It seems, often, that others deem us the Chosen People far more readily than we do, ourselves. And not necessarily in a positive way.
This is a crime.
In Jewish liturgy and text, chosenness and love are inextricably intertwined. The Jewish people is called God’s “firstborn.” We are chosen with love. Chosen for what, though? The shame, I believe, comes from a deep misunderstanding of the answer to that question, and I believe the answer people harbor in their hearts comes in various varieties.
1. We’re not chosen. Jews are like everyone else. We shouldn’t be different from everyone else. It’s what makes us hated. The more similar we will be, the more “normal” – the better. Who are we to think we’re better than anyone?
2. We’re chosen, yeah, but we shouldn’t really advertise it. I mean, just between us, Jews are smart, ambitious, driven, bent on education and family values. We’ve won all these Nobel Prizes and we’re barely a blip demographically. These ideas feel like a superiority complex, so better not to discuss it too much, but just read Start-up Nation and Mark Twain and what-have-you. It’s undeniable.
3. Jews are chosen for greater responsibility – to be a light unto the nations (see Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s concise and brilliant If You Were God – a book that changed my life). That means we have more obligations in Judaism (613 instead of the 7 that non-Jews have) and a request from God to be a good example wherever we go. This is how I see things.
One time, my husband and I were at the Geauga County Fair. For those of you that don’t live in Ohio, firstly you’ll never ever know if I misspelled Geauga, and secondly let’s just say that we were the only members of an ethnic or religious minority there. There was a wagon that was transporting the visitors from the parking area to the fair, and we were (surprise) toting a stroller. As we attempted to maneuver the stroller onto the wagon, a man jumped off the wagon to help us and after we all settled in, said conspiratorially, to our utter shock, “You guys are the Chosen People. It’s an honor to help you. And Israel? I don’t know why everyone doesn’t understand that it’s your promised land.”
And with that we rolled along on our merry way as I tried to find my tongue.
Whatever you might say about evangelical Christians and Israel, one thing is clear: I’ve been reminded often by non-Jews, sometimes in a positive way and sometimes in a negative way, that the Jews are unique and different and will never really blend in.
What startles me is how uncomfortable many Jews are with this concept. Sort of like not wanting to be teacher’s pet. Maybe this is one reason Jews rarely invoke God’s name socially or publicly (as a good friend of mine put it, “we were raised to never say God’s name, except in vain”), whereas non-Jews seem wildly cool with it.
Truthfully, although Jewish literature is replete with references to the Chosen People notion, it’s hardly exclusionary. Judaism both tells us not to push our religion on others and to accept them if they truly want to convert. Judaism also teaches that any good person, Jew or non-Jew, has a share in the Jewish version of the afterlife. In other words, while Jews are chosen by God, anyone can choose to be chosen just like we did. We chose to be chosen nationally (Abraham our forefather discovered God on his own and any of his children who followed his monotheistic path became Jewish) and anyone can choose to be chosen too.
Having done a completely non-scientific study, my research seems to indicate that Jews who have grown up in remote communities, where they were among a very small number of Jews (and they always know exactly what that number was), are convinced that Jews are different and special – indeed a member of the “Chosen People” – and don’t have a problem with the concept, whereas perhaps ironically (since many Jewish parents choose this next option purposefully to aid in their kids’ Jewish “identity”) Jews who grow up in predominantly Jewish neighborhoods, go to public school with Jewish kids and attend summer camp with Jews, tend to struggle mightily with it and fight it.
To respond to William Norman Ewer’s famous witticism:
How odd
of God
to choose
the Jews
I like this anonymously penned rejoinder:
It’s not so odd
the Jews chose God
No. Just because you are chosen doesn't give you a first class ticket to heaven. If you don't follow what has been given by Him then it simply doesn't matter. I have a great deal of Jewish ancestry as well.
Kathryn F.
Agreed!
The holy mishna states that every Jew has a portion in the World to Come. Yes, by virtue of simply being a Jew! He gets a portion "minimally by being the descendant of Avraham Avinu and maximally by totally devoting his life towards the service of God", to quote Rav Aharon Feldman shlit"a.
There are many interpretations of that. I believe that portion starts out as a given, but remains his only if his behavior earns it.
Gotcha. I didn't mean to sound smug, hope didn't come off that way. Given the high assimilation/intermarriage rate, to me it's just extremely comforting to think (or hope?) that all Yidden (no matter how seemingly far they are currently from Yiddishkeit!) will still have a portion in the World to Come and eventually some tikkun.
Yid, does that mean that non-Jews don't get a portion of that world to come?
Doesn't mean that at all, we definitely don't believe we have a monopoly on Heaven, unlike Christian theology, to point out the obvious, which generally believes only Christians get saved, all others go to Hell. We believe non-Jews can also get a portion in the World to Come through acting justly, doing what they're supposed to do in keeping the seven Noachide laws.
What IS true is that Hashem chose us based on what He desired, and absolutely NOT based on anything about US. WE AS A NATION had nothing special about us until Hashem chose us. This idea that Hashem chose us based on who we are is false. He chose us and THEN we became special.
But He chose the nation that chose Him.
I think it's the other way around – Hashem chose us because we were the only ones capable of being Israel.
If not for our stiffneckedness we would have gone the way of the other peoples mentioned in the Bible and history books who have left nothing of themselves but their names and archeological sites. And sometimes not even that much.
I just had this discussion with a Rav I really respect. I will try to remember everything he said, but meanwhile, Hashem choosing us started with Avraham Avinu, and the Midrashim aren't so clear, but 'Kafa Aleihem Har K'gigis' in whatever way you want to understand it shows an element of force. I do think He chose us and then we rose to the occasion, but this Rav clearly said that it has nothing to do with anything special about us. Which means, there's no place for arrogance, but rather for responsibility in carrying out our mission.
Is the 'crime' that Jews don't much refer to themselves as the chosen people (i.e. shame over this is the crime), or that others refer to Jews as chosen but not in a positive way?
If chosenness is bound up with love, does that mean God loves the Jews more than others?
The crime is that Jews are so uncomfortable with it.
He loved us for choosing Him and therefore chose us back. He loves us compared to others the way a firstborn has a special place in his/her parents' heart, despite a love for all their children.
Fantastic response. I do not understand why people are so uncomfortable being endowed with a special neshamah (soul) that the rest of the world does not have. It is a fact. Just as it is a fact that now we are G-d's chosen. It does not mean we treat anyone less then, or hold our noses up in the air. Being chosen carries a lot of responsibility both personal and communal and it also means that just like during the week of Sukkos G-d "parties" with all his creations at the last day He just wants his Favorite – yes people that means Jews.
Gee, I don't have a favorite child or even a "special place" for the oldest or any other. They all have their strengths and weaknesses and are entirely different and special. Do you tell your younger children they don't hold as special a place in their heart as the oldest? Please go and tell them that right now!
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to express (possibly opinion 1 above?) but I published your comment despite the sarcasm because it gave me such a good laugh.
Anyway, I found this really interesting: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2094371,00.html
I should add a "reaction #4":
Jews are the chosen people, duh. This gives us permission to be bigoted and arrogant about our favored and clearly superior status – whether spiritual, socio-economic, or academic.
(Me again) I'd like to categorically reject this position. Being chosen is about leadership, which must always present with humility to be effective.
I became aware of a which of my children I could relate to more, but I believe it was ONLY because we had more in common with each other, at a certain age/stage. At a later stage I see I can relate more with a different child. I don't know if that means "favorite". I did to try figure out the interests of the other children to engage them with as well. Its different I'm sure with every child since each is unique. One of my children was verbal and mature so early in a 'worldly' understanding way – that I could speak to that child about things I couldn't to the others. Maybe that made us 'closer'/'favored'? I don't know, but I cared for all my children (hopefully)(equally) in a nurturing caring way. Did the same in daycare – cared for them as if they were my own.
Ruchi, it's unclear to me if this blog is a place for serious discussion, or a place where people who basically agree with each other to give themselves chizuk. If it's the latter, I will be happy to leave you guys alone.
Hi, anonymous,
A glance at previous comment sections should show that it's a place for Jews of all stripes as well as members of other faiths (or none) to discuss and disagree respectfully. Even a glance at this one.
I cringe at the 'chosen people' idea. It feels archaic, tribal. It is one of the bigger beliefs I just can't stomach. Belief in God himself is something I am more open to than the idea of chosen people, special souls, and even light unto nations.
This seems to be a huge problem form Progressive American Jews and is probably the leading cause of the cooling attitude towards Israel more and more of them feel. After all, if Israel is to be a Jewish state (regardless of its democratic character) it will by definition be nationalist and particularist.
Also, I find words "archaic", "anachronistic", "tribal", "outmoded", etc., which are frequently used to imply that the beliefs and practices of an important and the only growing segment of the Jewish population, to be offensive and condescending.
It seems as if those who use them believe themselves to be somehow smarter and better than their brethren and ancestors. This ethnocentric (bad word, but I can't find a better one, ageist maybe?) attitude is surprisingly popular among those touted as our most liberal and tolerant representatives.
It's comments like this that make it hard for someone who disagrees to participate in the discussion here. If one disagrees, one's thoughts are branded as offensive and condescending.
Ben-yehoshua: I tried to couch 'archaic' and 'tribal' in the language of 'how it feels to me'. And honestly I was talking more about visceral feelings that I get with the 'chosen people' rhetoric (hence also 'cringe' and 'stomach'). But I guess that is an ongoing problem about how to disagree with people, and suggest in the formulations that what I'm saying is 'just an opinion', because like all of us I think my own 'opinion' is 'really true'.
I can say more and realize it risks further offense. I'm trying to describe strong feelings in a really neutral way. It's a fine line between that and being insulting, I think.
When I say "it feels archaic" that means it feels, truly feels, like something old and dusty and from a museum. Like I'm looking at some vase with a mythological story depicted on it. I can be really interested in the mythology–and I am in this case as well–but if I ran into someone in the museum who said, "hey, look, there's a picture of what really happened" I would be a little dumbfounded.
And it feels 'tribal' in the same way, like looking at a magazine article about people who believe something about themselves and thinking, "oh, so they believe that, well I guess that's what tribes there believe".
So yes, 'chosen people' feels really foreign and yes a little self-aggrandizing despite what has been said about greater responsibility and not being arrogant. I don't feel so much 'smarter and better'. Maybe I do feel more modern, yes, since the idea feels so dusty to me. (And I am guessing O Jews don't particularly value modernness, so that is not something I can feel very triumphant about). And yes I am more universalist. I can see (going back to Gordis/Brous discussion a few threads ago) that this is a big topic and does as you say have effects on views about Israel.
Ben-Yehoshua: How is saying that something feels archaic and tribal any more condescending than calling someone else's attitude "a huge problem"?
SBW: It makes sense that it's easier to believe in God than to believe in a chosen people. You have to first believe in God before you can believe in a chosen people, because otherwise there's no one to do the choosing.
What you wrote makes me wonder: What's wrong with being tribal? Or maybe the word doesn't mean to you what it means to me. To me it means having a closer relationship with your own people than you have with the rest of the world. Just like you have a closer relationship with your family and friends than you have with the rest of the world. That doesn't mean you're totally apathetic about everyone else, but you care about the people you're close to more. In Judaism, "the people you're close to" is simply a broader category.
And the subject of caring about the rest of the world brings us to the concept of a "light unto the nations." What do you find objectionable about setting an example of morality for the rest of the world?
I can't answer for SBW, but to me, the idea of "setting an example of morality for the rest of the world" implies that the morality of the rest of the world isn't as good as the morality of the Jewish world. And I disagree with that.
I think you're looking at it partly after the fact. The Christian world long ago adopted much of the morality of the Torah, at least in principle.
DG: Logically the belief in God would have to come first, yes. But I meant more a sense of resistance, or visceral rejection, that is for me exists toward belief in the chosen people idea and not at all toward the belief in God per se.
About 'tribal': This 'feeling closer to your own' is one major point of the Gordis piece we were all about before. I had far LESS resistance to this part of his argument than I thought I would. Of course you care more about those who are 'your own'. This is not to me 'tribalism'. This is just your average, normal fact of partiality.
What feels tribal to me is not the affection or partiality toward Jews more than others, but the kind of mythological (in my view) endowment of Jewishness with a divine ordination. That makes it a 'nation'. Which is tied up with the metaphysical view that Jewish souls are different. This is not the same thing as caring for your own. Every parent loves their own kids more than other kids, and really does think their kids are cuter than others. But (fortunately for the rest of us at the playground) we parents also can be a little ironic about that and know that the other parents think the same thing about their own. It would be 'tribal' if I really DID think my kids were divinely cuter and more wonderful than others without the kind of ironic consciousness that, well yeah, everyone feels that way about their kids.
Light unto nations: I'm ok with the idea of people attempting to be an example of morality to others, although I have very little hope that this would be very effective, whoever the people was/were. The divine ordination of that exemplary function is for me the problem.
Well said, SBW.
Thanks. Can you pick a stage name so that I know which anonymous you are on here?
I don't think I'll pick a stage name since I doubt I'll be commenting too much further here. But I am the Anonymous who does not see Jewish morality as superior. Yes, there are positives about Jewish morality, but that does not take away from positives in other cultures. There are also negatives in Jewish morality, just as in other cultures.
1. Everyone wants to think he or she is special. It's a natural psychological phenomenon and it extends to all religions and all nationalities. We Jews are no different and there is no real reason to believe we were actually chosen by anyone for anything and didn't just convince ourselves of this chosen status so as to get through pogroms and discrimination, etc, etc.
2. I still can't see a reason for having a chosen people in the first place. Why can't God accomplish whatever it is She or He is trying to do without picking favorites?
3. Couching being chosen in the language of "responsibility" serves to soften the edges and take away the sting, but the "we-are-better" concept is still the same. In society at large, those who have more responsibility are more valued, more honored, and they have more rights. Likewise, if Jewish people have more responsibility, they are more valued and more respected. Halacha, sadly, bears this out. As you know, saving a gentile life on shabbos is more problematic than saving a Jewish one. –
MP
Lots to explore here.
Mp, firstly you are the inspiration for this post, so thank you.
Question: is the teacher better than the student?
