The Clinton-Mezvinsky wedding it a topic of heated discussion within the broad Jewish world -- and rightfully so for it raises many issues that need to be addressed within the context of Modern Jewishness. There is no doubt about what must be the straight halachic response to this event; the question is really what we must term the meta-halachic response. Given the reality of this event, with all its particulars and implications, how are we to respond?
A sampling of news clips
"Clinton-Mezvinsky wedding raises questions about intermarriage | JTA - Jewish & Israel News"
A sampling of news clips
"Clinton-Mezvinsky wedding raises questions about intermarriage | JTA - Jewish & Israel News"
NYT:Interfaith Marriages, Like Chelsea Clinton's, Stir Conflicting Feeling
More on this - NB comment 2 containing a range of sources opposing intermarriage
"Chilul Hashem vs. Kiddush Hashem: The Clinton-Mezvinsky Wedding, Rabbi Asher Lopatin | Morethodoxy: Exploring the Breadth, Depth and Passion of Orthodox Judaism"
«Clinton-Mezvinsky wedding - Good for the Jews or Bad for the Jews?»
My simplistic answer:
Good for non-Torah Jews
and
Bad for Torah-Jews
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From another perspective
From another perspective
Viewed from the proverbial TREE perspective, the Clinton intermarriage violates numerous Halachic sensibilities
EG
• Intermarriage
• Mixed Clergy
• Took Place on Shabbat etc.
Viewed from the proverbial FOREST perspective, the Clinton intermarriage may be good for the Jews in the way that Esther's Intermarriage with Ahashveirosh proved beneficial to us
Only Time will Tell
EG
• Intermarriage
• Mixed Clergy
• Took Place on Shabbat etc.
Viewed from the proverbial FOREST perspective, the Clinton intermarriage may be good for the Jews in the way that Esther's Intermarriage with Ahashveirosh proved beneficial to us
Only Time will Tell
Shalom
RRW
1 comment:
You can't compare Esther and Achaveirosh's wedding to this one.
1) No one knew it was an intermarriage - Esther kept her Jewishness quiet.
2) Achashveirosh was the reigning king, not the spouse of the next wanna-be monarch.
As for Rabbi Lopatin's piece, if that doesn't mark his departure from Orthodoxy, nothing will.
Post a Comment