, , ,

A Fundamental Difference Concerning Conversion Between the Liberal Denominations and Orthodox

Today’s liberal Jewish communities, in which rigorous observance of the ritual commandments is no longer part of the fabric of daily Jewish life, insist that a genuine desire to join the Jewish people and share in its fate ought to be a sufficient standard for conversion. Many Orthodox communities, alarmed by what they see as the dilution of Jewish content in liberal Judaism, in general, and liberal conversations, in particular, have responded by adhering ever more rigidly to classic conversion standards. Valid conversions must be accompanied by a genuine commitment to observe the commandments — “for the sake of heaven” (Geirim 1:3) — they insist, and conversions that lack that are simply null and void.

Daniel Gordis, “What, Not Who, Is a Jew?”, Sh’ma (March 2011), 12.

, , , ,

“The divisions and politics of the Orthodox, the Modern Orthodox world are important – but only to a point”

As a rabbi, I spend most of my time reading writing, talking, discussing and arguing about Jewish things. There is a lot to argue about, a lot to talk about. From our perspective, these issues can seem not just important, but overwhelming, more important than anything else could possibly be. The divisions and politics of the Orthodox, the Modern Orthodox world are important – but only to a point. The question of the differences between Yeshiva University, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, between this group and that group, this rabbi’s statement and that rabbi’s counter statement – these are all important issues. But, for too many of us, for me, personally, they are given far more prominence than could possibly be justified.

Rabbi Shaul Robinson, “Priorities: Inside the Tent and Outside“, Lincoln Square Synagogue Blog (11 November 2013).

, ,

A Talmudic Tension Concerning Converts Accepting Commandments

…the talmudic sources are divided. A well known baraita (Yevamot 47a) says that converts should at first be turned away: “Our rabbis taught: If at the present time a man desires to become a proselyte, he is to be addressed as follows: ‘What reason have you for desiring to become a proselyte? Do you not know that Israel at the present time is persecuted and oppressed, despised, harassed and overcome by afflictions?’ If he replies, ‘I know and yet I am unworthy,’ he is accepted immediately ….” After he is accepted, he is instructed in some of the commandments, but his acceptance comes first.

But another source (Bekhorot 30b) insists that a convert who rejects a single iota of Jewish law may not be accepted. These sources can be made to agree, but doing so clouds the question that their apparent contradiction raises. Is being a Jew fundamentally about the observance of every detail of Jewish law (as Bekhorot implies), or does converting mean joining a covenantal community that sees itself as marginal, a community in which commandments are central, but perhaps not the defining characteristic (as in Yevamot)?

Daniel Gordis, “What, Not Who, Is a Jew?”, Sh’ma (March 2011), 12.

,

“People who try to come up with grand theories of Judaism: the theories tend to be based on one or two sources to the exclusion of everything that contradicts it”

A lot of people selectively cite sources. People who try to come up with grand theories of Judaism: the theories tend to be based on one or two sources to the exclusion of everything that contradicts it. We saw some examples of Rabbi Avi Weiss doing that, too. In particular, saying “We follow the tradition of Rav Kook” except for the parts you don’t like. Here [with Rabbi David Hartman], his primary foundation paradigm is Abraham’s argument with God. But ignoring everything else. It’s a blind spot that people have. And I think everyone has that blind spot. The question is “What do you do with it when confronted with things that conflict?” Hartman already admitted that when you come across a text that conflicts with your moral sensibility, you reinterpret that text to fit your moral sensibility, as opposed to using conflicting texts to, maybe, refine a better, more nuanced halakhic sensitivity. Grand theories are where, I think, people get in trouble. When you say “This is the core thing of Judaism”, but what about all these other things in the Torah that don’t fit? “Ah, we’ll reinterpret it to make it fit”, but then you’re not really following God as much as following either yourself or what you think God really meant. Both of which are incredibly presumptuous.

Rabbi Josh Yuter, “Halakhic Process 26 – R. David Hartman and Religious Individualism”, Yutopia Podcast #121 (3 November 2013).

,

The Jewish People are “a family that became a faith while remaining a family”

Kedushat Yisrael, the metaphysical distinctiveness of the children of the patriarchs and matriarchs, is a consequence of ancient Israel standing at Sinai, and after hearing the word of God and experiencing revelation, agreeing to accept the responsibilities of being God’s chosen people. This kedusha is given concrete expression in a lifestyle characterized by observing the mitzvot. Kedusha is ever and always defined in proximity to the Holy One. Kedushat Yisrael is transmitted by mother to child because each mother is a child of someone who is of the sacred family of Abraham and Sarah, and thus possesses kedusha. Yisrael is a family that became a faith while remaining a family.

Yehiel E. Poupko, “Making Jews: Conversion and Mitzvot”, Sh’ma (March 2011), 13.

