Originally published 6/11/07, 5:41 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
The Jewish Tribune (Toronto) is publishing a two part series on Jewish Identity by Nishma's Founding Director, Rabbi Hecht. Part 1 appeared in the May 31st edition of the paper and Part 2 will appear in this week's (June 14) edition. The articles are also available on the newspaper's website.
We invite you to look at these articles as well as Rabbi Hecht's article "Adjective and Non-adjective Jews." voice your view on the definition of Jewishness. The question is not "Who is a Jew?" but rather, "What is a Jew?"
There may actually be two parts to your response. One is your theoretical definition of Jewishness -- what it essentially is. The second is your practical definition within the world we live. For example, you may have a clear halachic definition of Jewishness; this is your essential, theoretical definition. But what definition do you use to keep Messianic Jewish entities, i.e. Jews for Jesus, out of broad communal organizations such as Federation? Will your halachic definition also demand the exclusion of Reconstructionist entities? How do you then work with these two definitions?
7 comments:
For me, this is an easy one. It simply requires the use of two definitions.
Who is a Jew?
As far as I've ever learned, someone is Jewish if either they're born to a Jewish mother or converted according to halachah.
Ah, but what about Jews for J and Reco's? Here;s the second definition which I'm sure will bring up some fun discussion:
Who is a GOOD Jew?
Someone who accepts the fact of Torah MiSinai to be true and lives his life in accordance with halachah as decided by our rabbinical leaders through the millenia to the best of his ability.
Now, discuss that!
Super rock star, you have found one of the important points in the analysis of status within Halacha. It is not enough to use the simple yardstick of Jew or Non-Jew. In fact within Halacha, one must really apply a matrix to determine the status of the individual, this matrix having four basic boxes built around one axis of Jew/Non-Jew and the other axis of Good Standing/Not Good Standing. For example the Non-Jew in Good Standing is, within the modern language, a Noachide and has certain rights within Halacha. See, Ramban's Additional Asehs. Another example is the Jew not in good standing who loses many rights. Then there are of course the further amendations to this matrix, such as the tinok she'nishba, which makes the four box matrix even too simple.
This is all in the realm of halachic status. The further question is how we deal with status in our modern world and define and then halachically respond to the collquial Jewishness of today. This is where the J for J vs. Recon issue emerges. In the colloquial Jewish world, Recon is part of that world while J for J is not (although there are at least 2 books on the market that I know about, both written by Jewish Studies professors who are also non-Orthodox rabbis, one Reform, one Recon. who think that J for J should be part of the pluralistic Jewish community -- and their arguments are consistent) the question is why -- what is this definition of Jewishness? And then the second demand is to work out Orthodoxy's response.
RBH
There's one definition of Judaism I've always liked:
1) Christianity is a group of religions with disparate rituals and beliefs that all believe that God had a son who came to save us from our sins.
2) Judaism is a group of religions with disparate rituals and beliefs that rejects that idea.
The only thing that unites Secular Humajews with the Neturei Karta is that they all believe that J.C. was not the saviour of mankind. So how a Reco or Reform rabbi could think that Jews for Cheeses could possibly be "part of the pale" is beyond me.
Ultimately, we must remember that just because we define Judaism one way, it doesn't mean that non-observant Jews do as well. I doubt very much that Eric Yoffe wakes up in the morning and, while frying up his bacon and eggs to have with his coffee and cream, thinks: "Hmmm, what can I do to be a bad Jew today?" His definition of Judaism is essentially Western secular humanism with a complaint Godhead of sorts so the currency can have a face on it. According to his defnition, he is the good Jew and we, the observant ones, are bad.
The Orthodox world must therefore do two things to counter this:
1) IMMEDIATELY take out a patent on the term "good Jew" defining it legally so those jokers at the HUC and JTS are foced to rename their religions or face legal action
2) IMMEDIATELY demand of Orthodox Jews the highest standards of ethical behaviour or else be labelled as a bad Jew. Waiting 6 1/2 hours after meat to eat milk doesn't make you saintly. Being decent to your fellow man because he's created in the image of G-d and that's what the BGU wants does. In other words, Orthodox Jews can no longer see "Orthodox" and "good" as synonym descriptors of their Judaism.
It may not be possible to be a "good" Jew if you're Reform, but it should also be understandable that even if you are ritually Orthodox, you can still be a "bad" Jew through your behaviour.
Booyaa!
And the challenge is to look at these various definitions of "Good Jew" and see how they work within the real world of the group. This is the real issue in Israel where the definition of a Jewish state will define the nature of the society within that state. And this definition deals with the defining the "Good Jew" within the context of this group. What I or you think is a "Good Jew" personally works within my personal life -- but to take my definition and to impose it upon the group has repercussions. This is exactly what is happening in Israel -- and that is one of the reasons why defining the group understanding is so important.
The story of Eric Yoffe reminded me of Dershowitz's book on Jewish Identity where he basically defined Jewishness as being a Democrat (in the U.S.). One of his arguments for why this is correct is that, in a recent election, every congressional district but one, that had a majority of Jewish voters, returned a Democrat to the House. The one exception was Boro Park. A mavein yavein.
RBH
Oh good, there's someone out there actually reading all this. Mind you, it's the guy who owns the blog...
The comment above on the one thing Jews can agree on is important because as you narrow that comment, you exclude more and more people.
eg. Don't believe in JC and do believe in G-d. Well there go the secular humanists. Throw in that there are some mitzvos which are authorititative in life and override personal choice and you toss out the Reformers and most of the Conservatives. Where does one draw the line defining the group as Torah observant while not excluding any of those who are? If we say black hat and coat are the line, the Modern Orthodox, even those who are seriously frum, get excluded. Who decides on that line and who enforces its implementation?
And that's the question.
Really two questions. What is Jewishness and then what is Orthodox Jewishness?
Jewishness is being born to a Jewish mother or being converted according to halachah.
Orthodox Jewishness is trickier. Technically it's a person's observance of all those mitzvos applicable to that person.
In reality, there are many Orthodox Jews who steal, lie, cheat, etc. so are they really Orthodox?
In light of that, perhaps the definition should be those people who publicly state that they are obliged to observe all those mitzvos incumbent on them, even if they fall short, ie. stealing isn't okay and the person acknowledges that instead of saying the law is wrong.
Post a Comment