defy category. As for Kol Yisrael Chaverim, well, I couldn't agree more.
I was also surprised with your use of the word 'race' for the same reason–Nazis called Jews a race for nefarious purposes–which in my historical understanding is not unrelated to the reasons for the invention of the modern concept of 'race' in the first place (maybe the 'race' you refer to is a translation of 'people' or 'nation' as suggested above?). I hate to ask this, because it's such a pigeonholing kind of question, but since you don't mind being a bit of a spokesperson: do all O Jews think of Jews as a race? Is it an O belief?
I don't mean to get hung up on the word. I'm just stressing the biological importance of our nationbeing the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Now THAT is an O belief (although I would simply consider it a Jewish belief). We are their children biologically – and spiritually. This includes converts, whose souls, we believe, are the children of these ancestors spiritually, even if not biologically. This goes back to my original post, regarding a technical Jew-ness that can never be doffed (which is more similar to a "race" than a "religion").
Jews and race- Current update…..:
In spite of the fact that many Jews deplore the concept of a Jewish (or Hebrew) race, and that it was used by the Nazis to demean Jews, and that I have heard (particularly) older Christians refer to the Jewish race with respect and deference, new genetic research seems to support Ruchi’s position.
From Google (60,000,000 hit on "Jews as a race") “Harry Ostrer is a medical geneticist and professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. His new book, Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People, argues that Jews exhibit a distinctive genetic signature that is central to Jewish identity. Jews are, in other words, a race of people.” Textuality May 8, 2012!
The Cohan gene does seem to be a far flung constant and that would have come from Moses and Aaron unless Aaron’s genes had become mutated in some way. The fact that it is only found in Cohans means that it is not from Abraham since it is not found in other Israelites. Even ampng the Ethiopia it is limited to the priestly families in that community.
Race, Like so many things in Judaism, it is offensive to some, revered by others, and ignored by many.
ZBS, I find that totally fascinating. And your last line is, oy, so true.
Sarah – I totally agree with you about the need to differentiate between minhag, halacha, and chumra and also that "authentic" (aka orthodox) judasim has evolved over the centuries as well. I see the main difference between "us" and "them" as who is "authorized" to introduce change and how.
I'm intrigued by your statement that "Conversely, there are mitzvot that are essentially ignored by the Orthodox community but are taken incredibly seriously in Conservative and Reform communities." – care to elaborate?
"I'm intrigued by your statement that "Conversely, there are mitzvot that are essentially ignored by the Orthodox community but are taken incredibly seriously in Conservative and Reform communities." – care to elaborate"
Sure, in general, mitzvot ben b'nai adam v'chaveiro are taken more seriously in the non frum community. Mitzvot connected to tikkun olam…are taken seriously. if you look at how big time tzdaka is spent by members of the various denominations you see money coming out of Reform and Conservative pockets that looks at all of k'lal yisrael, not just one's own corner of it. You also see serious money spent to make the world as a whole a better place for all of it's inhabitants, attributes we usually associate with the KB"H. So when you think of zokef k'fufim, matir asurim, rofeh cholim…as applied not just to one's own corner of frumkeit….you see efforts ang good works done in those areas of need, you are likely to see money that comes from people who are not identifying themselves as Orthodox.
Strikingly when you read the words of both laity and leadership in the Conservative and the Reform worlds you see a level of respect and politeness directed at the movements that are not ones own. This is glaringly not the case in the Orthodox world.
Read any frum discussion board and you read derison and revulsion directed at other Jews. The usual rhetoric is that people who do things differently are not Jewish at all. If any ill befalls them it is their own fault for not doing as you do. This sort of sinat chinam seems to be encouraged by the leadership as well.
Hi Sarah,
Thanks for returning. I don't really like to compare the denominations, but since you've asked, here we go.
1. Tzedaka. Orthodox Jews, on the whole, give a far greater percentage of their income to tzedaka. I am unsure why, if they give those dollars to the religious community, that is not OK. No one else will service us, so we need to service ourselves. Examples: Hatzala, Bikur Cholim, Matan B'sayser, A Time, Bonei Olam, Ohel… I could go on and on, literally. The Orthodox community has cornered the market on Chessed, hands down.