“Editing a text belongs to the oldest of scholarly activities”

Editing a text belongs to the oldest of scholarly activities, since scholarship functions not only through the modality of transmission by memorization, but also by writing down and publishing ideas, traditions and useful texts. This was the activity of ancient libraries, which were privileged centres of learning, teaching and research, academies comparable to modern universities and research centres. The first edition of Homer’s verse in the Alexandrian library offered clear-cut criteria to scholarship in defining what is an author’s reading and what can be deemed spurious text. The same or similar criteria were adopted when producing the Christian edition of the Bible in Origen’s Hexapla and in editions made in Christian medieval centres like abbeys, monasteries and church libraries. The humanist renaissance of ancient literature was nothing but a philological movement of editing and translating texts and commenting on them. Finally, German enlightened research on Greek, Roman, and subsequently “Oriental” literature started by putting together criteria and rules to render ancient texts readable for contemporary audiences.

Giuseppe Veltri, “From The Best Text To The Pragmatic Edition: On Editing Rabbinic Texts”, in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, eds. Reimund Bieringer, Florentino García Martínez, Didier Pollefeyt, Peter Tomson (Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2010), 63.

,

“Judaism cannot just be a commitment to the Jewish people, love of Israel or even just ritual observance…”

Judaism cannot just be a commitment to the Jewish people, love of Israel or even just ritual observance. As important as each is, none will ensure Jewish survival as much as belief — belief in the God of the Torah and in the Torah of God.

Dennis Prager, “No Faith, No Jewish Future”, The Jewish Journal (8-14 November 2013), 7.

,

“As things look now, the American Jewish group of the future will be anchored by the Orthodox and by those among the non-Orthodox willing to identify unambiguously with Judaism”

As things look now, the American Jewish group of the future will be anchored by the Orthodox and by those among the non-Orthodox willing to identify unambiguously with Judaism. Boasting higher fertility rates than other Jews, this population will insure the future viability of the American Jewish community, albeit considerably shrunken in its numbers and infrastructure. On the periphery will be the so-called borderland Jews whose interest in Jewish life will likely focus on one or another aspect of Jewish culture but will be episodic and in competition with other compelling aspects of their identities. Already, some children of intermarriage refer to themselves with sardonic self-consciousness as “Half-Jews” or “mongrel Jews” or “FrankenJews.”

Jack Wertheimer, “Intermarriage: Can Anything Be Done?” Mosaic (September 2013).

“The charedi world, in the main,…has yet to come to grips with the realities of today”

The charedi world, in the main, especially the “Lithuanian” branch (with whom I identify myself as belonging to), has yet to come to grips with the realities of today. It is still fighting the battle of the nineteenth century against secular Zionism, a battle long ago ended and not relevant any longer in today’s Jewish world.

Part of the problem is changing this mindset of complete disconnect with reality. We have grown so comfortable over the past centuries of Jewish life as being the persecuted victim, that we are frightened to shuck off that protective mantle. We see the world in black and white colors only – the good guys and the villains. There is no room for nuance or moderation in such a worldview.

If we are involved in rabbinic scandal, financial misdeeds, abusive physical and sexual behavior, violence against police, corrupt elections (and those elected thereby) and are caught by the authorities for so doing, the immediate knee-jerk reaction is that we are being persecuted because of our religious practices, different dress, traditional lifestyle and distinct societal mores.

Somehow we have forgotten that idleness, poverty and a persecution complex all are, in the long run, self-destructive conditions. These were the conditions that secularized much of Ashkenazic Jewry over the past three centuries. Eventually a system built on declining governmental welfare allotments and unending charity from others – a system decried by Maimonides and other great rabbinic sages and religious leaders throughout the ages – is a Ponzi scheme that inexorably will collapse of its own weight.

And we are ill served by religious political leaders and the handlers of old and revered great Torah scholars who, for purposes I have never really understood, oppose any change of the current miserable status quo. And, there is never any plan advanced to help rescue their adherents from the deepening abyss of poverty and personal despair.

Rabbi Berel Wein, “The Truth of Satire“, Rabbi Wein’s Weekly Blog (4 December 2013).

“You can follow the halakhic system and method of Rambam to disagree with Rambam on a specific issue”

For Maimonides, he acknowledged that the authority that he had to write the Mishneh Torah wasn’t from himself, it was really from the Talmud; in that, according to the language of the Rambam, you follow מי שהדעת נוטה – whomever convinces you the best.

By what does it mean the best? Having the best read of the Talmudic law; such that, if you have a better read of the Gemara than the Rambam, then you can disagree with the Rambam. Or, to put it another way, you can follow the halakhic system and method of Rambam to disagree with Rambam on a specific issue; meaning Rambam can write something is Jewish law – you can go back to the Gemara and say “Excuse me, Mr. Rambam, that’s not what the Gemara says.” or “We have a better text.” And, that way, even if people say, “Oh, aren’t you arguing with the Rambam?”, the answer is yes and no: you’re following the method, which is a lot more important than the details of the person, the individual.

So, Maimonides derived whatever authority he had only based on the Talmud, itself.

Rabbi Josh Yuter, “Halakhic Process 27 – Summary and Conclusions”, Yutopia Podcast #123 (10 November 2013).