SBW: OK, we obviously don't understand the word "tribal" in the same way. Personally, it doesn't bother me in the least if other groups think they're special, as long as they don't spew hatred of the rest of us. I also have no problem with the idea of a different, specific God-given role for each nation. I don't know if there is one, and I don't think one was told to each nation explicitly, but I don't see why God shouldn't have an implicit one in mind.
How does divine ordination make us a nation? We're a nation from an ethnic, historical, cultural, and linguistic standpoint. For example, the early secular Zionists believed very strongly in Jewish nationalism on that basis.
As for Jewish souls, I'm really not into metaphysics and mysticism, so I don't know what a soul is, much less a Jewish soul. Sure, souls exist, and we each have one. They're the spiritual, non-material part of us. But how they differ from one another is something I leave to God to understand. On the other hand, if every soul has lots of different characteristics and is different from every other soul (just as our bodies are complex, each in a unique way), why shouldn't all the Jewish souls have some particular characteristic in common? Just a thought from my non-expert perspective.
MP: The idea of a chosen people is Biblical, long predating pogroms and discrimination.
DG: Every group does think they are special, yes. I've had an Albanian guy tell me about the amazing miracles in the history of Albania. Same with Georgia (in the Caucasus)–did you know they invented just about everything? 🙂 So fine if the Jews think they are special too. But special how?–more to come below.
About nationhood: I see nations NOT in metaphysical terms. Albanians exist, yes, but for a combination of historical reasons, and they are just the people who happen to count as Albanians in a categorization that they adhere to. Maybe there is some genetic commonality–like Iceland, where the genome is homogeneous or something that it's getting patented–but that doesn't make nation (or race, we've had the language-police called on this question before). It's in my view accidental and historical. I think Ruchi and 'chosenness' are a matter of divine determination of nationhood.
So specifically in your definition of a Jewish nation: How are we linguistically a nation? Tons of Jews know no Hebrew or Yiddish. Same with ethnic–not that I even really know what 'ethnic' means, but Jews are pretty heterogeneous in their ethnic identifications. And cultural. Kazakh Jews and Indian Jews and Canadian Jews . . . do they share much culture? If the whole world watches American tv shows, does that make them American?
That leaves historically. This I buy entirely. Yes, their history makes Jews Jews. I don't know if that makes us a nation. But it makes us an us.
Is it true that there is a difference between Jewish and Gentile life-saving on Shabbat?
On souls I'll say more in response to Ruchi's response below.
SBW: Do other Jews have *outsiders* claiming how unusually successful they are (per Mark Twain and others)? And have you read Start-up Nation? (I know, I keep throwing books at you.)
I don't argue with you about historical reasons. I just look at them as additional factors to tack onto the spiritual ones. Or, to take it a step deeper, a "natural" camouflage for what's really going on metaphysically. I'm sorry for continually creeping you out on this front.
As far as the fact that we are a nation despite lack of shared language, homeland, culture..yes. I take that as even greater proof that our nation has emerged intact and has not gone the way of every other famously enormous ancient culture.
Re: Jews and Shabbat, et al, here is a long but thorough essay on the matter. It doesn't actually break down by Jew/non-Jew lines. http://www.aishdas.org/student/shabbat.htm
Here's another example: a book of "ancient" texts and commentary, published in 1498 by Annius of Viterbo (who made up all the texts himself), asserting that the Etruscans were Noah's favorite descendants and were responsible for all significant inventions in the ancient world. You know what? I'm not offended. It doesn't affect me. At most I find it amusing.
What do you mean by "I think Ruchi and 'chosenness' are a matter of divine determination of nationhood"? There seems to be a typo here.
By "linguistic" I mean Hebrew (Yiddish is only the language of some Jews). True, today lots of Jews don't know Hebrew, but it has always been the language of the Jews. It's the language of the Bible, of the prayers, of rabbinic writings; it has historically been the lingua franca of Jews all over. It's our national language even if some members of the nation can't speak it.
Cultural: I don't mean TV shows. I guess I'm referring to cultural history. And there were always interactions among Jews in various parts of the world. They always thought of themselves as members of the same nation, so they had a connection.
I'm no expert on the laws regarding saving lives, but I do know that we're supposed to save both Jews and Gentiles.
The issue is saving lives when Shabbos must be violated to do so. One is not supposed to violate Shabbos to save a non-Jew, unless not saving the non-Jew will cause Jews harm. Practically speaking, we do save non-Jews on Shabbos, because if the word got out that Jews don't save non-Jews, things could get ugly for us.
*correction: I take that as further proof that the Jewish nation does not follow the normal laws of nature, but have survived, and risen to the top of nearly every academic field, despite everything working against us: to me, more proof of a metaphysical dynamic, not less.
Ruchi: Have not read Start-Up Nation. I see why you love Tatz. I can't say that I do so far. I did, however, really appreciate his short analysis of how the commandment against idolatry is provocative–i.e. using the same word for "God" to describe the other gods, making it a top commandment even though simple physical objects should in principle mean nothing to God. That was great.
Can't buy the metaphysics of the Jewish nation. Empirical arguments won't sway me, because they don't 'prove' anything metaphysical. And I get the visceral thing.
DG: Not sure what I meant there. I guess I was just contrasting historical 'nationhood' with divinely ordained nationhood.
anonymous;
Isn't the idea of "setting an example of morality for the rest of the world" based on the Jews observing the Torah's instructions on how they are supposed to live? Can you give an example of a better moral code? Or is there an example of a community that conducts themselves in a way that is a better example of morality than the ultra-O communities that attempt to live according to the Torah laws?
It's extremely immoral to condemn the consensual male homosexual act as an abomination. If you believe you are commanded to consider this act an abomination, it would behoove you to examine the foundations of your belief for truth or lack thereof. This is my opinion.
I will interject here that I have never discussed homosexuality on this blog because I have never seen respectful online conversation about it. If this thread can defy the odds, great. I'll be moderating heavily, though.
In that case, thank you very much for letting the comment through. I use homosexuality as an example of where I find traditional Jewish teachings to be immoral. I don't have an axe to grind about homosexuality. I have an axe to grind about chosenness 🙂
You are welcome. May I ask if you are Jewish?
People: When submitting your comments, if you click on "Name/URL" instead of "anonymous" it does NOT fill in your name! It doesn't even know your name. It will let you CHOOSE a name, any name, a name that is not traceable to your actual identity. No metaphysical chosenness here, you make up the name yourself! It gives you a blank space in which you fill in your made-up name. It will not be lit up to give some connection to your blogs or pages or whatever, unless you make it that way.
I am digitally challenged, and would like to remain unidentifiable IRL, and can nonetheless report that it is easy to pick an untraceable name on this blog.
I would love to know who is who in these interesting discussions or whether we have one very multifaceted anonymous person arguing with herself/himself. You don't have to choose "anonymous" to be unidentifiable! I don't even know if DG is a boy or a girl!
I don't know if Ruchi can identify IP addresses (I don't even really know what those are) but that would not be different whether I select 'anonymous' or 'Name/URL'!
Gosh, thank you. I'll add that you just leave the url field blank. Also I have no way of tracing IP addresses. I'm only partially techie.
I'm Anonymous, I am Jewish, and I have an extensive Orthodox background and education.
I see you're delaying posting my comment that I am Jewish and part of the Orthodox community. I am only commenting here briefly, and I have no agenda. I am commenting against the dogma of chosenness because I believe it's very harmful. I asked earlier if you want this blog to be a "safe space" for those who are interested in chizuk or kiruv. If that is your desire, feel free to say so and I will not comment in the future!
I think even a true techie cannot easily trace IP addresses, if at all, on regular blogging platforms. It's just easier to be Anonymous, in this particular case. Sorry if it's harder for everyone else.
I didn't delay purposefully. I approve all comments prior to them being published and therefore sometimes if I am busy with other things there's a delay.
I want this to be a safe space as far as respect, not as far as uniformity of opinion. I'm glad you're here and I hope you'll stay.
You say you are a part of the Orthodox community. Do you consider yourself Orthodox on the inside? You can pass on answering that if you wish.
No, I am Orthoprax. I practice for the sake of my family, but I don't believe. My family knows my beliefs or lack thereof. I try to respect them and they try to respect me, but I will state my opinion when I think something is egregiously wrong with Jewish dogma.
Naturally I don't go out advertising my lack of belief in the community. But with people I'm close to, I will be more honest.
What DO you believe? About God, the afterlife, etc?
BY, Anonymous, and SBW:
You've inspired me to do a post on what I consider "clean" disagreeing and what crosses the line to rude/offensive. You can't be offended by a discordant viewpoint, Anonymous, but you can be offended by how it's expressed. More in a future post. I don't think either BY or SBW have been offensive, or else I wouldn't have published their comments. Why that is will all be revealed in said post.
(Starting new threads for each spinoff idea for the sake of organization.)
SBW: Regarding the "light unto the nations" and dusty museums and such, it's interesting because the "leaderless" view that you espouse is sort of (don't read this wrong) like Communism, which to ME feels outdated. Would it feel less problematic to you if you weren't one of the chosen?
Also, there are divinely mystical facts about other nations. Ancient Greece, for example (in the Chanukah story) contained all the ingredients to create beauty, art, philosophy. Combines with Judaism, this had the potential for aesthetic perfection in all senses. It didn't; hence Chanukah (too long to explain here). Another example: some of Abraham's other children went to the
"East" with his "gifts." Commentators explain that they took his gifts of spirituality and traveled to the Asian countries; hence Eastern spirituality today.
Communism, funny. That feels far afield to me but I can try to understand your analogy. You mean, I think, that Communism does not invest one single leader with more authority (in contrast to fascism, which I'm pretty sure you don't mean to be the model for the Jewish light unto nations!). A few problems with this idea as I see it: a. Communism is not anarchy in my understanding. b. 'Communist' states had leadership. c. None of those states ever reached true communism. [Whether true communism is unreachable for corruptible, partial human beings. . . . another topic, not totally unrelated insofar as you could argue for a messianic element there.] d. The analogy between states and nations is bumpy for a lot of reasons.
Good question whether 'chosen people' would be less problematic if it were some other group I'm not a part of. If it were some other group, I would look at it tolerantly and respectfully as their own view about themselves that I don't think is true but it's none of my business. I would not have a visceral response, just like I don't have visceral responses about things like the Catholic idea of the virgin birth of Jesus.
See my response to DG about my view of divine ordination of nations and the metaphysics of nationhood that I can't swallow. I am fascinated in a historical way about what you say about the Jewish view of Greece, and yes ancient Greek thought is so rich and has given us so many important thoughts and works. Why is that divine, why not just historically what happened? But all that mystical nationhood stuff creeps me out. And historically it has not served Jews or anyone very well: Nazi Germany imagined that it was the metaphysical reincarnation of ancient Greece.
Last night I got to Tatz' chapter in "Letters to a Buddhist Jew" on chosenness. Underwhelming to me, sorry. He had all kinds of analogies about how it takes different kinds of parts to make a whole, so ok yeah, and the same with peoples, so not totally ok but yeah. And (at least so far in the book) he does not really explain Jewish chosenness or leadership. Different parts of a system have different functions, but that's not the same thing as saying one is the leader. He did not at all address the issue of leader, more responsibility, chosenness. If we dress up together as a horse for Halloween (I guess you don't do this) and I tell you how important all parts of the horse are and then assign you to be the rump while I'm the head, it's not just about each of us having our assigned function.
Re the Greeks, I think the idea is that God gave them certain strengths that they're supposed to use for the good. (Ruchi, agree?) I don't know what a "metaphysical reincarnation of ancient Greece" even means, but it's irrelevant. They used their abilities for evil.
Re the head and the rump, who is more important? The garbage collector or the World Series MVP? The MVP gets the glory, but I'd rather have him go on strike than the garbage collector.
Re: Greeks – agree!
SBW: I am so grateful that you are reading Tatz. Thank you! I definitely didn't expect you to like or agree with ideas. But I still thought you'd enjoy the book. Don't forget he was addressing a BuJu which means spirituality and metaphysics was taken for granted.
His chapter on Chosenness was actually for me the least satisfying chapter in the book.
MP: addressing your points here so I'll repeat the question (and btw – you can also choose "Name/URL" and just put MP in the name box):
1. You seem to espouse opinion #1 above. But ostensibly all nations should then consider themselves the chosen people – no?
2. You write: I still can't see a reason for having a chosen people in the first place. Why can't God accomplish whatever it is She or He is trying to do without picking favorites?
That was actually Plan A – with Adam. It failed. God tried again with Plan B – Noah. It failed again. Clearly having one nation wasn't a plan, so He decided to have a "leader" nation (again, see "If You Were God"). Whether this plan is failing as well is certainly debatable, but you are right that it's not Plan A.
3. Couching being chosen in the language of "responsibility" serves to soften the edges and take away the sting, but the "we-are-better" concept is still the same, etc.
Yes, and leaders are also tarred, feathered, and roundly denigrated. Especially if they are effective and thus unpopular. I'll repeat my question above here:
Is the teacher "better than" the student?
I asked this earlier;
anonymous;
Isn't the idea of "setting an example of morality for the rest of the world" based on the Jews observing the Torah's instructions on how they are supposed to live? Can you give an example of a better moral code? Or is there an example of a community that conducts themselves in a way that is a better example of morality than the ultra-O communities that attempt to live according to the Torah laws?
Saying that a man "knowing" another man is an abomination is in the Torah. This isn't Traditional Jewish teachings. This is a direct instruction in the Torah. If G-d is the author, than are you saying that G-d is immoral?
Having that "desire" does not mean that you have to act on it. Is it immoral to have a law that forbids psychiatrists from helping "change" or 'cure' a patient from acting on this desire?
Is it immoral for the Torah to forbid incest? Beasteality? Pedaphilia?
How about if a wife has an accident and can't do it? Should the husband be allowed to be with other woman since it is impossible to not control his sexual desires? How about one girfriend? Two? Three? More?
Chosen? Is there another example of a community that gathers together to pray for their sick like the O Cleveland community will be doing tonight? Or raise funds for the Sandy relief appeal which is happening in Cleveland tonight? Not to mention ALL of the selfless acts, gamachs, etc.. in the O Cleveland community (similar to the O communities across the USA, Israel, etc…)? I think the "responsibility" of being chosen should be taken seriously. It is something that the Jews have passed down throughout the generations. Jews are not perfect and there is room for improvement, of course. Still, I ask, is there anyone else like the Jews?
