First and foremost, the tragic shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords must be seen as exactly that -- a tragic shooting, part of a greater tragedy that included the loss of life. My comments below regarding the Jewish status of the Congresswoman should not in anyway be seen as lessening this tragedy. I raise the following simply as an issue within the societal structure of the Jewish community without any implication on the specifics of this case. These questions simply have no bearing on the personal and specific context of this case. On the most basic human level, our heart and prayers go out to the Congresswoman. Her status as a Jew has on bearing on that or on the evil of the act that fell her. Her status as a Jew, however, has great implications on the nature of the Jewish society and community and needs to be addressed.
Simply, the news reports are very clear. Congresswoman Giffords considered herself to be a Jew -- not just a Jew by default but with strong commitments to her ideal of Jewishness. See:
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/01/09/2742463/giffords-known-both-for-her-openness-and-judaism
and
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/09/wounded-arizona-congresswoman-had-strengthened-jewish-identity/
The difficulty is that, it would seem, by Halachic standards, she is not Jewish as she was born to a Christian Scientist mother. (I write, "it seems", because it is possible that her mother, by Halachic standards, may still be Jewish -- but that doesn't seem the case.) This, of course, is something that occurs every day -- someone Jewish by one definition but not by another, especially the definition that matters most, that of Halacha. Yet, this case must motivate us to think more about this situation. First, look at the language of the news reports -- her definition of her Jewishness is almost taken as a given. More and more, the colloquial understanding of Jewishness is moving away from the Halachic definition. Fifty years ago, the rhetoric on the street was that someone was Jewish if born to a Jewish mother. This is now changing.
The significance is the power and commitment that is also now being attached to this definition of Jewish identity. As mentioned, Congresswoman Giffords sees her self as a Jew and, perhaps more significantly, is seen as a Jew. I saw a further report that clearly defined the person who shot her as linked to an anti-Semitic group. See:
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/09/dhs-memo-suggests-shooter-may-be-linked-racist-organization
My thoughts immediately went to the words of the Rav who said that there were two bonds of Jewish identity: fate and destiny. The Rav, of course, was speaking with the confines of Halacha and a reality of shared fate amongst individuals who met the basic Halachic definition of Jewishness. Now we have a new phenomena. People who bond with us in a context of shared fate yet who do not meet the basic Halachic requirements of Jewish identity. How are we to look at such individuals? Of course, we cannot grant them the status of a Jew because they share our fate but they are also not totally outside our grouping because we do share fate. Josephus speaks of non-Jews who, in the time period before Churban Bayit Sheni identified with the Jewish world although not Jewish. Is that a grouping that we should be looking at more to assist us in dealing with this phenomena? Yet, in Josephus' time, these people knew they were not Jewish.
I am not sure what to do. On one hand, Congresswoman Giffords has aligned herself with the Jewish People -- and may even have been attacked because of it. Still, she is not Halachically Jewish. We cannot deviate from our commitment to the standards of Halacha but a reality of shared fate, it would seem to me, also cannot be ignored. Perhaps we have to come up with a new grouping, but what and how?
Rabbi Ben Hecht
3 comments:
In the midbar we had the eirev rav, and for all the sins Chazal pinned on them, they were considered part of the greater community. As were the geirei toshav of the first and second Temple periods. The notion of people who aren't Jewish but part of the People is not new.
It's also more acute in contemporary Israel, particularly when speaking of Druze soldiers who are ch"v killed fighting for Israel, and of course the non-Jews among the Russian aliyah.
These are people who threw in their fortunes (fate/yei'ud) with us, often because of an awe-filled glimpse of our destiny (goral), without actually qualifying for membership.
I happen to think, though, that Mrs Giffords was targeted for being too far from the ideals that launched the tea party. Sarah Palin included her in her "Don't Retreat, Reload" campaign. I'm not saying the shooter was a real member of their camp; but politicians have to realize that nut cases read their over-the-top rhetoric too. (Something Yigal Amir could have taught Israelis.)
-micha
My purpose in raising this issue was not really to discuss the specific circumstances of this act, It may be that this shooting had little or nothing to do with Ms. Gifford's Jewishness. My point was simply highlight the complexity involved in the issue of Jewish identity today. The reference to the eiruv rav and the ger toshav is an interesting one. There are halachic categories for individuals who do see themselves as connected to the Jewish People even though they are not halachically Jewish. Yet in both these cases, while there was the connection of fate there was also an inkling of shared destiny. The eiruv rav experienced Yetziat Mitzrayim. The ger toshav had to accept Sinai (at least acc. to Rambam). The Rav's separation of fate and destiny explained how Jews who did not accept Torah were still bonded to the nation. These though were Jews who were halachic. Now we have the situation whereby the similar circumstances would include individuals who are not halachically Jewish. My question is not how to respond. We of course respond as a mensch. My question is how do we define.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
There are [at least] two working definitions of who is a Jew?
Halachah
What would the Nazis say?
The State of Israel is mindful of both and accepts the dichotomy
When it comes to immigration the 2nd prevails
When it comes to marriage the former Prevails
RRW
Post a Comment