Also: I find that in the Orthodox community there is enormous amounts of chessed being done interpersonally (not through organizations). Inviting the homeless into homes for Shabbat. Hosting other people's company as houseguests for bnei mitzvah and weddings. Cooking for people you barely know. Etc.
2. Your assertion that the Reform and Conservative movements are more polite and respectful toward Orthodoxy than vice-versa is, in my experience, blatantly untrue. I have heard from folks first-hand who have experienced Orthodox-bashing from the top. I wish it were true because it would make my life a lot more pleasant.
3. Lashon hara, while not absent from Orthodox living, exists in a much smaller degree. Among my friends, someone who gossips is a social misfit.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
As someone who has affiliated with all three denominations at different times, I must say that you both make good and valid points. The bottom line is that there are good, righteous, compassionate people in all camps, people who live their ideals and make us all proud, some who do it quietly, others whose acts shine in more public arenas. There are also, alas, people in all camps whose words and/or deeds make us shudder with shame. It seems to me that we need to focus our energies on supporting all Jews who contribute to the good in the world rather than wasting time calling each other names.
I think I see where some of the disconnect between Ruchi and Sarah is. Begging your indulgence, I will try to speak for both sides on the particular issue of tzedakah.
Sarah: Heterodox sees whole world as chaverim. Tzedaka only for one's own seems selfish, and a lower level than giving to a cause that in no way benefits you or that benefits both you and others.. Giving to Heifer International is Rambam's 8th (highest) degree of charity – giving poor people the means to no longer be poor. As Hillel said "If I am only for myself, what am I?"
Ruchi: Orthodox world sees treating all Jewish people as close family as normal and praiseworthy. There are many valid O positions on our role viz a viz gentiles, but all agree that Jews have a particular responsibility towards other Jews that they do not have towards gentiles. Rambam says to feed the poor(*) of your own city before the poor of other cities, so all else being equal giving to the local Tomche Shabbat so poor Jews will have meals for Shabbat is superior to giving to equally poor non-Jews in Africa. As Hillel said "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?"
(*) the Gentile poor of your own city are included in this obligation mipi darche shalom (because of the ways of peace).
I note that the O concentration on tzedaka within the community has resulted in the near universal enrollement in day school for the community andthe Artscroll English Talmud and Mesorah publications (funded primarily by charitable donations and legally a non-profit). Of course, many of those who contributed towards these causes were not Orthodox themselves.
Larry, I think you did a great job clarifying. Thank you. And BJ – you are so right.
Ruchi-
A few things, manyu of your examples of tzedaka given in the frum world are exactly my point…given only to 'those who daven as you do". not to Klal yisrael as a whole or to humankind as a whole. additionally you talk about mitzvot like hachnasat orchim as if they just not done by folks who don't wear a tichel.
Those mitzvot of chesed are certainly done by women who wear pants and men who don't wear kippot. Assuming that those sorts of mitzvot of chesed are NOT done outside of the fum community shows a certain narrowness of understanding of folks who may not worry as much as you do about the pedigree of a hechsher but may be extremely serious about fulfilling mitzvot in a way that may not be advantageous when you pay your taxes.
One thing that is deeply disturbing to folks who are not frum is that people who outwardly show that they deeply connected to strongly committed Jewish community by, say wearing payot, a kippah, visible tzitzit, a sheitle, yet, molest children, or cheat on their taxes or defraud the government. Yes, it is worse when a fummer yid commits such crimes.
Folks who are not frum at all, yet law abiding and moral, find that moral disconnect to be deeply disturbing.
But going back to your point that you often cook meals for people you don't know or barely know…, or do hospital visits or are part of a chevre kadisha?? That's just the way a good Jewish community works, even those communities where people daven without a mechitza. Those sorts of good works are done not just by the sheitle wearing but also by those of us who wear sleeveless and don't cover our hair.
Hi Sarah.
I'm not sure why there seems to be a lot of emphasis in your response on dress. I said nothing about dress. I said in the Orthodox community. The Orthodox community in Cleveland, for example, encompasses a huge range of dress, including the sleeveless, pants, and no head-covering that you mention.
I am not going to answer your claims tit for tat, not because I can't, but because I don't think it's constructive. You had asserted that Orthodox Jews are less proficient in interpersonal mitzvot than Reform and Conservative Jews; I disagree. But I don't want to argue. You have your experiences and I have mine.