"Pedaphilia?"
Can you sight a Pasuk?
"How about if a wife has an accident and can't do it?"
Polygamy was banned way after the Torah.
1. Most religions consider theirs the best and they consider themselves to be special. Some factions of Christianity will allow for Jews as the original chosen people, but they still believe that they were supplanted as the chosen people b/c they accepted the new covenant, etc. They also believe that Jews will eventually join them. It's normal for religions to do this, because why, otherwise would anyone keep all the rules if they didn't think their way was best and most special?
2. God doesn't fail. He is not fallible. So for him to make a mistake with Adam (oops!) and then again with Noah (oops!) either evidences very poor planning and judgment or it doesn't make sense to me at all. Most religious people agree here that God doesn't really make mistakes and that everything takes place for a reason, it's not plan B, it is Plan A, but the world had to go through whatever happened before for some reason.
3. The word "better" is confusing and vague. So lets use the words "respected" or "valued" or "having greater rights." Leaders are more respected and so are teachers than the students. Leaders have more rights and so do teachers.
On this point to DG: you don't care if the MVP goes on strike b/c baseball has nothing to do with our daily lives. But you would prefer the garbage guy to go on strike than the doctor.
MP: Wahoo! Lovin' the new name.
1. I'll ask you the same question I asked SBW up top: Do other nations other than Jews have *outsiders* claiming how unusually successful they are (per Mark Twain and others)?
2. OY! Major misunderstanding. GOD didn't fail. He set up an opportunity, and PEOPLE failed. Sorry I wasn't clear.
3. Do you think that major effective leaders are always valued and have greater rights? Look at President Obama. On the one hand, he gets cool treatment when he travels etc. But look how many restrictions he has. Secret service agents, no privacy. Vicious gossip. Haters out the wazoo. Etc. Ditto for teachers. In fact, all manners of leader are subject to great burnout – for good reason. It ain't the cushy life it looks like. (Anyone going for a leadership because they think it's all cushy and glamorous and will get them respect has a very immature view of leadership… and I would hardly want that person leading me, at least.)
In answer to 1), many outsiders are noticing the success of Asians in education, entry to professions, and high earnings. I've seen several newspaper articles referring to them as the "new Jews" in that regard.
Yochanan;
Are you saying that there isn't anything wrong with pedaphilia? Should we ban psychiatrists from trying to cure or 'help' people from this 'real' desire?
Polygamy–my point was that a man (or woman) has the ability to 'choose' wether or not to have relations with another person.
People with emunah don't need "proofs" from Mark Twain to believe – they believe in the Torah even if they don't know Twain even existed. And people who don't believe are unlikely to be swayed by such "proofs".
I agree with Anon 12:02 p.m. (And come on guys, how hard is it to choose a pseudonym??)
Twain is hardly "proof" to anything. It's just interesting when others take notice that there is something unusual or different about us. Asians have remained a people with their own country, distinctive look, and billions of members. Jews have had neither.
As far as what people with emunah need: as far as I can see there is no "proof" to faith. That's what makes it faith and not science. If it were geometry, it wouldn't be so hotly contested. I do believe there is strong evidence such that if someone believes it would be wrong to brand him a moron. I also believe that evidence to the contrary exists, and that God has offered us permission to not believe. This is the crux of free will.
People with emunah need continued such evidence and inspiration to stay inspired. The Talmud says that faith is something that needs continued effort each day.
Not neither. Jews have had none of the above.
Asians have remained a people with their own country, distinctive look, and billions of members.
Whoah, hang on just a second there. I'm sure this wasn't intended to come across this way, but I don't know a single Asian person who wouldn't find that statement incredibly offensive. It comes across as a variation of, "Well, they all look the same!" "Asia" is not a country and "Asians" are not a singular, unified people, unless you're speaking in racial terms, and is that really where we want to go with the "chosenness" discussion? I mean, I know that's not where I want to go. Yikes.
Anyway, yeah. China and Japan have major, profound cultural differences. Korea is different again from either of the first two. I don't recommend telling a person from any of those three places that actually, the three are basically the same or that they're "the same people," unless you want to get into at best a yelling match, at worst a fistfight. There are a few similarities because it's true that there was a degree of sharing that went on historically due to Chinese influence, but no one who has been to both China and Japan, for instance, would think that they're culturally the same. Meanwhile, East Asian (usually defined as China, Korea and Japan) countries are even more divergent culturally from South Asian nations, which also have a great deal of variety amongst themselves. The Thai and Indonesian languages are completely different and sound nothing alike. Vietnamese and Khmer are written using different writing systems. Malaysia has a very strong Middle Eastern influence due to the prevalence of Islam and old trade routes. Singapore is an ethnic melting pot as a result to geography and history and has large populations of ethnic Chinese, Indians, Malaysians and Caucasians.
Meanwhile, in China alone there are something like fifty-five ethnic minorities- the only reason people think of "the Chinese" as being a singular group is because of the prevalence of the ethnic Han majority in the country, but that wasn't a given until the Han military expansion (and eventual intermarriage) that mostly occurred during the Han dynasty. If you meet a Han Chinese, a Uygher, a Tibetan and a Miao, they'd all be carrying the same, Chinese passport, but even someone who had spent little to no time in Asia would probably be able to look at them and tell that they don't all share the same ethnicity, certain physical similarities aside.
I have no particular comment on the question of "chosenness" because I'm not sure I can discuss my feelings on the matter and remain civil, but I couldn't not say something when I read that particular aside. I don't think anyone would say that "Europeans have remained a people with their own country," and Asia is at least as culturally diverse as Europe is- moreso, actually, when you consider that technically, Asia includes India and the Middle East. But even excluding those regions, talking about Asia as if it's all the same place is like saying that France and Russia are the same country. Or Ireland and the Armenia.
I'm not sure I agree with you about the free will. If there's equally strong evidence in both directions, faith isn't a matter of free will; it's simply a toss-up. You have to have some foundation for your faith. The evidence in favor has to outweigh the evidence against. It doesn't have to be 100%, but it has to outweigh it. Of course, faith isn't all-or-nothing; for instance, you can pretty much believe but not be absolutely sure.
But when you talk about free will, are you really referring to practice, not belief? After all, you can't say, "I want to believe this, so I will." (At least I can't.)
I see free will as acting in accordance with our beliefs when we would rather not.
Hi Diplogeek,
Whoa is right.
Firstly, did you consider the original statement by Sarah offensive (or would Asians find it offensive): "many outsiders are noticing the success of Asians in education, entry to professions, and high earnings. I've seen several newspaper articles referring to them as the "new Jews" in that regard."
I hardly meant offense (I know, weak response, but true). I used the term "Asians" because honestly I thought it was the preferred term. I should have said "countries" – agreed.
I actually am speaking in racial terms. I know people get all bent out of shape when I refer to the Jews as a race, because Hitler made the reference highly unpopular (as we've discussed elsewhere on the blog) but we are one, in addition to being many other things, and an odd hybrid of them all.
As far as a distinctive look, I would similarly state that Eastern European Jews have a distinctive look: large, dark eyes; fair skin; prominent nose; dark, wavy or curly hair. This is a generalization (my eyes are blue and my hair light and stick straight) but I don't find the statement offensive. Isn't "Eastern Europe" also a conglomeration of many cultures?
DG: What you consider equally strong evidence will partially depend on who you are, how you're wired, how you were raised, and how objective you want to be. Personally, I consider the evidence for faith to be overwhelming. I refer both to belief and practice.
Have you read Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers? Fascinating stuff on both Jewish lawyers and Asians and math. Fascinating.
I find that statement offensive, yes, because again, Asians are not a monolithic group, either ethnically or culturally. The "Asians are smart"/"Asians are good at math" and other "model minority" stereotypes are still problematic and viewed as offensive within the Asian community, at least based on the people I know and the things I've read about this, because while it's a generally positive stereotypes, it still marginalizes people. It turns Asian-Americans into some kind of doll to be held up and admired (by the privileged, majority population), not a community of real people with real problems, and it puts a great deal of unnecessary pressure on members of that community to live up to the stereotype. You don't have to look very hard to find tons of stories of Asians (and Asian-Americans) who had a terrible time in school because they were bad at math (or bad at academics in general) and were given a hard time by peers and teachers for not conforming to the stereotype. In East Asian countries, the pressure to perform academically is a huge problem- Japan has had one of the highest rates of teen suicide in the world for decades, and there are constant stories in China and Korea about students who commit suicide after failing to perform as well as they had hoped on their university entrance exams.
But let's take a different example. Here in China (and I've heard this is the case for Korea, as well, but I don't know Korean society as well, so I can't speak to it based on personal experience), people are fascinated by Jews. If you mention to someone that you're Jewish (and they know what Judaism is- in more rural areas, they probably wouldn't), you are almost invariably greeted by pronouncements that you must be very smart, and you must be very good with money. You're probably rich and have a successful business, because everyone knows that all Jews are smart and good with money. The Chinese don't view this as a negative thing, BTW- it's looked upon with admiration, because business acumen and intelligence are two things that are highly valued in modern Chinese society. But historically, the money thing? Yeah, not so good for the Jews.
In one of my Chinese classes, we were discussing racism and ethnic stereotypes, and I raised the old, "Jews are rich and control all the banks and the government" trope. My teacher, who was Chinese, said completely seriously, "But that's not racist, because it's not negative." Well, no. It's still racist, for one thing, but historically, it has also been very negative, for another. But I've heard this multiple times here in China, usually after the comments about my alleged business acumen: oh, the Jews are very powerful, very successful. You must be very rich! Again, all said with admiration, not hostility, but is that something to let slide or even nurture? I would say it's not, and likewise, the "Asians are super smart" thing usually ends up having negative ramifications down the line. It also contributes to the "Asians are cunning, and you can't trust them" trope that gained traction during and shortly prior to WWII, which I think we can all agree also turned out pretty badly for a lot of Asian-Americans. And personally, I don't think it's ever appropriate for a privileged majority to essentially pat a minority on the head for behaving themselves.
As far as genetics and ethnicity, let's get down to brass tacks: if chosenness is an ethnic thing, or a genetic thing, where does that leave converts? What about non-Caucasian Jews? What about Caucasian Jews like a good friend of mine, who has blond hair and blue eyes and doesn't remotely resemble the stereotypically "Jewish look"? Do we get carved out of this whole "chosenness" picture because our genetics are insufficiently Jewish? And, more to the point, what exactly does that say about our place in the larger Jewish community? I'm thinking particularly here about Jews of color, who already deal with all kinds of outrageous stuff because of a preconception that if you're Jewish, you're obviously white. Placing an emphasis on thinking of the Jewish people as a specific race contributes hugely to those problems, and I have a real issue with endorsing them by saying, "Oh, well, we are a race." In the sense that your Judaism is passed onto you by one of your birth parents? Sure, okay. In the sense that all Jews are of the same race? I think we're well past those days now (if we ever were in those days, really), and even if we weren't, of all the things to highlight about the Jewish people, I don't think that's the one to choose.
And yes, I've read Outliers multiple times. But even Gladwell dispenses with the idea that Jews tend to be lawyers or Asians tend
As far as genetics and ethnicity, let's get down to brass tacks: if chosenness is an ethnic thing, or a genetic thing, where does that leave converts? What about non-Caucasian Jews? What about Caucasian Jews like a good friend of mine, who has blond hair and blue eyes and doesn't remotely resemble the stereotypically "Jewish look"? Do we get carved out of this whole "chosenness" picture because our genetics are insufficiently Jewish? And, more to the point, what exactly does that say about our place in the larger Jewish community? I'm thinking particularly here about Jews of color, who already deal with all kinds of outrageous stuff because of a preconception that if you're Jewish, you're obviously white. Placing an emphasis on thinking of the Jewish people as a specific race contributes hugely to those problems, and I have a real issue with endorsing them by saying, "Oh, well, we are a race." In the sense that your Judaism is passed onto you by one of your birth parents? Sure, okay. In the sense that all Jews are of the same race? I think we're well past those days now (if we ever were in those days, really), and even if we weren't, of all the things to highlight about the Jewish people, I don't think that's the one to choose.
And here are a couple of articles discussing the problems with the whole "Asians as a model minority" trope:
New York Times
An article triggered by the racist rant of a UCLA student last year– The whole thing is good, but the point labeled "Lesson 3" gets to the heart of the model minority thing.
Another thought is that these stereotypes also rob Asians of a certain amount of recognition for their hard work and accomplishments. Jiang Long didn't get a perfect score on his AP Calculus exam because he studied for three hours every day, he got it because Asians are good at math. The same thing can be said for Jews, incidentally: Steven Spielberg isn't successful because he's an incredible director, but because half of Hollywood is Jewish. Dave Levi didn't get into Yale Law because he spent a year intensively prepping for his LSAT, but because Jews make good lawyers. It's not helpful to either group, it's really not helpful to members of the group who somehow fail to measure up to the standard set for them by the majority population, and it's still falling back on racial stereotypes that are couched in white privilege. These stereotypes often frequently mutate into resentment on the part of the majority population, as well- look at the commercial that aired a year or so ago that featured a Chinese classroom of the future and played on every jingoistic fear Middle America has about the Chinese taking over the world.
Diplogeek, I wanted to respond since I'm the one who brought up the "Asian" thing–I definitely don't think Asians are all the same or that anyone from an Asian country gets good grades just because of their ethnicity. I mentioned it as an example that these observations are made about other groups of people, not just Jews, and thus are not proof that Jews are a unique group. Whether such generalizations are accurate or helpful is a different story.
Jews are an extended family that became big enough to be a nation. Just as most family members are biologically related, most Jews are biologically related (well, all are, if you go back to Noah). Just as adopted children are full-fledged members of the family, converts are full-fledged members of the Jewish people. I'm guessing that when Ruchi used the word "race," this is what she was referring to.
Looks have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with it. The Jews of Yemen and Cochin don't look like Eastern European Jews, and no one questions the Jewishness of any of these groups. King David was a redhead. I know blond, blue-eyed Jews, and I know black Jews. No one said that only dark-haired Caucasian Jews were chosen. All Jews are chosen, including converts, who choose to be chosen (as mentioned in the OP).
I've generally seen references to the collective success of Asians in the context of figuring out whether and how to emulate them. And the explanations given are always cultural, not genetic. I find it mind-boggling that anyone could believe the stuff you mention in your last paragraph. (I believe you that there are people who believe it, but it's just so absurd.)
1. You wrote: "I'll ask you the same question I asked SBW up top: Do other nations other than Jews have *outsiders* claiming how unusually successful they are (per Mark Twain and others)?"- sure. We can all agree, for example, that Christianity was amazing and unusual in its success to bring a form of monotheism and the concept of the messiah to the world. The rambam notes this too. Like people are noting, other nations and races (Asian) are praised for being uniquely intelligent.
2. You wrote: "OY! Major misunderstanding. GOD didn't fail. He set up an opportunity, and PEOPLE failed. Sorry I wasn't clear." Still, I'm not sure how this helps. God obviously knew this would happen and set up the world this way. And even if people messed this up and now we have choseness, I don't see how it is a better system than having everyone be the same. I'm totally on board with Korach, as you can tell. I mean, clearly Jews are doing a less effective job in bringing the concept of sheva mitzvos bnei noach to the world than Christianity is, primarily because orthodox jews see their mission as mekareving secular Jews and generally don't address gentiles and their beliefs at all. No one goes on a mission to Africa to teach the 7 laws.
3. You wrote: "Do you think that major effective leaders are always valued and have greater rights? Look at President Obama. On the one hand, he gets cool treatment when he travels etc. But look how many restrictions he has. Secret service agents, no privacy. Vicious gossip. Haters out the wazoo. Etc. Ditto for teachers. In fact, all manners of leader are subject to great burnout – for good reason. It ain't the cushy life it looks like. (Anyone going for a leadership because they think it's all cushy and glamorous and will get them respect has a very immature view of leadership… and I would hardly want that person leading me, at least.)" Of course leadership has downsides. But it is indisputable that they have more power, respect, and value. The murder of the president of the United States rocks the world much more than the murder of Joe Shmoe, specifically because Joe Shmoe is simply not as valued. Likewise, to bring this back to the original discussion, Jews, if seen as "leaders" will be viewed as more valued and respected and powerful. This is the same as arguing Jews are more special because of their chosen status.
DG: You say 'we are all related', including converts etc. So the extended-family thing is ok by me. Certainly Ashkenazi genetics confirms something there. Not sure how that works with Ethiopian and other Jews, but I am fine with the idea–although then we are also 'familially' related to a whole lot of other people on the planet, like lots of other Ethiopians and Ukrainians and Kazakhs and North Africans who are descended from some Jewish-related people.
I think the 'race' rhetoric is just counterproductive for talking about Jews. Why insist on it? It is not only wrongheaded because Hitler used it; Hitler used it because it had been reinvented (e.g. from biblical understandings of race) in order to justify the slave trade and ultimately as a bulwark for racial supremacy theories. The term 'race' has a history, a really overdetermined and largely ugly one in the last several centuries. You can't just use it in the biblical sense and expect people to leap over the sensibilities of our age.
MP:
1. Christians did not begin the concept of monotheism. It's Jewish. It's arguable if Christianity is monotheistic in the first place.
2. God's knowing and God's causality are not the same thing. Korach basically lobbied for Communism. Is that your view politically as well as religiously?
Also, the effectiveness of Jews is this mission is neither here nor there. Our failure collectively or lack thereof is a result of the mission, not proof or disproof of its existence, as DG noted earlier.
Regarding Kiruv, we are supposed to spread the message to the world at large by example (ohr lagoyim). Frankly, I think it a good thing that Jews aren't evangelizing the 7 mitzvos of the sons of Noach. I'm sure you've heard of the Texan "sons of Noach" congregation – a very interesting blip in Jewish history. Most of their children converted.
3. We could argue ad infinitum about whether leaders have more responsibility/obligations or more power/respect. I think I am talking of leadership in the abstract, and you are talking about how it usually goes down in real life. Maybe we can bridge the two by saying that if leaders indeed behaved with responsibility, humility, and a deep sense of service, they would by definition earn true respect by others. This, possibly, is exactly what chosenness is supposed to look like. This describes the era of chosenness in its most perfect state: the era of King Solomon.
The Noahides are still around. See http://www.1stcovenant.com/thebook.htm.
I had to smile at the Twain reference–since when is he an authority on anything? And I am guessing that O kids don't even read Twain. But ok, so he 'noticed' something and said it. Faulkner didn't and he's the better writer. People say stuff. And even if EVERYONE said it, it wouldn't be evidence of something metaphysical. And apart from what people notice or not, even disproportionate Nobel prizes and important cultural accomplishments and admirable feats don't point to metaphysics. I think I agree with Anon 12:02 although I suspect s/he comes from the believers' side on this.
Also: since when does the Jews RECEIVING the laws make them better FOLLOWERS of the laws? There are, for instance and tragically, Jewish pedophiles out there. In the news even. And all kinds of other deplorable behavior by Jews.
So how, in the metaphysical theory, ARE Jewish souls different? Are they supposedly more prone to follow the law, or prone to success?
Do *so* read Twain.
Forget who said it for a minute and just consider the content: is it true?
Who said being chosen makes Jews better followers of the Law? That resides in each person's arena of free will. As I mentioned above, it's quite possible Plan C (Jews as moral beacons) is failing too.
The Jewish soul needs more commandments to be fulfilled. It has a strong component of striving and ambition (in order to fulfill its greater responsibilities, which different Jews will channel in different ways) and is connected to all other Jewish souls.
Are you saying that all Jews are ambitious? I think I’m misunderstanding you (especially since I've known Jews who aren't and I assume you have, too). Can you please clarify?
DG, so you don't think Jews are divinely made a nation? And it might or might not be a difference in their souls? But you think they were historically chosen by God to be leaders and then (you said) linguistically-ethnically-historically became one? I think you are O but I am trying to see where you differ from Ruchi.
It's the orientation of the soul. That doesn't mean everyone doesn't also have a natural laziness that is sometimes very tempting. Or maybe the ambition is directed into some places and not other places. Also, it's a national prototype. Within that prototype there's a range of variations of soul types.
Yes, I do believe that the Jews were divinely made a nation. But if you don't believe in God, that argument won't convince you. The Jews are also a nation linguistically, ethnically, and historically, and that is evident even to atheists (less so to Americans, since the word "nation" has been redefined in America [perhaps elsewhere as well?] as synonymous with "independent country," but I'm using it in what I think is the older sense).
We started out as a family chosen by God and we still are a (very) extended family, which includes converts ("adopted children") as full-fledged members of the family.
SBW: I really don't understand souls, so I'll leave that to Ruchi to explain. I'm not disagreeing with her; it's simply a subject I don't know very well. I think in terms of God's expectations of us, not in terms of the effect on the soul of living up to those expectations.
SBW–why does it matter if someone is a "believer" or not? It seems like you would be more open to these ideas if it was written by someone who did not fit into the "believer" category? How about someone who did not grow up O but became a "believer" later on in life (BT)? What do you think about these quotes?
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/quotes/
OK: I looked at the link, thanks.
Jews have done wonderful things in this world's history. No arguments with that on my end.
But just because a bunch of people–believers or not, geniuses or not–say great things about the "race" or "nation" or "soul-essence" of Jews doesn't make it true. Just like it doesn't make it true if a bunch of people say that Jews are liars, Christian-child-murderers, devil spawn, and so forth. I think it is rather dangerous to assume that if "a lot of people have said it" then it is a reflection of metaphysical truth.
And I don't believe in the metaphysical truth anyway.
And apart from "what they say about Jews" not being true just because they said it, I am also not of the view that Jews are a race–except maybe if we want to define race as "some group that we happen to call a race based on historical (not divine or biological) understandings of what a race is". Even then probably not. The idea of race is an old one, the more recent variants of the last few hundred years are in my understanding tied to justifications of the slave trade. Diplogeek clearly knows more about the history of the idea of a 'yellow' race, what we now consider Asians (although what do Pakistanis and Japanese have in common?? S/he already indicated all the problems with that).
DG wrote: "I think in terms of God's expectations of us, not in terms of the effect on the soul of living up to those expectations."
This is to me a LOT more palatable than the 'metaphysics' or 'race' or 'different soul' or even 'nation' rhetoric. I don't buy it, but it doesn't creep me out. Which doesn't mean much in the larger trajectory of this thread, but thanks for the helpful phrasing.
SBW: for me, it's not about how many people said it. As you referenced, look what happened from 1939-1945. But when I *already* believe that there is something different/interesting/unusual about the trajectory of Jews throughout history (we can draw on history instead of metaphysics:) and ALSO many varied thinkers have noted the same thing throughout time – it's cool. That's all. I'm sure you've had that experience in other areas. Anyway, it really just is a matter of studying history. Do the Jews defy historical trends, or don't they? Let's leave the "why" out of it.
When you already believe something, it is gratifying to find others that seem/ed to believe the same thing. Except all these citations about how the Jews are different are NOT saying the same thing–there are theories of how we are different in terms of smarts, genes, souls, cunning, shape of facial features, greed, lust, achievement, blood and on and on. And then it requires overlooking all the people who did NOT say this. And all the times, moments and incidents where Jews actually did just live lives in no particularly outstanding way. Yes it feels cool when people say what you already think (or at least you read them as saying what you already think. But it doesn't confirm anything or make it true.
"Historical trends": this is a big clue I think for understanding your way of looking at it. You see things as fitting together and having continuity–genes and souls, history and divine action. I just don't see it this way. 'Historical trends' say, in my view, more about the 'noticer' and less about history itself.
Ok, Jews read Twain, what do I know? I thought he counts as secular lit, don't O kids not read secular lit? Faulkner?
Now I will drop the point of who said it, after noting (I looked this up, had not read the article before) that Twain also says that "the Jew" has a tendency toward cheating others. This is something others have "noticed" and said. Even a lot of people have said this. Does "noticing" it or saying it make it true in terms of the actual facts about Jews? If it even WERE factually and historically true, does that make it metaphysically true?
It does seem that some commenters were suggesting that Jews, in their actual behavior, are nobler in behavior than other people, owing to having received the laws. Do you agree? I truly don't know whether Jews are statistically nobler in any respect in their actual behavior. I would not hold it against them/us for being no better than anyone else, even if I would hope they would be.
Interesting idea that Jewish souls are more ambitious and striving. I could agree that there would be cultural/historical tendencies in this direction, but not about the metaphysics.
I know, that came out mean. I meant to include a smiley face to indicate that I was pretending to be a pouting 2-year-old, but sometimes my fingers type faster than my brain and I miss words or things. Sorry, truly, how should you know?
So yes, we read plenty of secular lit throughout my Orthodox schooling. I don't recall doing Faulkner, though. Why do you ask?
Again: I look at what people say about the Jews, and then consider first and foremost: is this information true? If it is, it's cool no matter who said it – Hitler said some very true things about the Jews in Mein Kampf. He also said a lot of lies. If it's not, shalom, no matter how great a friend of the Jews he may be. (Incidentally, I do the same thing when someone insults me. First ask if it's true. If so, I need to do something about it. If not, who cares?)
I am not going to address whether Jews are cheats, or its milder counterpart, frugal folk – mostly for fear of being misunderstood.
To my view, if something is historically or factually true, there is a metaphysical way to understand it. Tatz addresses this numerous times in his book (to your final point) and concludes most times with the even deeper read: because it's true metaphysically, it has an expression in the physical world (what you are calling "fact"). Put differently, the genesis of any idea or "truth" is in the metaphysical sphere, and thus must reflect, like a mirror, into our world. What we see is the reflection, not the whole reality.
Nobler behavior: again, this is all a matter of free will. We were given the tools for nobler behavior (Torah); the rub is will we follow it? To the extent that we will, our behavior will be nobler.
I don't think Should Be Working's assumption re: secular lit was so unreasonable. Plenty of Orthodox Jews believe one should only read fiction by frum authors.
Even people who don't take such a strict view will often censor heavily. For example, I know of a BY that refused to teach Romeo and Juliet to high school students because of the romance; the same school, in choosing AP courses, decided not to offer AP Literature because they didn't want students to be exposed to the themes in high-level literature. And this was not even the most right-wing BY in the neighborhood.
Then there are the boys' schools that teach no secular studies, or only an hour a day of an abbreviated curriculum. Those students don't get much secular lit either.
Point is just that the no-lit or limited-lit position exists, and I think it's a good idea to acknowledge it because otherwise, someone may come away from this discussion thinking, "Orthodox kids read secular lit" and then see one of the many Orthodox websites or books that advocates against and be really confused.
I *totally* got the humor in the "Do *so*…"! It was perfect!!
Yes you are right that Tatz/Gottlieb can assume the metaphysics and then debate it. This is one reason the book isn't speaking to me much. I liked the God/gods part because it was an exegesis of text. Last night read the part on emunah as 'loyalty', that was ok as distinct from belief or faith. The tone is to me preachy (no surprise on that though). Preachiness combined with metaphysics is not so effective with me. The debate about self (Jewish) vs. no self (Zen) certainly has me on the Jewish side–because the Zen side is even MORE metaphysical than the Jewish stuff.
So you are ok with people saying true-in-the-worldly-sense things about Jews, even where worldly facts to you seem to be an indicator of metaphysics? Aren't there plenty of worldly facts that don't connect to the metaphysical plane?
🙂
Got it – about Tatz. Love hearing your impressions. And to your final questions: Yes. And no.
Thanks for clarifying, Sarah.
I think this discussion has gotten too tangled up with misunderstandings, so I'd like to summarize the issues as clearly as I can.
1. Are the Jews a family, a race, a nation, an ethnic group, or a chance association of unrelated people? What exactly is a race anyway? Ruchi is using the term "race" to refer to mostly common descent, although she also points out that anyone can choose to join this "race." I suggest dropping the term because it isn't biologically accurate and because it is perceived as offensive.
2. Are Jews distinctive in terms of success or talents? Ruchi believes we are on the whole, and as evidence she points to remarks by "outsiders" who have noticed it. Furthermore, she claims that no other group has been so distinctive. Although they may claim they are, no one else agrees with their claims. SBW points out that truth is not determined by how many people notice it. Ruchi does not dispute this but considers the outsiders to be unbiased witnesses and therefore more reliable than insiders. Sarah points out that Asians have also been identified by "outsiders" as being outstanding in certain areas. Diplogeek objects to any such characterization of an entire ethnic group/nation/group of nations on the grounds that it's an inaccurate generalization that ignores differences between individuals and differences between subgroups. Furthermore, she considers it harmful to those group members who do not fit the stereotype. Ruchi sees nothing wrong with generalizations because she sees no reason why anyone should expect every individual to fit into the generalization. Diplogeek says that such expectations nevertheless exist.