I will add a few points, though:
1. You say: "One thing that is deeply disturbing to folks who are not frum is that people who outwardly show that they deeply connected to strongly committed Jewish community by, say wearing payot, a kippah, visible tzitzit, a sheitle, yet, molest children, or cheat on their taxes or defraud the government. Yes, it is worse when a fummer yid commits such crimes.
Folks who are not frum at all, yet law abiding and moral, find that moral disconnect to be deeply disturbing."
Guess what? Folks who ARE frum, and are law abiding and moral, find that moral disconnect to be deeply disturbing as well. You have insinuated that I generalize based on dress but it seems that you are doing some generalizing yourself.
2. Regarding keeping the charity within one's community. You cite a source above about a high form of charity being to help one to become independent. Did you know that there are hierarchies in charity about to whom to give as well? At the top of the list are: those in Israel, one's own family, and one's own community.
I am aware that Conservative Jews and Reform Jews do chessed. Would you agree that the way a "good Jewish community works" is that people do chessed for each other? Are Reform Jews cooking for the Orthodox?
How could we cook for you? You wouldn't eat the food we serve since you'd see it as not being kosher! 🙂
For those of you that are still following this thread, I had a major epiphany tonight. I went to hear Dennis Prager speak, and he quoted the "trinity" of Judaism: God, Israel, Torah, referencing its original Aramaic source. And it struck me: when I learned this, "Israel" meant not the country, but the *nation*. And in the Reform movement, it is used to define the country, and NOT the nation.
Fascinating. Many implications here.
Regarding Judaism as a "race" – http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/99494/a-case-for-genetic-jewishness
Anyone not still following this thread, raise your hand!
I'm editing my post to stick to your point and postpone digressive rants to the end: So for O Jews "the nation of Israel" means the ethnicity/people/'race' of Jews, and is a reference to Jewish unity. R Judaism seems to take it as a doctrinal support for the state of Israel. You're right about how fascinating this is. This is what I meant in my other post on Reform/O about how there is a linguistic confusion that sometimes corresponds to a real-world confusion.
Three postscripts to be ignored if anyone has enough of me already:
1. I would not want to argue against the claim that a lot of Jews carry some common genes, and there is likely a biological ancestry that most Jews have in common. Genetics confirms a 'lineage', for sure. But in my view this does not make a 'race'. Not every biological family is a race. Not every genetic trait makes a race. How many genes would you have to have in common to count as a 'race' if 'race' is just a matter of 'genes in common'? Are men a 'race' because they all have a Y chromosome? My thinking is that 'race' has historically as a term served to divide people up according to differences that indeed exist, but in order to make those differences central, decisive, the points of supreme identification, and usually to nefarious ends. So skin color can be definitive of race–if we want to enslave Africans. National Socialism embraced the idea of race without sophisticated genetics, and looked at facial structure. 'Race' is in this view a social production that makes use of biological differences to say which differences are most important.
2. But more than 'race' I still think that the word 'nation' is still what throws us off in this discussion. Forgive me for being the language police, it's a compulsive thing I do. "Nation" used to mean 'a people', what we might consider today an 'ethnicity', and then in the 19th century or so there developed European "nation-states" where ethnicities (nations/peoples) were presumed to pretty homogeneously occupy lands that came to be unified under a central government (states)–contrast this to 'empires', where lots of different peoples were included. And that assumption that states would roughly overlap with peoples/nations produced lots of conflicts among empires breaking up into states, where the people were all mixed up; and the nation-state model (which had its problems even in Europe) got exported to colonial territories that then also, and now, had/have to try to figure out how a state can contain lots of heterogeneous peoples (think Rwanda, and the Pakistan/India partition).
3. Ok, I'm a little freaked out by your fanship of Prager, whom I had never heard of before you mentioned him a few posts ago but having read up a little, some of his stuff is scary [note that the ADL even rebuked him].
Rants over for now.
#1. I'm cool with your redefinition of it. NP.
#2. I don't mind you being the language police because I appreciate that about you. I tend to assume that role sometimes too. But, and I do mean this parenthetically, it really only makes sense to be the language police where Hebrew is concerned. English (ever read the kids' book "Frindle"?) language is useful per lots of people agreeing to mean something by the usage of a particular word or phrase.