3. Are Jews distinctive in metaphysical terms? Ruchi says yes. She believes that the souls of Jews have special needs and traits. SBW is not convinced.
Everyone, feel free to disagree with my summary. I just hate seeing people arguing over points they don't even disagree about. I think the only real disagreements here are about soul metaphysics and chosenness, so I wanted to clear the other stuff out of the way.
I think that's an excellent summary, DG.
Wow, DG, this is great!
I would add that Ruchi has introduced the claim that all worldly events–not just souls–are a reflection of metaphysical truth. And MP has contested the idea of chosenness and also contested the suggestion that chosenness is a far more mixed bag than it is a matter of better/worse or higher/lower. And Anonymous/Orthoprax and I both disagreed with Anonymous/ok about the moral superiority of Jews and/or Torah. Not sure I got that last part right though. And you and Ruchi had some exchange about whether free will belongs to the sphere of action, faith or both.
*happy sigh*
I'm back, and I concur.
SBW and/or Orthpoprax–since you disagree I hope you don't mind if I repeat my questions from earlier;
Isn't the idea of "setting an example of morality for the rest of the world" based on the Jews observing the Torah's instructions on how they are supposed to live? Can you give an example of a better moral code? Or is there an example of a community that conducts themselves in a way that is a better example of morality than the ultra-O communities that attempt to live according to the Torah laws?
Personally, I am continuously blown away by the selfless acts done by Jews in the O community. I have never heard of anything similar outside of O communities across the globe. I'll still choose option #3. Hopefully, we will live up to the challenge, responsibility, and opportunity.
Even if we agree to disagree, I really enjoy your posts. Be well.
I do believe that there exist other communities are that close knit, live moral lives, and perform selfless acts. As Orthodox Jews living somewhat insular lives, we don't hear much about them, and when we do hear about them, we are conditioned to dismiss them, by the very nature of platitudes such as "mi k'amcha yisrael". I am also awed by people who perform selfless acts for people outside of their own communities. I have already given one example of an aspect of the Torah's code that I find morally abhorrent, and I could give others, but not here, and not now. Sure, there are wonderful aspects to Orthodox Jewish life, but I don't accept those as proof of chosenness.
I think it's the purpose of chosenness, not proof of it.
anon/orth–I can name numerous O communities that are close knit, live moral lives, and perform selfless acts. Could you name some communities that aren't O that you heard of? They may exist, but I have not heard of any of them. I haven't had the opportunity to dismiss them (and I hope I wouldn't if I heard about them). BTW, I have lived in many cities in the USA and in Israel.
DG–agree. Do we really need proof of chosenness? Or is it something that makes us more responsible to be a light unto the nations?
If you went to a casino and saw a guy roll double sixes 50 times in a row would you wonder if they might be playing with 'loaded' dice? Maybe he is just the luckiest guy in the world?
If the Jews weren't 'chosen' and didn't have some sort of special metaphysical relationship with G-d, how have they survived all of these years of continuous persecution? Besides, the uncanny ability to have such an incredible impact on the world? There must be some conspiracy of passing down those 'loaded' dice???
I am still waiting for my pair 😉
ok – I am enjoying your tenacity. I have already stated my position that there are moral, selfless communities outside of Orthodox Judaism. It is a very, very large world out there. In addition to having involvement in both Orthodox world and the secular world, I read a large number of secular publications, and I'm continually amazed and gratified at the selflessness and kindness of others, both in and outside of the Jewish world.
The casino example is great: I'm familiar with the laws of probability, and while in your example it is likely the dice are loaded, it is completely NOT impossible that the guy is, indeed, merely the luckiest guy in the world. In addition, I don't see the impact of the Jews as quite as "uncanny" as you do, but you are entitled to your belief. We tend to see and believe what we want to see and believe.
I have spoken of aspects of Torah morality that I believe are abhorrent and unGodly, such as its view of homosexual activities.
anon/orth–I agree that there are plenty of selfless acts of kindness outside of the O world. Still, it is the norm in O communities and I am not convinced that it happens all of the time in communities outside of the O world? I know it is a very large world. Therefore, I would expect that it would be easy to have some examples of where it is taking place? I agree that it is possible–I just never heard of it. Have you? Maybe the Amish?
I have to disagree with you. The guy with the dice isn't the luckiest guy in the world. He is escorted by Dominick and Luigi into the alley and his "lucky dice"are removed from him in a very peaceful manner 😉
If the Torah is authentic and G-d is the author, than homosexual activities are immoral (unless G-d isn't the true judge). I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this point?
We can definitely agree to disagree. I would put it another way. If parts of the Torah seem immoral (such as its view on homosexuality), AND there is evidence to show that the Torah is not a divine book, I would rather accept that the Torah is not authentic than take on immoral views, myself.
I understand for most people that would turn their life upside down (me, too). But I'd rather have my life turned upside down than take an immoral position.
Now, if I believed the evidence showed the Torah to be true, I'd have to accept that homosexuality is somehow wrong. But luckily, I don't.
to ok:
I'm surprised you mention the Amish as an example of a possibly moral community. Why did you choose them? While there are many fine aspects to their culture, I've read about it, and the way they treat their children is quite controlling, sometimes to the point of cruelty. Yes, they are religious. Yes, they dress modestly. You could say the same about Mormons (who are also known for their closeness and their selflessness).
There are other cultures not know for their piety or their modest dress who perform acts of kindness that are incredible. Yes, they might be wearing jeans and tank tops while they do their selfless acts. I guess modesty in clothing is not one of the main ways in which I judge a community.
Questions:
1. Is it a tenet of O Judaism (I know that formulation is a problem) to believe that O communities or O people actually live more moral lives?
2. Trying to respect Ruchi's gossip/negativity filter: there is some evidence in the news of immoral behavior among some O Jews and even what I would consider community misbehavior.
3. The 'Dominick and Luigi' reference is in my view in bad taste.
anon/orth– I have no idea about the morality or how the Amish or Mormon communities behave. Maybe, I had the Frisco Kid in my head 😉
The O communities across the globe are known for their selfless acts of kindness. I have witnessed it firsthand. I am unaware of any other communities or (cultures?) that compare to the O communities. Do you mind if I ask who are you talking about?
SBW;
1. no
2. bad apples?
3. sorry–I was trying to be funny (not offensive)
I am unaware of any other communities or (cultures?) that compare to the O communities.
Just because you are unaware of them does not mean they do not exist.
Are you indeed dismissing the Mormons? They are known for their goodness and service.
Moreover, the Orthodox community is almost exclusively focused on helping within the Jewish community only. (Yes, there are exceptions, such as Hatzalah, which sometimes treats non-Jewish patients). True goodness means reaching out and caring for all, not just one's own.
I am very interestedly following the Orthopraxok discussion.
Meantime, Orthoprax, I have a question for you:
You seem to object to parts of Orthodoxy that seem immoral to you, and in general to the idea of God as author of Torah/Torah as ultimate truth, on philosophical grounds, not emotional ones. Unless you are exercising enormous restraint in this discussion.
Yet you live an Orthodox life – which requires discipline, financial investment, and basically for you, a sham. Do you resent it? You haven't seemed resentful here, again, unless you are demonstrating admirable respect that you don't feel.
I know this is personal, even though you are anonymous here, so again, if you choose not to respond, I fully respect that.
Do I resent living an Orthodox life? I am sad that I cannot fully express my beliefs within the community I live in.
In terms of resentful – when I got married and had my kids, I subscribed to Orthodox beliefs*. So if I remain Orthodox on the outside for the sake of my husband and family, that seems like a reasonable compromise. I am happy that I do not have to hide my true beliefs from my family and that my family does not reject me for them.
I accept that there are many wonderful things about the OJ lifestyle, and I appreciate them. I think if a person doesn't function well within Orthodoxy, that person shouldn't have to make humongous sacrifices to try to do so. For me, the sacrifices are not (yet) so difficult that I cannot make them.
It does make me enormously sad, though, that many of the people I encounter on a daily basis would not want me near my children, if they knew my true beliefs. It makes me sad because I know I am a good person. The reason I find this blog intriguing is that you, Ruchi, do not seem to have the mindset that a person who holds outright kfiradike beliefs is a dangerous influence and should be shunned.
*(I admit that when I was younger I may not have fully understood what I subscribed to, especially theologically, and I did not question the historicity despite obvious problems – but I don't think I was any more naive than average for an OJ woman).
anon/orth;
I might dismiss Mormons because they have been in existence for less than 200 years, right? Have they made the same impact as the Jews? Are they a light unto the nations? I am not dismissing them completely but I really do not know about their communities and/or their goodness and service. Do you believe that their communities are similar to the O communities? Do they have 1000s of gmachs, bikur cholim, hachnachas orchim, Shabbas classified adds, Matan B' Sayser, etc.. I really don't know but I would guess that it is unlikely?
I disagree that the Orthodox community is almost exclusively focused on helping the Jewish Community. It might be their first priority, but Jews (O jews too) are known for their philanthropy across the entire spectrum. It is something I believe we should be proud of. Don't you?
The Mormons may do more good than the Orthodox Jews because there are so many more of them. Maybe they do thousands of times as much good, because there are thousands of times more of them.
I am surprised that someone is really, truly convinced that there are no other communities that can compare to the Orthodox community in terms of service and giving. It is a very insular view. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, because the Orthodox community is very insular.
Anyway, if you are mentioning gemachs, a gemach that lends a $10,000 wedding dress and only charges $2,000 doesn't really rate that high on my list of important "charitable" projects. And a gemach that lends money to a family that refuses to work (learning instead) is not as good as a fund to help a grown man get an education so he can support his family. Sure, yes, there are some good gemachs.
By the way, my Chinese co-workers have Chinese newspapers and Chinese websites used for helping each other within the Chinese-American community. Do they help outside of their insular group? I actually don't know.
typo in my earlier comment. People I know would not want me (and my beliefs) near THEIR children. I don't think anyone thinks I shouldn't be near my own children.
Are you truly convinced that the Mormon community does more good than the O communities or is it a guess?
Does Judaism say that they cornered the market for morality and kindness to others? Hopefully, they will follow our lead (if we do what we are supposed to do, of course).
Some gemachs are better than others. Would it be better if there weren't so many gemachs?
You are right, we should all help each other.
I am not sure if you are giving credit where it is due. I don't think it is an insular view to be impressed by the outpouring of chesed I have seen in different O communities. I haven't seen it elsewhere, sorry. I am not dismissing the possibility that it could exist elsewhere(I hope it does).
I never said the Mormons were actually better. I have no idea if you added up "goodness" which culture does the most good. There's no reason to keep score. The only reason I brought up the Mormons as an example was that you continued to press me to name a community "as good as" Orthodox Jews – as if it would be impossible to do so. I think the only reason one would want to keep score is a deep sense of insecurity. I don't know who does more good, and I don't care. Any good that people do is, well, good.
ok: What if some philanthropy data expert came with proof, like ledgers and receipts, that there are non-O, non-Jewish communities out there who are as generous to charity (or even more generous) than your average, or even your maximally-charitable, O community? Would any humanly-produced evidence convince you?
But Christian morality was mostly adopted from Jewish morality (i.e., the Torah), so there's no competition here. I've heard (can't vouch for it, though) that Judaism was extremely popular in the Roman Empire because of its morality.
Let me rephrase that. There's no need for competition anyway. As Orthoprax said, there's no reason to keep score. But there can't be a competition in this case even if someone wants to compete because there's only one side.
anon/orth–I am not keeping score. The more the better. I was only pointing out that the O communities do a heck of a lot of selfless acts of kindness. Insecure? I don't think so. Maybe, ignorant of all of the kind acts by the non O communites that happen every day. I guess there must be other communities that provide meals for the new mothers, have bikur cholim rooms in hospitals, have 1000s of categories of gemachs, matan b sayser, take out classifieds for people to host them for meals, etc.. If there are examples of other communities that have these programs then I stand corrected. To say that it is a big world and maybe other communities do these things is only a guess. We know these organizations exist in basically ALL of the O communities. I think it is beautiful. If Mormons also do it — good for them.
SBW–do you have any humanly-produced (real) evidence to convince me?
I guess I continue to "press" because nobody has showed me evidence that would make me believe that other communities have all of the chesed organizations like I have seen in the O communities. I don't think it is a competition. To say it is possible does not mean it is real. Do you KNOW of any communities that actually have these organizations?
ok, you have a very specific list of charitable behaviors. No other group performs these exact behaviors because many of them relate specifically to Jewish rituals. Offering Shabbos meals is obviously not important in a community that observes a different ritual. Bikur cholim rooms in hospitals are not nearly as important when kosher food is not required and when visitors can drive or take public transportation to the hospital any day of the week.
So no, there is no other group that provides better Orthodox Jewish services than the Orthodox community.
What about a hostel that provides lodging to Mormon missionaries? To the Mormons this might be the height of charity and goodness. To you, an Orthodox Jew, it is unimportant. So does it count in the "keeping score", or not?
What about the fact that Mormon kids take off 2 years of their lives to do missionary work? To them, it's a huge sacrifice in the name of serving God and doing the good work of spreading what they believe is the truth.
I know very little about Mormonism other than what I read in the mainstream press. It's just an example. There are thousands of religions in the world.
I have no evidence. I believe from reading around that there are other very charitable people, groups, and communities in the world. I have no scale for comparison and no data.
It was not an attempt to convince. I was instead wondering what your investment is in the idea that O communities are the most selfless ones. Ruchi has at different points emphasized the idea that Jews are not different from other people in their failings, owing to free will. You seem to be suggesting that Jews ARE different from other people with regard to human failings.
Where Jews (and non-Jews) follow Torah directives, their behaviors will be different from everyone else's. Where they don't, they won't. That simple. Admirable Mormons are following Torah lessons of kindness and charity. Etc.
Orthoprax, thanks for your honesty. Hope you don't mind another question: does it bother you that your kids are being schooled in a philosophy you believe to be wrong and even at times abhorrent?
I am responding to OK: "If there are examples of other communities that have these programs then I stand corrected."
I live in such a community. Not OJ, and we have most of the services you mentioned. Most of our community members are not Shomer Shabbes or Kosher, so there is no need for a bikkur cholim room at the hospital, but our clergy visit our members (and any Jews who have no visitors) weekly in hospitals all over the area here, and if the family or sick person wants we provide the items needed to light shabbes candles or chanukkah candles or whatever in hospital. Our shul has a chesed meal program that provides healthy, homemade food to sick/recovering/elderly/new parents, etc. We also provide homemade shiva cookie trays for mourners. We have a baby gemach (to provide baby items people might need not babies themselves 🙂 ), we have our equivalent of matan b'sayser, etc. I know our shul regularly hands out grocery store and Target gift cards to those in need. Our members regularly engage in hachnasat orchim when needed, in addition to providing rides for people going to chemo or elderly who need a ride to the store, etc. My own 14 year old son has helped make a minyan when needed for shiva. I could go on and on. (although I will admit we do not have a schnaps gemach. saw that at my nephew's shalom zachor. that was a new one for me 🙂 )
My husband's cousins, who are devout Catholics, have nearly the same features and services in their community in Nashville. Although they obviously don't need a minyan, they do have a group that is part of their church that is set up to support mourners.
In terms of my kids' schooling? Well, my kids are not in the most right-wing schools. In addition, if I find something truly wrong or bothersome, I give them my opinion, even if it clashes what they're being taught. I want them to grow up to be tolerant and respectful (like you :)), even if they adhere to OJ beliefs. Naturally, just like me – just like anyone – they will have to figure out their beliefs as they get older. They are not growing up to be dogmatic. (If they were, I'd still love them, just like you'd love a kid who went off the derech).
That was easy!
Thanks Arieh–keep up the great work!
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hpuqdkj6lbrrmgt/Chosen%20Nation.pdf
Lets see;
The Torah tells us that we are a chosen nation.
The Talmud tells us to behave like a chosen nation.
The daily prayers tells us to be a chosen nation.
Authoritative people from other religions say Jews are chosen or at least unique.
History shows us that Jews survived against all odds and have been incredibly influential in a very positive way.
Why are we chosen?
Ruchi tells us #3 Jews are chosen for greater responsibility – to be a light unto the nations (see Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's concise and brilliant If You Were God – a book that changed my life). That means we have more obligations in Judaism (613 instead of the 7 that non-Jews have) and a request from God to be a good example wherever we go. This is how I see things.
anon/orth–tells us that the O community provides all these charitable behaviors that benifitthe O community, Jews who aren't in the O community, and society in general. The O community provides tons of services (gemachs–R Gottlieb said 1000s of CATEGORIES in Har Nuf, bikor cholim,matan b sayser, meals, etc..) And MAYBE the Mormons might compare with some of the charitable things that they do. If so, I guess you could say the O community is a good example and providing some light?
SBW–I believe in free will and I am not saying that there aren't anybad apples the O communities. I am not saying that everyone is perfect or selfless. I am only making the point that the O communities are trying to be a light unto the nations and that I am very impressed with the outpouring of chesed that I have seen in those communities. I haven't seen it within the R and C communities (which I used to be a part of). I am not saying that it can't exist. Therebbetzinrocks says it does happen in her community!
thebetzinrocks–I am happy to see that you are following the lead of the O communities across the globe! You prove that chesed and observance don't have to be mutually exclusive! I am also happy to see that the Jews are making an impact with the Catholics in Nashville! I am bias. I think people in Tn are nicer in general 😉
OK, I am not "following the lead of the O communities across the globe." I am following Judaism. Gotta admit, that's kind of condescending. I'm pretty sure OJ does not have the market cornered on either chesed or observance. Also, my community, myself included, is quite observant in its own way – it's pretty offensive for you to assume it's not. It is not observant like you are – but to imply that it is not observant at all (by saying "chesed and observance don't have to be mutually exclusive") is offensive. Not to mention, acts of chesed ARE a form observance.
It's also beyond condescending of you to assume that "Jews are making an impact with Catholics in Nashville." They have their own teachings from their own religious tradition (that goes beyond the Torah) that informs their actions, and some of those teachings differ from Jewish teachings, but have a similar positive impact. Catholic friends in Texas also have a similar community. Morman friends in Utah. Episcopalians right here in my home town. So faith and geographic location is irrelevant.
I am curious to know which matters more: the good things that a particular cultural group does for those outside their own community, or the things that they do for those within their own community. I ask this because I can say with complete confidence that if one were to take a poll of non-Jews, asking them what charity, if any, they have received from the Orthodox Jewish community, the vast majority of them would say "none." The Orthodox community, for all the good it does, primarily extends that goodness to those within rather than those without. All of these gemachs and services are geared toward other Jews (Orthodox Jews in particular)- Jews as determined by that community, BTW, but that's a discussion for another time. If you were to ask a non-Jew to name one Orthodox charity or gemach, I doubt that most could, because helping those outside the community just isn't prioritized as highly as helping those within. I'm not trying to blast the Orthodox community at all, just observing the reality. Most Jews I know (of the non-Orthodox variety) feel that the Orthodox have no interest in them at all and certainly wouldn't seek out an Orthodox shul or an Orthodox gemach for help if they were in need. So again, I'm left asking, is it still being the most charitable, most kind, most wonderful group of people in the world if the people you're being kind, charitable and wonderful towards are those like you?
I think people are people, and communities are communities. There are communities that tend to look inward more and spend more time helping their own. There are communities that tend to direct their energies outward. I don't think any people are perfect, nor are there any perfect communities. I find this back and forth about how no one could ever possibly compare to the wonderfulness of the Orthodox community really distasteful. It feels like gloating or something, for one, and for another, I personally have had a couple of encounters with the less-than-wonderful side of Orthodoxy, and I'm not alone. It's disingenuous to say, "Oh, those are bad apples, but nothing that happens in our community could possibly be as bad as what happens in those other communities." Well, yes, actually, it could be.
And saying that any good any non-Jew does is just because of Torah, so really, it's like we Jews get credit for it is just…. Wow. I have no words for that one. It's so incredibly condescending, and it completely denies the ability of any non-Jew to do anything good or kind or decent of their own volition. Though I suppose if I felt that way, I would also believe that the only really good community is an Orthodox one, because not only do you get to count your own mitzvot in the eternal quest to be the best and most charitable, you get to count everyone else's, too!
I think it's quite past time for me to bow out of this particular conversation. I knew from reading the first post that no good was likely to come of it, but like a fool, I waded in, anyway. I find myself feeling very disappointed and saddened by what I'm reading here.
Diplogeek, I know we have had some similar reactions around here. Your speaking up was honestly one reason that I did, after the intermarriage thread, choose to stick around awhile. And like you I had and still have the feeling with this thread that, as you say, "I knew from reading the first post that no good was likely to come of it." I will say more at the bottom of this thread but wanted to just acknowledge our shared views right here.
"saying that any good any non-Jew does is just because of Torah, so really, it's like we Jews get credit for it … It's so incredibly condescending, and it completely denies the ability of any non-Jew to do anything good or kind or decent of their own volition."
That's certainly not what I meant. First of all, the individual who does good gets credit for it — Jew or non-Jew. We all have free will, we all have factors tugging us away from doing good (inertia, embarrassment, etc.), and we all have to use our free will to overcome those factors. Of course non-Jews are doing these things of their own volition, and they get full credit for that. I can't see Christians objecting to the idea that their moral values come from the Bible, and any knowledgeable Christian knows that the Christians got the Bible from the Jews. Christianity has had a tremendously powerful impact on all of Western society, so even completely non-religious Westerners are influenced by Christian values, a lot of which come from the Torah. I don't see that as condescending.
I'm not answering for Diplogeek, but I agree with her/his point. Ruchi wrote "Admirable Mormons are following Torah lessons of kindness and charity." Rebbetzin Rocks and Diplogeek already indicated where Anon-ok seems to think that O Judaism is the example that others are following when they do good.
Atheists and Hindus and Druids can do good things without Torah, I believe. Unless you think (which I think Ruchi and Anon-ok do) that the Torah IS the source of all good behavior in the world.
Am I wrong on that last point?
I was joking about the Catholic community in Nashville–sorry if it was in bad taste.
My hands are shaking. I don't feel that I've ever been this misunderstood. DG, I think the quote you cite from Diplogeek was directed toward my comment about living according to Torah.
Please allow me to clarify, Diplogeek and SBW – because neither of you knows me in real life, you don't know that I am not a condescending person at ALL. I really try (and hope I am) to be the kind of person Anonymous/Orthoprax suggested – tolerant and accepting (thank you Orthoprax).
I also bristle that nothing good has come of this post. I've learned a lot about others here in this comment section, mainly from people I disagree with. I hope the reverse is true.
I am not taking credit for any mitzvah others do! DG explained it well. Better probably than me. Yes, SBW, you are wrong – Torah is not the source of good behavior, it's the lessons of morality that are available to us. We can either follow them or not follow them – our choice. Our own free will is the source of good behavior. Jews don't have exclusive rights to good behavior – how ridiculous. Of COURSE anyone can do good of their own volition – where did I indicate otherwise??
Diplogeek, if you are still reading here (hope you are) may I ask you a question or two?
As a convert, what were you told about chosenness? And is the idea that Torah is the moral compass for living an offensive one to you? (Is that question offensive? I feel like I'm on very shaky ground.)
I had pretty much the same reaction to the "following the lead of the O communities across the globe" comment as The Rebbetzin Rocks did. And I don't think for a second that Christians today are looking at the good deeds of Orthodox (or any other) Jews today and trying to following our example. I do think that, as Christians, they are trying to follow their religious teachings, many of which ultimately come from the Torah.
I grew up in American culture, so I know a lot more about Christians than I do about Hindus and Druids. That's why I stuck to discussing Christians. As far as I know, I've never met a Druid (probably the closest I've come is driving along Druid Park Lake Drive in Baltimore), and if I've ever met Hindus we never discussed their religion so I wouldn't know about that either. American atheists are influenced by the values of American society, which are influenced by Christianity.
I do believe that people have a natural, inborn desire to do good, along with a desire to be selfish. The Torah encourages us to follow the desire to do good and gives us rules for how to do it. Think of Greek mythology, where the gods have the worst of all human traits. They're selfish, cruel, and vindictive. Why would a society that believes in such gods strive to be any better than its gods? The lesson is that if you can get away with doing what you want, do it. There is no morality. At most there are repercussions. On the other hand, I think humanity was able to survive because of the innate desire to do good, i.e., an innate (God-given) sense of goodness and morality. That also made moral religion (initially Judaism, and later Christianity as well) attractive. After all, setting a good example would be pointless if the audience didn't see what we consider goodness as a virtue. The problem is that because of our selfish desires, we don't always recognize what good is and we don't always want to do it even when we do recognize it. The Torah tells us what is good and right and encourages us in the right direction.
So yes, people can do good things without the Torah.
And I'm the only one here using my real name *shudder*
Let me clarify, that I am not a universalist, I am quite comfortable with particularism and the idea that we are The Chosen People. I'm really glad that the Israelites chose to say "Na'aseh V'nishma" and accept this offer of Torah. Whenever someone gets an aliyah we say "asher bachar banu" who chose us, and I have no problem saying that. I believe it. What I have trouble with is how this idea is implemented and absorbed by various people and/or communities. Which is why I took issue with OK's statements about how he/she was so glad everyone was following the OJ lead in doing good deeds. I am not O, and I do these things because it is the Jewish thing to do. Not because I saw my O neighbors and thought, Oh, hey, good ideas those people have one up on me I should follow their lead.
Christians believe Jesus was chosen by God. I don't believe he is my messiah or savior, but perhaps God chose him for another purpose. And perhaps God chose Mohammed for yet another purpose. Those peoples and faiths are living out their religion based on their belief that those leaders were, in fact, chosen by God to succeed Moses and the Mosaic tradition. So they have foundations of moral behavior in their own right, some of which come from Torah and some of which differ greatly from Jewish tradition, and yet all get us to the same end: moral behavior, people being taken care of, acts of kindness and chesed abound. This does not negate our 'chosenness'. It just means we are all in good company, IMO.
I would also like to state EMPHATICALLY (see? all-caps means emphasis 🙂 ) that Ruchi is the LAST person who would ever be condescending or obnoxious. She is one of the most open and tolerant people of any stripe I have ever known. I think that this blog and the comment threads you can find here are evidence enough of that!! She is a personal friend so you can take my word for it. But I like that she allows healthy disagreement to take place, so we may take one another to task for their statements and vice versa if I have been offensive or condescending I expect to be called out here for it as I should be.
I should not have unqualifiedly reiterated the "nothing good" statement, I am sorry. I didn't mean it as absolutely as it sounds, and I know how much thought and effort goes into the blog and into your every post and comment. This thread brought out some really interesting views I don't know much about, like Anon/Orthoprax and Something Spiritual. I feel like there are suddenly, and kind of out of the blue, a larger range of perspectives here. I hope you accept this apology.
What the sinking feeling was that I felt in the first few exchanges on the thread (not speaking for Diplogeek) was the sense that the kinds of views and ideas and claims that turn me off the most were going to come out. And they did. Which has intensified that sinking feeling.
Thanks for responding to my question about whether you believe Torah is the only source of good. To me it seems as though Anon-ok was coopting all the good that other people and peoples do and tracing it back to Torah. As though good doesn't happen except based on Torah or O Jewish examples. Which I find condescending. It was not clear whether you concurred.
I do not find you condescending. You are, I think, amazingly evenhanded and open to thinking new things.
What the sinking feeling was that I felt in the first few exchanges on the thread (not speaking for Diplogeek) was the sense that the kinds of views and ideas and claims that turn me off the most were going to come out. And they did. Which has intensified that sinking feeling.
While SBW wasn't speaking for me, s/he did a good job of it, anyway. This is exactly what I meant when I said "nothing good"- there certainly has been an exchange of views here, but I guess for me, I feel like reading a few poster's views in particular has actually left me feeling far worse and far more negative about the subject of chosenness than I was when I went in. Ironic, really, given that the topic of the thread was the shame of chosenness and how we should feel quite the opposite about our unique position in the world!