Hebrew, according to Judaism, carries inherent, never-evolving, never synonymously interchangeable, meanings. Biblical Hebrew, that is.
So I don't mind if you substitute race for nation for whatever. My original point was, is and still stands, that whatever you call us, we defy logic. You can't compare us to any other people, religion, race ethnicity, or nation – in terms of how they define themselves, came to be formed, and can cease to belong to that particular group. It doesn't even matter what you call us, for this reason.
#3. Would it make you feel better to hear that his political views don't particularly interest me or resonate with me? I love his theological views (usually) and mostly his observations of the human condition – his male/female and happiness stuff. IMHO, that's where he truly excels.
Thanks for appreciating me be a linguistic nitpicker. It's a passion.
Now you will have to tell me more about this idea that Hebrew has never-evolving meanings. Where does Judaism say this? I'm a big fan of Robert Alter's Bible translations, and his scholarship. One thing I love is his sensitivity to the ambiguities in the language of the Torah. Which means you and O-Jews might be anything but fans.
You reassure me a bit with the Prager clarification. I will confess that I just don't want to read anymore of his stuff or by his people in order to see what you mean, my glance indicates there is ugliness and jingoism there that makes me feel queasy or even polluted. Reflecting on this reaction, I see better what you have meant elsewhere about absolutely excluding certain kinds of language from your world where possible. It's part of feeling clean somehow. Hmmm.
I hope Ruchi wasn't trying to say that the words of the Torah are unambiguous. Rather I took her to say that every word was precisely chosen and that no other word would do in its place. This precision is necessary precisely to allow for the ambiguity that results in the 70 faces of the Torah. When someone darshens (homiletically interprets a verse) based on the idea that if you read a word with a different set of values you can extract another meaning they are taking advantage of the Torah's precision, but increasing ambiguity, not lessening it.)
Orthodox figures such Ibn Ezra, James Kugel (in his book How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now) and l'havdil eleph havadalot Dov Bear in Dove Bear on the Parsha all pay great attention to Biblical grammar and vocabulary.
I look forward to Ruchi's post on the matter,
Vowels, not values. Way to destroy your entire point Larry. The correct sentence should read When someone darshens (homiletically interprets a verse) based on the idea that if you read a word with a different set of vowels you can extract another meaning they are taking advantage of the Torah's precision, but increasing ambiguity, not lessening it.
Ruchi,
YOu are losing me again when you state that Hebrew, even Biblical Hebrew, is never ambiguous or uncertain. It is certainly not true one it is translated into English. IF you have ever seriously studied Tanach using two different Jewish translations you might be amazed at the differences. Even resorting to a competent Biblical reader, results in a st atement "well the Hebrew kind of implies both meaning, but neither one is exact.
There are also many Biblical nouns e.g. animals that we have no certain knowledge of.
There are also words that only appear once int th e entire Biblical Hebreww so it is impossible to know what they ment in the ancient context. TAnach also includes many euphanisms and figures of speech that cannot be translated literally.
zusel ben Shlomo
Hapax legomenon. Gotta love that.
This is going to be a post of its own. Hang in there.
I really hate the fact that blogspot makes me click on the Load More link repeatedly in order to eventually be able to see all posts. Not your fault Ruchi, I just wanted to vent a little.
The Observant Life: The Wisdom of Conservative Judaism for Contemporary Jews is now out on the Kindle. I assume a hardback publication will be following soon.
Sorry, I posted this on the wrong therad earlier:
he Forward had an article on a multi-denomination pension plan for rabbis and cantors. An interesting excerpt:
n order to qualify as a church plan, the new program was required to state its “common religious bonds” and define its shared values. The plan managers found themselves in a unique situation: How to formulate a Jewish set of values that would fit rabbis and cantors from a variety of Jewish beliefs ranging from Orthodox to nondenominational?
The solution, Fox said, was in a set of conditions that he believes “would be acceptable by all denominations.” Besides confirming that they are Jewish, participants also must accept three other conditions: That they regard the Torah as a central text of Judaism; that they do not believe in more than one God, and that they “reject any doctrine that Jesus is divine or the son of God.” This last requirement, organizers said, was added in order to make sure messianic Jews and Jews for Jesus do not enter the plan.
Already commented on this post over on the Israel thread, but still thinking about this. It seems to me that this is earthshaking in that self-identification as Jewish turns out to be the only exclusive criterion (apart from the Jews for Jesus part, makes sense why that has to be there). And because the issue here is a pragmatic one, not for doctrinal purposes, a sort of minimum framework was achieved:
It's not a particularly Jewish belief that the Torah is the central text of Judaism; that's something Christians or Muslims could agree with, because it's a fact 'from the outside'. The rabbis were not asked about how they THEMSELVES view the Torah.
No more than one God doesn't exclude Muslims or even Christians, although obviously there is a history of conflict over the interpretation of the Trinity.
So the only really decisive thing here is that the rabbis self-identify as Jewish. And yet no one is checking their matrilineality. This is totally interesting. But then again it sounds like this pension is not going to be seeing any 'ultra-Orthodox' types either.
Comment from other thread:
Fascinating how this practical problem of pensions evokes all the issues we've talked about with 'denominations' and so forth. I am especially interested in the requirement that the rabbi not believe in more than one God–NOT that they believe in God, but not 'more than one'. Which also implies they could believe in LESS than one. This is funny but a great solution in my view.
Nor does it exclude Humanistic Judaism, which even Reform Judaism finds problematic.
While I appreciate your viewpoint, in my own experience I have always felt quite the opposite. I grew up in a Traditional, Kosher home in Rockland county, right next to Monsey. My mother shopped at the kosher grocery stores, and I often went with her. Now since we were not Orthodox, we wear pants, and in the summer, shorts. We both hated going in the summer because the stares and disdainful looks we received made us extremely uncomfortable- but this really happened all year. We don't speak yiddish or hebrew in the home, but I always felt like I needed to throw out yiddish phrases just to prove that I was Jewish too! Additionally, my Aunt is a Baal Teshuva, and raised her children Orthodox (and they raise their own children Orthodox) in Monsey. Despite the fact that the rabbi of my shul had an orthodox smeecha, my uncle (an orthodox rabbi) would not enter our shul- not even for our bar and bat mitzvah's because he would be disrespected in the community. It was hurtful, and even now I don't quite understand how his reputation would have been tarnished by celebrating the bar and bat mitzvahs of his nieces and nephews. We're not Orthodox, but according to your reasoning, we're still Jews. Furthermore- and maybe I just don't understand the halacha here- my brother's fiance is converting to Judaism, which my parents are just thrilled about. However, since my brother is not orthodox, they chose to perform the conversion with a conservative rabbi. My orthodox family has outright said that it doesn't count, and they will not accept it. As a result, my brother and his wife-to-be are not welcome to my aunt's house for certain holidays, despite how dedicated and committed she is to her conversion. It makes me quite sad that they will likely not even attend the wedding. Perhaps this is more of a question of what halacha requires in terms of a conversion. Although my family is very close, I have always felt the (quite unsubtle) pressure to become more observant- and that has included showing disdain for the fact that my parents raised us conservative (although we consider ourselves Traditional), as though we are just not quite good enough. But I think the bottom line is that as an observant Jewish woman who grew up in a Traditional home in one of the most densely and diversely populated Jewish areas in the US, my experience was unfortunately quite unlike how you see it (and I do appreciate the way you see it). Both within my own family and within the larger orthodox and chasidic community in Rockland, we were often treated in ways that indicated we were NOT Jewish enough. Sadly, that divisiveness has really caused me to distance myself from the Jewish community, rather than bringing me closer.
Hi Elana and thanks for commenting.
It seems that a lot of people in your world were either emotionally stuck; Judaically unaware; or just unkind. This is a crying shame, and I am truly sorry for that. Disdain and pressure are never useful or pleasant. I will add that it is quite the socially, Judaically and emotionally savvy person who can successfully balance all of their values without hurting anyone's feelings.
I sometimes hear people in my community complaining that they go to the kosher market and get "looks" from the staff just as you recounted. Yet, most of the staff at that store wear pants themselves and are likewise not Orthodox. I haven't quite figured out what to make of this. Could it be that people come in with their own defenses and insecurities? In any case, I hope that by reading through this thread you see that while your experience did not bear this out, Judaism as a philosophy does not approve of the negativity you describe. I hope you will, indeed, be able to be close to your faith and heritage and find your own place within it independent of your relatives.
I'm writing my D'var Torah for my bat mitzvah, and this helped soooo much. Thank you!!