The fact of the matter is that regardless of what ok seems to think, I know a lot of non-Orthodox Jews and a lot of non-Jews. The vast majority of my family is not Jewish. I don't feel that I'm misrepresenting them to say that when they do something right or kind for someone (which is often, thankfully, since I'm fortunate to have a great family who are socially-minded), about the last thing they're thinking of is the Orthodox Jewish community. Meanwhile, the perception a lot of non-Jews and non-Orthodox Jews have of the Orthodox community is that yes, they have a lot of support systems and charities in place, but only for one another, not for "outsiders." Some non-Jews feel this way about all Jews, regardless of how religious we are. "Oh, sure, they're very successful, but that's because they're always helping each other out. It's not like they've done much for the rest of us lately." And while I don't think that feeling is entirely correct, I do think that the Jewish community in general and the Orthodox community in particular tend to be quite insular and inwardly-focused. There are good, logical, historical reasons for that, but I think it's something we could really stand to work on as a community, and when I read post after post insisting, despite being provided with numerous examples to the contrary, that the Orthodox community is the nicest, kindest, most wonderful in the world, rightly or wrongly, my first thought is, "Really? Would those girls who were attacked in Beit Shemesh think so? What about the non-Orthodox converts I know, would they share that view? Or the families of kids attending public schools in the East Ramapo school district in Jersey?" Now, that's not my only impression of the Orthodox community at all, and I don't have such a simplistic view of the world that any community is entirely fantastic or terrible with no in between. I think the Orthodox community has some great things going for it, including gestures of incredible charity between its members, but I can also think of a number of religious and social groups that, frankly, do a heck of a lot more for a heck of a wider range of people.
As far as what I was told when I converted regarding chosenness, it wasn't something we had discussed in huge detail, mostly because I had been studying and living Jewishly on my own for something like ten years beforehand, so I was pretty familiar with the various teachings on the subject. But we did talk about it, and I was taught that while Jews are a chosen people, what we mean by "chosen" has less to do with, "No, really, we're the best!" than it does with the idea that we have been chosen for greater responsibilities religiously and socially, both in the expectation that we follow the mitzvot and in our imperative to be a light unto the nations. To be honest, I sometimes think that we do much better at the former than the latter.
And of course the idea that the Torah is the moral compass for living is not offensive to me. If I found that idea offensive, why would I convert? I wouldn't have spent literally years arguing with certain members of my family about my religious beliefs if I didn't find moral value in the book that forms the basis of those beliefs. That said, while I certainly look to Torah as a moral guide for myself, and while I'm willing to acknowledge the influence that Jewish thought has had on Western Christendom, there are plenty of people in this world who are neither Jewish nor Christian and do not give a whit about what the Torah has to say on any given topic, but are still kind, charitable, moral people. Shockingly, some of them are kinder, more charitable and more moral than a lot of Jews (Orthodox and otherwise) are. I know, because I've met some of them. I have no problem with the concept of Jewish exceptionalism, but turning that into, "No other community in the world could possibly be as awesome as ours" is just way over the top, IMHO.
Ruchi, I don't think you're condescending. I've read this blog long enough to know better. But if I were someone who had never read this blog before in my life, and I were to read some of the conversation going on here about whether non-Jews are really just doing good because of the Torah, or whether any community can possibly live up to the amazingness of the Orthodox community, it would actually leave me with quite the opposite impression. The vast majority of these comments haven't come from you, and I'm sure my views often make other people on this blog cringe, so it cuts both ways, and I do get that. But as SBW said (and I also feel), I knew reading the initial post that I was likely to read some stuff in the comments section that would really bother me, and I probably should have self-ejected right then. I didn't, and now I'm left feeling more negative than I did when I started reading. But hey, you takes your chances and you makes your choice.
I want to apologize for my condescending post (esp. to the rebbetzinrocks, SBW, orthoprax, and diplogeek). Hopefully, you will see this. It has bothered me for days. I apologized to Ruchi and now I am apologizing to the rest of you who read this blog. No excuses.
I certainly accept your apology for being condescending.
ok–Apology appreciated.
OK – thank you! accepted! I can't tell you how much it means – very menschlich. I hope the rest of your Hanukkah is filled with light 🙂
So, Ruchi, a question: You originally said that you didn't accept the idea that Jews are smarter, more ambitious, etc., as per Start-up Nation and Mark Twain (reaction #2). Instead, chosenness has to do with greater responsibility – to be a light unto the nations (reaction #3). Now you seem to be adopting reaction #2 (except for the keeping-it-under-wraps part). Can you clarify?
I stick with #1.
I believe Jewish souls were equipped with ambition, tenacity (a "stiff-necked people") to accomplish our mission of leadership. Without a thick skin, no leader survives. I also believe God is miraculously (sorry, SBW) keeping us around for various reasons whereas we shoulda disappeared a long time ago.
Smarter? Meh.
SORRY – I meant I'll stick with #3. So much for smarter.
hehehe.
Diplogeek,
I'm answering you down here because so many other comments got in the way.
If a Chinese person said those kinds of things to me: "Oh, you're a Jew, you must be smart, etc" – and it was clear to me that it was said without hostility, no, I would not consider that racist. I would consider it interesting, something to ponder, why did he say that, what are the long-term effects of such ideas – but that's it. Maybe I'm an outlier.
Re: race and converts, I would fully agree with DG's assessment:
"Jews are an extended family that became big enough to be a nation. Just as most family members are biologically related, most Jews are biologically related (well, all are, if you go back to Noah). Just as adopted children are full-fledged members of the family, converts are full-fledged members of the Jewish people. I'm guessing that when Ruchi used the word "race," this is what she was referring to."
And finally, Diplogeek and SBW, I will stop using the word race because apparently it has some really negative connotations. Would "ethnicity" be a better word to express the genetic component as a part of identity?
Why do genes have to line up with souls have to line up with history has to line up with what some people say has to line up with race [thanks for giving that term up though] has to line up with the metaphysical plane?
Reading this over I realize that I'm actually a bit less put off by the belief in metaphysics than it may appear. Where I start to cringe is where you make it congruent with, and actually connected to, every possible worldly kind of phenomenon. Like genes. It seems that there might be a common genetic component in a lot of Jews, or at least Ashkenazis, as I indicated above. But it seems that you can get very twisted up tying a potential genetic commonality and all its biological implications to metaphysical Jewishness. Or the whole discussion about 'race', or the emergence of social-scientific claims about Jews' worldly behavior.
These put me way off because they borrow from scientific language to make metaphysical claims, and even seem to try to 'prove' or confirm or tie together worldly, quantifiable phenomena with metaphysics. I would be far less put off if someone just said, "Look, there is a metaphysical plane, God is totally present all the time, but that is entirely invisible in this world." It is the mixing up of 'scientific', historical, or 'observed' worldly behavior, and the language of all these, with the ideas about metaphysics that is more off-putting than the bare metaphysical ideas. Not that I accept the latter, but the mixing is more cringe-producing.
http://www.aish.com/v/ho/49682657.html
It doesn't "have to." I just think it does. I think there is a unifying force to the universe and everything is interconnected. That doesn't mean I understand *how* it all connects. Race is actually a fairly minor part of it (but to put a final ps on it, when I say race I mean the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – which was thousands of years ago, so we're talking about very, very distant cousins – and we ALL descend from Noah, which was only 10 generations prior to Abraham).
I have a question.
You've used the word "cringe" a number of times which indicates an emotional, visceral response. Do you object on emotional grounds, or philosophical ones? Does the philosophical objection produce the cringe? Thanks.
Ruchi, had you been born a member of a different religion, do you think you would have intellectually come to Judaism on your own, given that you see evidence for a unifying force to the universe that is explained by the Torah?
Let me think through the cringe and its sources. The idea that there is a big, invisible, metaphysical, divine plane does not, in itself, make me cringe. Plenty of new-agers and non-Jews (e.g. Buddhists) have those kinds of ideas. I feel myself at a large distance from that sort of thing, but I can have respect for someone else's views that I don't share at all. Someone Jewish making those metaphysical claims is more irritating, because there is the implicit suggestion that as a Jew I should believe that too. It's not quite cringeworthy at that point, however.
BUT if beyond that the Jewish metaphysics-believer then tries to tie the metaphysical claim to all kinds of empirical, worldly facts, that produces the cringe. A cringe of embarrassment. I am deeply embarrassed by those attempts to connect metaphysical chosenness and souls to "data" from the world. They garble 'observations' and social-science ideas and get them mixed up with skewed, ideological history and bad biology. I realize this is in effect insulting, but you asked. To me these attempts to make those connections look like Jewish pride–and not in the 'good' sense of pride–blatantly making strategic use of select facts and 'facts' to intensify that pride and convince others of it. So it's a philosophical/scientific/logical disaster being used for self-aggrandizing ends.
If it were a group I were not identified with doing this, I would not cringe. I would politely not point it out and would try not to notice it. But as a Jewish perspective It makes me cringe because I am in principle, as Jewish, de facto associated with it even where I personally reject it and find it utterly embarrassing.
And Anon/Orthoprax's question has me on the edge of my chair.
SBW: Are you saying that God and souls are OK as long as they don't affect the "real" world? But if they exist, why shouldn't they affect the material world? Or are you just objecting to pseudo-science? Do you automatically assume that any evidence in favor of God's existence is pseudo-science? I'm not suggesting that there isn't any pseudo-science out there; there definitely is. (I've also seen studies published in legitimate journals that seem to have huge holes in them.) But there are also religious scientists who don't see any conflict between genuine science and Judaism.
SBW:
Wow. That's intense.
Anon/Orthoprax:
Firstly, the belief in a unifying theory, I believe, is not unique to Jews. It is "Hashem echad" that we say in Shema – "God is one" meaning not just that he isn't two or tree, but that He is the single unifying force of everything. So any monotheistic religion (which Judaism re-introduced to the world) should, ostensibly, believe this. (I'm sure I'm not telling you anything novel.)
Secondly, in a way it's not even unique to religion. Albert Einstein spent a significant part of his life finding a unifying theory in the world of science, as he had a strong intellectual intuition that somehow everything he observed was interconnected.
But in response to your question, if I were born non-Jewish would I convert? I have often wondered that, along with its counterpart, if I were born a more secular Jew would I be interested/convinced/intrigued by a more religious form of Judaism.
Who knows? Would I have the courage or interest or desire or whatever to adopt the life I now lead? Who knows?
Benevolent racism is still racism. Calling it what it is doesn't mean flying into a rage and yelling at someone that they're an anti-Semite, but I will absolutely tell people who say that stuff to me, "Listen, I know you mean well, so I'm not offended, but what you just said is really racist and can be very offensive to Jews, because X, Y and Z."
SBW has done a good job of articulating some of the discomfort I feel with the race/ethnicity as a code for chosenness thing. But then, this entire comments section has made me cringe and feel rather frustrated and angry, so there you go. I should probably take a break from the whole thing.
Ironically, the subject of chosenness came up at my beit din and during my conversion process, and it was one of the things I had basically zero issues with. When faced with some of the extreme results of buying fully into this chosen/not chosen binary, though, I'm starting to rethink some of my earlier opinions.
DG: God and souls are 'ok' with me, yes, to the extent that the idea that they are out there doesn't make me cringe; we can talk about that as an idea; I might not accept anything you say about them but it evokes not much visceral response, which was what Ruchi was wondering, I think. And I could even abstractly discuss without viscerality the idea that metaphysics would have an effect on the material world. Interesting topic even.
BUT any claims about perceiving the metaphysics in the material world are to me embarrassing. And yes I believe pseudo-science is involved, which is embarrassing to me when it is invoked in a Jewish context. So where Ruchi said a few comments back that she doesn't know *how* everything is interconnected, that is to me not cringeworthy. You had a similar kind of I-don't-know response. That is to me a kind of exemplary way to describe the pro-metaphysical view–i.e. as combined with total not-knowing. But it does seem to go against some of Ruchi's concrete suggestions for how the metaphysical chosenness has exhibited itself in the material world.
I don't know if there is a conflict between genuine science and O Judaism. I had the impression that O Jews read the Torah more literally, in such a way that does conflict with some scientific claims. But I certainly could be wrong about that. I also have the impression that R&C Judaism, and others, don't have this conflict.
I can't say that I read all of the above comments, so I'm not sure if this would add… but this is the source packet NCSY prepared on this topic a few weeks ago- perhaps someone can gain from it.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hpuqdkj6lbrrmgt/Chosen%20Nation.pdf
Thank you! That is totally helpful (in my opinion!).
Anon/Orthoprax
From the description you gave of the life you lead and the compromises you've made, you sound a heck of a lot like me. I too, am an "orthodox" woman who does a lot because of decisions and commitments I made long ago. My views have changed, but that doesn't give me the right to uproot the lifestyle that my family knows and respects.
That being said, I feel closer to God now that I have a personal relationship with Him, based on my own understanding of Him. It's really important to me that I relate to God in a manner that is unique to me and not a "recipe for the masses".
What is perplexing to me though, is that if I had to choose a lifestyle for my family between Orthodox Judaism or not, I would choose Orthodox Judaism. I think that's the reason I'm willing to compromise my indigestion for the problems with OJ, because as it may have it's own dysfunctions, deep down I know that the real problem is my lack of willingness to surrender to some ideas that I find restrictive to my worldly desires.
What complicates my life even more, is that I'm married to an Orthodox Rabbi and although my close friends and my family completely understand and accept me, most of my community doesn't know what my beliefs are, in regards to how I choose to serve God. To me though, it doesn't feel like I'm living a lie because in the end, I choose to serve God and "The How", is a private affair between Him and me.
Purely Spiritual, just curious, do you counsel people or answer religious questions or teach in the Orthodox community?
In the communities I'm familiar with women are encouraged to talk to the rebbetzins and be advised by them on religious matters, and this is one reason that makes me nervous. Just because someone is married to a rabbi does not mean she's on the same page in terms of beliefs.
I wonder if Purely Spiritual and Orthoprax are both based in the greater New York metropolitan area. Because I have found that Orthodox communities outside of New York tend to be more open, less judgemental, more flexible, and you might be more able to be honest about your beliefs/doubts/discomforts. Smaller Jewish communities tend to be more diverse and accepting. Not universally true, certainly, but a broad generalization.
Sarah,
I do teach and counsel women in the Jewish (orthodox) community. May I ask why you said That makes you nervous?
Purely Spiritual – I did at one point feel morally obligated to remain observantly Orthodox even after I no longer believed in the tenets of Orthodoxy, since I had been Orthodox at the time I got married. I no longer feel a moral obligation, but in my case, I feel a practical obligation – since my marriage would suffer, a lot, if I didn't observe.
In the real world, people change. My life has changed in so many unimaginable ways since I got married at 22. Why should my views stay static?
Furthermore, how many times do we hear of a secular couple in which one spouse wants to become a baal tshuva, but the other spouse is not interested? Would anyone here say the religious spouse has a moral obligation to remain secular, even if the couple were emphatically secular at the time of marriage? They might be told to "go slow" or wait for the nonreligious spouse to "catch up" or "grow" – but I think no Orthodox would invoke the "moral obligation" argument. It's another double standard.
Purely Spiritual–Thanks for answering my question. The reason the encouragement to ask rebbetzins makes me nervous is that the rebbetzin could be someone in your position, whose beliefs have changed but who keeps the lifestyle of Orthodoxy for the sake of her family. You're saying that most of your community doesn't know your true beliefs–if I were in your community and I came to you for guidance, I would assume you still had your original views. When I go to someone for religious teaching, I want to know that the person truly subscribes to this belief system and sincerely "buys into" their lifestyle. Not that they are living a certain life because of prior commitments instead of current views.
Of course, it's also possible that a rabbi's beliefs would change, but I would assume most rabbis would at least look for a different job in that case. For a rebbetzin, no matter how far her beliefs move from Orthodoxy, she is still in that position because of her husband. She can't just quit if she no longer believes the same things.
Please don't take this as a personal criticism; I don't know you at all and I'm sure people benefit from your counseling. But if I were being counseled by someone in your position, I would want to know your actual beliefs up-front. You say you're not living a lie because it's just between you and God, but if you're teaching others, then it's also between you and them.
There was a blog that caused a furor a few years ago by an anonymous purportedly nonbelieving, Orthodox pulpit rabbi. Since I take just about everyone anonymous poster on the Internet with a grain of salt, I have no idea if he was legit or not. But in the past year, two people close to me and my family have confided that they also no longer subscribe to Orthodox beliefs, while still outwardly living the lifestyle. In neither case would an outsider guess that this is the case. So I'm convinced that this is not some "internet phenomenon"; I know for a fact that there are real, live, thoughtful people (besides myself) who have reconsidered their Orthodox beliefs and found them wanting.
Sarah
I have to be honest and tell you that I figured you would give those very reasons for your discomfort. This very issue is one of the prime examples why I believe OJ has been found lacking by many within the fold.
First let me say that if and when I give someone help with their religious. struggles, I have always made it clear where I am religiously. Let me also say that to help and advise another person with their relationship with God, one doesn't have to have the same ideas on how to carry out the requirements of that relationship.
In most circumstances I've been involved with in the Orthodox world, I've found it very distrustful of anyone giving advice who doesn't hold the same beliefs, for instance, a non-Jewish or non-religious therapist.
Another point I'd like to make is that when a person seeks someone out to guide them, it's usually because they feel a common bond or interest. I have found, in the many years of doing this, that when someone comes to me, they want my message. I have also found that when and if they are ready to move on to a different message, not only do I encourage and give them my blessing, I help them find the right person for the job. I in no way hold them hostage to my views.
Which brings me to the second point. The reason that God gave us a mind and free will was not for us to negate its usage for fear of asking the wrong questions or sinning. Human beings were given a mind. Being afraid of me leading people "astray" undermines their intelligence and humanity.
Purely Spiritual, I'm sorry I didn't explain myself very well. I have no fear of your leading people astray. I am happy to learn from people with different viewpoints; I just want to know what those viewpoints are. If you fully disclose your views to everyone you teach or counsel, I have no problem with that. What bothers me is if some people whose views have changed but who fit in outwardly are still giving shiurim or counseling people as if they had the same beliefs. When I go to a talk by an Orthodox-looking person, I assume they believe in Orthodoxy and if they don't, I want to know that up front. Not that I would boycott when I find out, but I want to be fully informed.
miriambyk,
That is a really interesting observation. I wonder if maybe living in a small community is worse because everyone knows your business. Like here in Cleveland we joke that you don't need to turn your turn signal on because everyone knows where you're headed anyway.
I hope you don't mind me sharing two stories that practically mirror your own experiences, one involving my best friend, and another involving myself.
True story, from a few weeks ago. My dear friend Yehoshua, who maintains a website at TorahOnWheels.com, was waiting at a bus stop when an Asian man approached him.
"You! You're lucky!"
"Oh, why's that?" my friend responded.
"Because you're from Chosen People!"
"You're right," my friend replied, "I am lucky."
This next story happened to me a few years ago. By way of introduction, prior to my brother becoming an attorney he was a commercial pilot for a small airline. One time I joined him on an overnight trip to McCook, Nebraska, a small town of 8000 residents not exactly teeming with Members of the Tribe. After settling down at the motel we headed to the town's main street to grab a drink. Upon entering an establishment, the waitress looked me over, struck by a yarmulka and strings coming out of my pants. She became visibly emotional as she explained she'd never met one of the Chosen People in person and wanted to know if she could hug me? (Oy, I thought, how do I explain to this lovely and good-looking Gentile in McCook, Nebraska the severe issurim of negiah and chibuk-vnishuk!)
She acted like she'd just met a character out of the Bible!
Indeed, many non-Jews truly believe we are the am-hanivchar and are not shy in letting us know it.
Came across this by "accident" earlier to day. Seems like Jabotinsky already tried to handle it. http://tinyurl.com/az26fvb
As a form of background, the letter that prompted this "exchange", written by a Russian politician in 1911, calls Jews a lower race and hopes the Science will some day soon find a "cure for that disease afflicting good and unsuspecting nations for millennia".
Friends,
I would like to put some closure on some of the issues that have arisen here on this post that have shaken me up so. My purpose in doing so is NOT to reopen the conversation (although you are all free to continue the conversation on the other interesting sidebars here) but to summarize.
1. I do NOT believe that Orthodox Jews have cornered the market on good behavior (what a laughable thought). I personally know of multiple non-Orthodox and non-Jewish groups that do wonderfully good deeds and that I can learn from. I also believe strongly that while Jewish pride is a good thing, Jewish arrogance is a terrible thing.
2. I do believe that Jews are OBLIGATED to be leaders and good examples. That doesn't mean that in 2012 we are actually succeeding in doing it.
3. When I said above that "when people follow Torah directives, their behaviors will be different…" here's what I meant. Some people are behaving in accordance with what I call "Torah values" (such as kindness, charity, hospitality) because they study Torah. And some people are doing so because they follow the Christian Bible. And some, intuitively. And some, as atheists. Or members of any number of faiths.
Since I look at the Torah as my beacon of morality, I filter everything through that lens. So when I hear that Chinese people have websites to help each other, I think, wow! What a chessed that is (act of kindness). I think of it through the lens of Torah values. That's all I meant by that. I also believe very, very strongly in the Torah dictum that, "Who is wise? One who learns something from everyone." I certainly did NOT mean that Jews get to take credit for all of that or get to grandfather in all kind deeds ever performed by humans around the globe!
4. I want to thank Rebbetzin Rocks for her very kind words.
5. One of the reasons I started this blog was to offer an underrepresented view of an Orthodox Jew – to say: yes, some OJ's are the kind you read about in the news (bigoted), but there are lots of us who are nice, kind, good people. Regular people. When someone wanders onto the blog who projects the first image, I am faced with a moral dilemma: to censor or not to censor?
If I censor, I am perhaps guilty of "whitewashing" Orthodoxy – which I have no particular need to do. (I think, and I know others here disagree, that there is enough good in Orthodoxy to balance it out and that the two coexist, as in any community.) But I feel like, everyone already KNOWS about THAT stereotype. We don't need more airtime for THAT.
If I don't censor, I further promote that stereotype and break down the atmosphere of respect that generally prevails here.
In any case, despite some of the very strong feelings this thread has evoked in me and others, I look forward to continuing the blog and to continued mutual respectful exchange. This has given me a lot to think about.
Ruchi, I like your summary especially how you described chosenness in points 1-3.
I hope that you won't censor but instead will explain or encourage commenters to explain why the bigoted views are wrong. Then readers can see that Orthodox Jews are confronting problems.
Thanks for facilitating the discussion here.
I really like your response and it confirms my good impression of you from my short time here.
Part of what got me involved in this thread was the word "shame". To me, this word is very charged. You also used the word "crime", which is equally charged. "The crime is that Jews are so uncomfortable with [the concept of Jewish chosenness]."
If it weren't for those words, I might not have ever gotten involved. Your most recent comment clarifies things nicely.
The blog takes risks. Risky is interesting. Compelling, even, at least for me.
Thanks for all the riskful effort you put into this.
Sarah, I disagree. I'm all in favor of some degree of censorship for several reasons:
1. The tone of the comments on many blogs is extremely nasty. Here, in contrast, people are civil. If this blog ever starts moving in the nasty direction, censorship will be necessary to keep it civil.
2. When you talk to someone one on one and say something that didn't come out the way you meant it, you get immediate feedback. You can gauge the other person's reaction and explain what you meant. On a blog you can't do that.
3. The Internet is permanent and worldwide. Even if you delete a comment, I think it's still out there somewhere. And if you don't delete it immediately, it could spread elsewhere. Your comments can be seen by anyone, anywhere, at any time. You may regret what you wrote, but it will be too late.
4. At the place where I used to work, if someone was angry at a client and had to tell the client about it (say, for example, the client was refusing to pay for work done), that someone would ask someone else in the office to read over the letter before it was sent. I assume that most people here, like me, would rather be told by Ruchi that what we wrote is problematic than have it published and offend other people.
In other words, I hope Ruchi will explain personally to the commenter why the comment is offensive so as to avoid offending readers and embarrassing the commenter.
Finally, I hope I haven't offended anyone here. If I have, please let me know so that I can apologize properly. This blog is full of really good, caring, impressive, deep, thinking people. The discussions really make me rethink my views and I value that. I know I gain a lot from them.
DG, I'm okay with some minimal censorship (such as not publishing profanity) but I see a couple issues with heavier censorship. For one, many commenters don't leave any contact information so there's no way for Ruchi to tell them stuff privately. Also, if it's known that Ruchi censors comments she finds offensive, then people may conclude that she approves of the comments that she does publish.
Interesting point. Clearly, she must think the comments she lets through don't cross a certain line. But if you accept any degree of censorship at all, there has to be such a line. Where? Is calling someone names, for instance, any better than using profanity? One way or another, it's a judgment call. I'm all in favor of letting (almost) all opinions through (no whitewashing) and censoring based on a standard of mutual respect.
As for your first point, I was thinking that she could write something like "Please email me so that I can explain why I didn't publish your comment."
Thanks, everyone 🙂
I publish comments I disagree with all the time. That's not the line at all. And I don't always say, "Ahem. I disagree with you." Sometimes I just let other people disagree while I go get something to drink.
What the line is, is a little fuzzy. It used to be clear to me: if it's intentionally offensive, snide, sarcastic or rude I don't publish it, even if I agree with the underlying message. And if it's offered in the spirit of friendship, or at least controlled respect, I'll publish it, even if I disagree (even strongly) with the message.
But I think I have to moderate more heavily than that and I think the line has to be: if something comes across offensive, even if it's not intended that way, I should moderate.
But I'm more likely to moderate an Orthodox commenter than a non-Orthodox commenter, because I feel like a non-Orthodox commenter would be more offended if I censored his comment that was critical of Orthodoxy, than an Orthodox person who was censored for being critical of non-Orthodoxy. That it would look like I was protecting my own kind and not being even-handed. Kind of like when you teach your own kid in school and you overcompensate by being extra strict.
Now I really feel like Tevye.
Oh and Sarah,
Your idea is definitely interesting, but I think it would lead to a fight between me and the commenter.
I know that this discussion is just about wrapped up, but I wanted to add one point that I don't think has been discussed. Just to be clear about where I'm coming from – I am Orthodox and was raised this way. My parents were not raised this way and chose to become Orthodox in/post college. I was always encouraged to ask questions and be open-minded and I truly believe that I have chosen this way of life for myself and that I don't live it only because of how I was brought up. There have been times in my life when I have gone against the grain to do what is right for me personally even though it is not what everyone else in my community is doing (while still remaining within the confines of the Torah). I do not agree with everything that every other Orthodox Jew says, believes, or does, but I do believe in the way I have chosen to serve G-d. I believe that human beings were created by G-d and that as the One who created us He knows us better that we even know ourselves. I feel that He alone knows what is best for us and gave us the instructions for how to live the happiest, most fulfilled lives – a manual for ourselves so to speak. Recently I have been struggling, not because of philosophical issues, but because I am in a profession where I am the only Orhtodox Jew and I am finding it hard to stay inspired and connected. Now that you know a little bit about me I hope you will have a context in which to place my views.
That being said, I agree with Ruchi in how I view the Jews as the "chosen people." I think that chosen means that we have an incredible responsibility to be the moral compass of the world. This is not because we as people know best, it is because we were given the Torah and without that there is no objective morality. Every culture, society, race and religion throughout time has had its own ideas about what is moral. Some have intersected in those beliefs more than others, but who is to say what is actually right and what is wrong? As humans we are much too subjective and focused on our own personal agendas to really have an objective viewpoint. That is why I believe that G-d alone is able to define morality for all of mankind. We Jews did not come up with the concepts of right and wrong in the Torah and we cannot take credit for “getting it right.” What we did do, was choose to live according to the concepts of right and wrong that G-d outlined for us in the Torah even if and when they don’t always fit into the popular concept of morality at the current time. This is how we act as a “light unto the nations.” Jews do not have a monopoly on doing the right thing or doing good in the world, but I do think that we have to consider where the definitions of “good” and “right” come from. Otherwise, who says what is and isn’t moral – the president, congress, religious leaders, the majority of people? What do we do when those people change their minds?
Yours Truly,
Welcome to the blog and thank you for sharing your thoughts and the context.
Kgnjycm
[email protected]
: