Masa TV Commercial: Intermarried Jews are Lost
Oh boy. I sort of don’t know where to start with this commercial for Israeli television by Masa, the extended Israel trip coordinator. First of all, it’s a commercial exhorting Israelis to tell their presumably Diaspora cousins to come to Israel. Which is fine on the peer-to-peer side, but in order to save them from intermarriage? Because you know, that’s what Israelis are really good at, long distance relationship advice. Secondly, this is deep mission creep. Masa’s mission is the Birthright Israel follow-up trips of a longer duration, three months or more to be exact. I always thought it was to bolster understanding of Israel and experience with peoplehood. Babymaking seems secondary to that.
Thirdly: I am not lost. Fuck you very much, Masa, excuse my manners. The scary voices of Jewish continuity say that 50% of young Jews have only one Jewish parent. Which is great. It means my generation is twice as international, twice as multicultural, twice as diverse, and twice as blessed with mutt-like intelligence and fearlessness of boundary-straddling.
Lost? I think we’ve found something, something unprecedented in potential and scope in almost all of Jewish history. Our connections to non-Jews and our neighbors are strengthened doubly. The limit of cultural fusions is so distant, Jewish life will find thousands of new niches to survive through. This is a boon to the Jewish community, not a crisis.
Pardon my self-pride and may it not discomfort those whose Jewish blood is pure (at least until you shake the family tree a little, a few goyyim always tumble out). Don’t feel threatened. I and others like me bring something to the community that is otherwise missing. We bring fresh eyes and new ideas, unorthodox fusions that breathe excitment in tradition, and an appreciation of the many different sides of Jewishness that attract different kinds of people.
I think it’s quite the other way around. The Jewish community is lost, but many of us halvies, we know ourselves. I grew up without any summer camp, Birthright, day school, or Hillel. My parents raised Jews that were particularly Jewish and universally human, without all the klaptrap and expense. I know what works, meanwhile I see billions of dollars spent on experiments that barely survive a recession. Your money will not save you. But love and support will. What a shocking idea. Let me teach you how.
And there will be children of Jews who leave Judaism — and let them go! Let my people go. Who knows at what points in their lives Judaism will surface as a source of inspiration and meaning? Does a Jewish “retention” rate matter, so long as our children find loving partners? Or meaningful lives? An ethical outlook? Look at the big picture, people. Jews by choice may be fewer then, but at least being Jewish will actually mean something. Jewish by technicality is a statistical sham to make yourself feel good, so quit fooling yourself. Blaring claxons of doom might also feel good, but our people’s numbers have always waxed and waned over time. Look at the big picture: plan for the long run. Invest in quality, not quantity.
Short of exhorting the unique virtues of being a halvie, I also say to the Jewish community: I don’t need you to raise my kids as Jews. I don’t need a Jewish partner even. And if you want to patronize me, my people, and my offspring, then I’ll take my leave of absense. Esther Kurstanowitz threw in a nice summary: “This isn’t Anatevka, people. If your daughter runs off with a Perchik, or even a Fyedka, don’t cut them out. If people are treated as if they’re lost to Judaism, they will be lost to Judaism.”
Hat tip to Religion and State for pointing out this story on Haaretz.
UPDATED 9/4/09: JPost reports that this campaign cost Masa $800,000 and aims to influence also Israeli decision makers who may increase funding for Masa’s scholarships. The program has peaked at 8,000 participants annually. JPost also notes:
Since one-third of Jews are estimated to have relatives in Israel, Masa, together with Israeli advertising and public relations firms Shlomi Drori and Scherf Communications, believes they can be reached through family networks.
This just shows how little they understand this issue. In my experience, those Jews with family in Israel are phonemenally more connected to Israel than people like myself without family ties. It is the two-thirds of Jews without family ties who will never even visit for a distant cousin’s wedding, bar mitzvah or funeral who should be Masa’s target. (And for the record, I have (had?) far fewer qualms about Masa than Birthright.)
I’m nauseous.
no no no we have to have breed breed fast more halachic jews marry em breed em and send the young to support israel israel israel israel the semi-theocratic ethnostate because oh no the arabs are having too many kids and we’re not and if they become a majority we may not be able to pretend its a democracy anymore oh no
Masa, a project of the government of Israel, is concerned that intermarried Jews will be “lost” to the myopic version of Jewish identity that starts and ends with unquestioned devotion to the government of Israel. As you are right to point out, intermarriage probably increases awareness and appreciation of the universal aspects of Jewish identity and Judaism. But this will lead to a Jewish identity that is willing to cast a prophetic and critical eye on the government of Israel and that is precisely what Masa does not want to see happen.
“If people are treated as if they’re lost to Judaism, they will be lost to Judaism.”
Yes yes yes.
Thanks so much for this post, which is the first to inspire me to come out of lurkerdom. I just got married to a non-Jew a month ago, in a what we consider a very Jewish partnership, whether or not it looks like the Judaism of my parents or my rather close-minded community. The closest I’ve ever come to being “lost” to Judaism has been when my relationship and the family I am creating have been treated with hysteria, when we have been ambushed with the “finishing Hitler’s job” claims.
We are not problems to be solved.
I think you are taking this too personally. Jews don’t try to convert gentiles, so they try to evangelize to secular Jews, like when they try to make you wear tefilin in the middle of the street in Old Jerusalem.
Many Christian evangelicals think that Jews are going to hell. Do what I do, don’t take it personally. Their belief won’t do anything to you, hopefully.
Oy, KFJ. I applaud your righteous indignation.
KFJ – you win again. (I sent an email to BZ first, but forgot to add the link, stupid me). You were amazing! Spot on!
I’m thoroughly disgusted, and thanks KFJ, for a great post. One point you don’t even get to though is what about all the “lost” Jews in Israel who don’t even consider themselves Jewish anymore because they’ve been so turned off by the ultra-Orthodox having too much control over their lives? there is a whole generation of young Israelis who consider themselves Israeli, but not Jewish. They are even more lost than we are…
Michael, these are not chabad, these are my tax shekels at work. And the evangelizing is so one day you get to be cannon fodder.
Thanks for the shout-out.
As I’ve been saying in my tweets & updates…you may not LIKE what KFJ wrote on the MASA commercial, but READ IT!
We should make a counter-ad to rescue Israelis lost to religious fundamentalism, lost to land idolatry, lost to rabid-eyed nationalism, lost to a propagandistic ideology that has distorted the Judaism of previous generations. We should make a counter-ad to save Israelis from themselves.
What I find most interesting is that when some of us criticize the assumptions behind “Israel education,” we’re told that it’s a non-issue because the hardline ideologies died decades ago, and that we’re now living in a different era of Zionism and Israel-Diaspora relations. The MASA ad makes it clear that the most loathsome assumptions about Israel and the Diaspora persist at the heart of Zionist programming to this day.
The Jerusalem Post covered it here without, of course, questioning the underlying assumptions of the ad.
Hi all,
I would like to provide you my critic from France…
As I mentionned on my post.
I think it is a good ad, because it introduce the question of Assimilation, as a lost of identity, that is a real problem.
I imagine, they are certainly not referring to inter-marriage that will keep not to say enrich the Jewish world.
Where this as, is missing, is that they consider Israel and Israelies as the sole center of the Jewish world, that is quite insulting for Jewish communities outside Israel.
They are also considering that the responsability is only upon their shoulder whish mean, Jewish communities from Diaspora are not responsible…
At the end of the day, I think it’s a good ad, because it’s a great opportunity to introduce the question of Identity and center of the Jewish World.
Personally I think the center of the Jewish World is beating in each Jew, and is breathing with goods deeds of it’s fellows…
This ad does nothing to promote religious observance, but rather promotes ethnic-nationalist sectarianism. The mentality it conveys is disturbingly similar to that of the Zealots who played a notable roll in bringing on the destruction of the Second Temple, and I doubt any good would come out of embracing it now either.
Wow, I second KFJ’s FU to MASA.
Dear friends, please remember to challenge points of view and not attack individuals lest your comments be deleted. Thank you.
Sorry to rain on your righteous indignation party, but someone should point our that intermarriage goes against Judaism. You can’t disagree with that. A few angry products of intermarriage who consider themselves involved with Jewish life can’t possibly make up for all the damage that intermarriage has done to American Jewish life.
That being said, yes the ad is kind of stupid and pointless.
MS, intermarriage has always been a part of Judaism. Moses married outside the faith. King David’s great-grandmother was a shiksa. This 2005 study found that children of mixed-faith relationships who were raised as Jews “are generally as observant as inmarried Jewish families, especially Reform families, and their children become B’nai Mitzvah (Bar or Bat Mitzvah) at the same rates.”
So to say that “intermarriage goes against Judaism” isn’t really saying anything coherent.
mobius, that can’t be right. You mean JDate doesn’t pay for their ad? “His profile is hilarious, I *love* that”. I’m sure you do, overly smiling brunette lady. I’m sure you do.
This ad sucks, but am I missing something? It doesn’t appear to mention intermarriage explicitly — lehitbolel is usually translated “to assimilate”.
the print version of this article highlights a photo of birthright participants saying something like “even children of intermarried parents say they have a great time”
dlevy, are you saying that a Jew is just a collection of acts that someone either does or ceases to become a Jew?
The mythos that Moses married outside the faith is wishful thinking and sloppy reading. The wife of Moses was present at Sinai, along with thousands of Egyptians and other non-Israelites. They all became Jews, everyone who was there.
You seem to be ascribing some ethnic nature to the Jewish people that simply does not exist. Matrilineal descent is not an attempt at racial purity, whatever that means. The Jews have never been interested in racial purity, or we would never have accepted converts.
What we should be interested in is spiritual continuity – that spark of G-dliness that defines someone as a Jew, whether they like it or not, whether they act like a Jew or not. That spiritual continuity is ensured through matrilineal descent. Now, you can argue with the halakha, but it’s more than accepted – it’s codified.
Whether a non-Jew raises their non-Jewish kids to think that they are Jewish is immaterial, no matter how well intentioned everyone is. They’re not Jews, but if they feel so strongly about being Jews – in the full sense of avoda – they should convert, as other have. Telling them that they don’t have to is not helping them, it’s lying to them and robbing them of the truth and the possibility of a real conversion.
As for this video, eh… it’s hard to get so gung ho about it. The idea behind it may be positive, but who is Masa to be doing anti-assimilation programming? What does that mean in a secular context? Kyleb bring up a good point – if the outreach is not based on Judaism, then it’s based on some variation of secular ethnicity and, as pointed out above, that’s not what a Jew is, no matter how much some Israelis wish it.
Victor, I’m saying there are several different ways to identify who is a Jew, and I’m not willing to say that one particular answer is more satisfying than another particular answer.
There are midrashim that place Moshe’s wife and kids at Sinai, and there are midrashim that state they were absolutely not present. Sefer Ha-aggadah puts these midrashim back to back. There is no answer in the Torah itself as to the religious identity of Moshe’s wife or children, and the Rabbis never decided one way or the other. Why not? Because it didn’t matter whether or not they were Jews (or, more accurately, Hebrews, since the idea of Judaism as a religion distinct from all the other aspects of peoplehood is a much more recent phenomenon).
I used to think as you did, that if being considered Jewish was so important to those born in ways that don’t conventionally, automatically confer membership to the tribe, they should jsut convert. That was before I knew real people who had attempted to do that. With contemporary rabbis (particularly, but by no means exclusively in Israel) making conversion so difficult – even for those who have grown up steeped in Jewish living and learning – the answer I’ve come up with is changing the system. If enough of us accept a new standard of conversion, than it becomes de facto law. Sort of like what happened with the proliferation of new standards of kashrut like glatt and cholov yisroel over the last half-century, only in a somewhat different direction. Remember, too, that matrilineal descent was not always the halachic determinant of who is a Jew. Nor was conversion always the beit din + mikvah + circumcision-when-appropriate. Membership boundaries and conversion rituals have changed before, there’s no reason they shouldn’t change again.
This summer, I became friends with someone who lives a halachic life and has gone through THREE conversions (one Conservative, two Orthodox) because the first two weren’t considered good enough to make aliyah to Israel. I can’t believe this person hasn’t just said to hell with the Jews. I sure would have. I guess that’s evidence of a supreme faith that God is much better than any of God’s followers let on.
dlevy, there are issues with conversion in many communities, no doubt about it. Having seen three of my friends go through it over the last three years – all of them completed the process over the last six months – I understand some of the frustration that people in the conversion process feel. I can’t speak to the situation in Israel, which I understand is even more difficult than in some American communities.
Nevertheless, I’ve never seen someone being denied conversion, or having the conversion be considered suspect when it was performed by a respected beis din. People might need to travel. They might need to implant themselves in a community and accept delays and many inconveniences. They might need to torch their kitchens or quit their jobs if they force them to work on Shabbos. But to say it can’t be done is simply not true. Maybe a third to half of my shul are converts, which I didn’t even know until the second or third year I attended there. Horror stories or not, people who feel a drive for their outsides to reflect their insides get it done, and those who don’t move on with their lives – and I’ve seen that, too.
I think you’re coming at it from a good place. We should all be so motivated to make the system work better – and there is a practical way to do that (ask me how :). But to pretend the halacha doesn’t exist? You’re obviously more learned than I. We’re not talking about toiveling dishes here. I don’t understand how you came to such a decision.
Regarding Moshe and his wife… this reminds me of something. In parsha mikeitz, Joseph is summoned to pharaoh. Before appearing, it says he is shaved. Shaved what? Rashi says he shaved his “hair”. Obviously, but hair grows under armpits also. Midrash says he was like a nazzir since he left his father’s house and had let his hair grow, and so he had to shave his hair to appear in front of royalty. Again, he shaved, but what did he shave?
Not, did he shave his beard, because I know that he didn’t, but HOW DO I PROVE that he didn’t? I haven’t found the answer.
It’s the same with Moshe. If someone thinks that a Jew of the highest spiritual sensitivity would act in such a way… it may say more about where they are, spiritually, than anything else. What’s crazy is that this challenge was made and answered in the text itself, a few parshas later in Pinchas. If one needed proof to refute a halachic argument that accepts intermarriage, it begins with, “and Phinehas arose…”, and ends with him being awarded the priesthood.
What do people in shuls where there is intermarriage do for this parsha? Just ignore it? I’m really curious now. How do congregations that accept or even encourage intermarriage handle this parsha?
By the way, it’s one thing for there to be an intermarried couple with children. To be promoting intermarriage as some sort of ideal, however, is just crazy. Why don’t we all just start drinking negel vasser next?
Before you all go clawing at each other about Judaism and what it means, please remember this add is directed at people who are not involved with Jewish life on any level (secular Israelis) trying to get them to convince their friends to come to Israel so they can become the same. That is the focus. Now discuss.
What we should be interested in is spiritual continuity – that spark of G-dliness that defines someone as a Jew, whether they like it or not, whether they act like a Jew or not. That spiritual continuity is ensured through matrilineal descent. Now, you can argue with the halakha, but it’s more than accepted – it’s codified.
Mika – codified by whom? There are more opinions around than those you decided are codified.
Mika writes:
The mythos that Moses married outside the faith is wishful thinking and sloppy reading. The wife of Moses was present at Sinai, along with thousands of Egyptians and other non-Israelites. They all became Jews, everyone who was there.
Nu? Even today, many non-Jews married to Jews eventually become Jews. That doesn’t prevent certain Jewish organizations from demonizing these marriages, but perhaps it should.
Mika writes:
Nevertheless, I’ve never seen someone being denied conversion, or having the conversion be considered suspect when it was performed by a respected beis din.
“Respected”? Begging the question much?
It’s the same with Moshe. If someone thinks that a Jew of the highest spiritual sensitivity would act in such a way… it may say more about where they are, spiritually, than anything else.
How do we know Yaakov wore a kipah? Because it says “Vayeitzei Yaakov”, and would a good Jewish boy like Yaakov go out without a kipah?
(Alternate version: shtreimel)
What’s crazy is that this challenge was made and answered in the text itself, a few parshas later in Pinchas. If one needed proof to refute a halachic argument that accepts intermarriage, it begins with, “and Phinehas arose…”, and ends with him being awarded the priesthood.
Zimri’s sin was public indecency.
I asked Ezra about this. I told him lots of jewish guys are marrying non jews, but don’t worry they are raising the kids jewish along with everyone else, and the kids feel perfectly jewish even though their mothers won’t convert. He told me he already knew, and he said “when I heard about this, I ripped my clothes and my robe, and I tore the hair out of my head and beard, and I sat bewildered.” After that it was all down hill.
I can’t wait until the dumbest of the Birthright alumni grow up, join the boards of major Jewish organizations, and we have to go through this all over again like 20 years from now.
Please be bothered if you went on Birthright and “you’re not like that”. I don’t care. I’m cranky, it’s Friday and everything that organizations like MASA do keep kicking my love for Judaism in the nuts.
None of this is meant to make sense. That’s KFJ’s job. I get to watch movies with him. Or something.
Exactly.
DAMN THE MAN!
This is the most beautiful thing I have read in a while.
@Mika, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You can’t a priori assume that figures in the Tanach are automatically paragons of contemporary halachic observance — most of what we callthe Torah hadn’t even been developed yet! (and I’m not even saying in secular-historical terms – I mean, inside the story itself it’s obvious) And who taught you that it’s assur to shave one’s beard? *Everyone* (who reads the Mishna, Gemara, Mishneh-Torah, and Shulchan-Aruch, at least) agrees that de-oraita there are permissible methods to shave one’s face which are not prohibited by “lo tashchit peat zekan..” Maybe Yosef shaved his face. Maybe he even did it in a way prohibited by the Torah, since the Torah hadn’t been given yet! Maybe Tsipora never converted the way we think of conversion today. Maybe Yakov was a jerk for stealing his brother’s blessing and was tricked by Lavan mida-kenegged-mida. You can’t automatically assume that our anscestors were perfect representations of whatever *you* want them to be. They were characters, i.e. people with real complexity, in settings completely different from ours.
@KFJ et al, the word “mitbollelim” means “assimilate”. Not “out-marry”. And while I can understand how Jewish children of intermarried parents can find the hysteria over intermarriage insulting, I think you’re overreacting and confusing topics. The question of intermarriage isn’t a question of “blood purity”, despite how many “Harry Potter” and Jim Crow references you make. It’s a question of maintaining a strong heritage as a minority. It is much easier for a Jewish parent with a Jewish co-parent to socialize their kid to live a Jewish life, contribute to the Jewish community, have a strong sense of their own Jewishness, and value the things their community values, than it is for a Jew with a non-Jewish co-parent. Jewishness and Judaism are rare, therefore many of those to whom they are valuable want to protect them. It’s not about “goyim in the family tree” or about non-Jews who are exemplified as *converts* per excellance in Jewish tradition. (Boaz and Ruth as intermarried, my ass.) It’s about seeing the family unit as the basic building block of Jewish community and wanting to encourage the creation of family units that are united in Jewish living.
And just because I think the whole anti-intermarriage obsession of the Jewish establishment is barking up the wrong tree, doesn’t mean that your objections aren’t missing the point too.
Saki, you mean Ezra who declared half of world Jewry not Jewish because they hadn’t experienced exile? That Ezra? Just checking.
Also, I <3 chillul Who, and I'm not afraid to say so!
Thanks TWJ! At least *someone* does, after I pick fights with every single other Jewschool contrib/commenter.. 🙂
OK, Victor. I tend not to wade into these discussions, but I have to now.
Nevertheless, I’ve never seen someone being denied conversion, or having the conversion be considered suspect when it was performed by a respected beis din.
Really? ’cause I have. Of course, I don’t know what an “unrespected” beis din is; as BZ said, you’re really begging the question. Also, have you seen articles like this? What’s all that about retroactively denying conversions that were done by a beis din that was originally considered “respected”? RETROACTIVELY? And where the hell did that “conversions can be retroactively annulled for those who are not observant” crap come from?
People might need to travel. They might need to implant themselves in a community and accept delays and many inconveniences. They might need to torch their kitchens or quit their jobs if they force them to work on Shabbos. But to say it can’t be done is simply not true….Horror stories or not, people who feel a drive for their outsides to reflect their insides get it done.
No one’s talking about whether halacha (as defined by your beis din) is inconvenient or not. We’re talking about the politics behind who converted you, and how much that “counts”. No one should have to jump through non-halachic hoops to become Jewish. No one living a Jewish life should have to dunk twice. But plenty of people do, and the fact that that doesn’t piss off more people is astounding to me.
In defense of understanding Ruth and Boaz as intermarried: Ruth was a Moabite. In Deuteronomy 23:3-6, we learn that Moabites are not eligible for entry in to the Jewish people. So even if you take Ruth’s declaration (in Ruth 1:16-17) as a conversion of sorts, what makes that legitimate? They were living in Moab at the time… do we think there were halachic decisors in Moab to authorize that? Was Naomi a one-woman Beit Din (as it were)? (And hell, I’m willing to say yes, but that opens a whole lot of other doors that someone like Victor would probably like to avoid…)
dlevy: It’s actually interesting that we didn’t develop conversion rules similar to the Muslim ones, with the Ruth story as the source text. Would certainly make all this conversion mishegas much easier to deal with…
yeah that Ezra, that guy was something else. wasn’t he?
Maybe MASA should try that as a publicity stunt, they can all tear there hair out of their heads.
I think that will be more effective, no?
Or they could just declare that those who have never left Israel and lived in diaspora aren’t Jews.
Yeah like in Nechemia. MASA can go down to Ashdod, and if they find anyone not speaking hebrew and intermarried – They can beat them up and oddly enough tear out the other guys hair, and then make him swear to God he won’t marry off his son’s or daughters to Nochrim. Thats also quite effective, but videos? I don’t know if its quite as persuasive. I mean last I checked non-jews are slightly more attractive than youtube videos.
Saki, you and I are clearly watching different online videos.
Update posted above.
chillul Who, no, I always appreciate the points you make. Never fear your shitkicking.
BUT, the statistic quoted here of “50% assimilation” can only be the 50% intermarriage number. Even if the assimilation and intermarriage issues weren’t Siamese twins, this obliquely defines assimilation pointedly as intermarriage.
But more to the point of my post which is being lost in the halakhic rehashing, in which I am making two points:
1) As another commentor said, I am not a problem to be fixed. It boils my blood to hear the beauty of cross-culture love between my parents discussed as a problem that needs to be stopped. The barriers overcome by my mom and dad — prejudiced attitudes on my Catholic and Jewish sides — are a testament to the best, most inspiring traits of my parents and their faith. To let blood or ethnic identity ride veto over their happiness is a shonde. Jewishness is a factor but not a dictator.
And I personally feel uncomfortable around any group insist that only their members marry their members. It is an attitude that inherantly broods xenophobia. Yes, let’s discuss strengthening Jewish identity, but under no circumstances should we make fear of loving non-Jews a foundation upon which to build anything. What an ugly faith, one that fears love.
Because that’s what we’re REALLY discussing here. It’s not just “intermarriage.” God willing, marriage (or life-long partnering of any form) is done for love. Real, enduring love. The way we talk about intermarriage is an abomination because it paves out and villifies that most simple and beautiful quality of being human.
2) Assimilation is not a scourge. Identity is not fixed, it ebbs and flows. On 9/11 we felt vulnerably American. Then when we went to war in Iraq, many of us wanted to disown our country. It is not constant. Assimilation, as defined by those who “aren’t” assimilated, will peak and trough throughout life.
It is wrong to suggest that when someone assimilates, they are no longer part of the Jewish family. They still have parents, siblings, grandparents and cousins. They have friends and work colleagues, many of whom are both more and less Jewish than they. Their Jewishness will surface at odd times, even if it is in passing, just once, or temporarily. I am descendent of Spanish Conquistadors, and while I’m not Catholic or Spanish or much of a Californian anymore, those historical roots inform swaths of my life. How less for those who know they have a Jewish forebearer?
“Jewishness” is not leaving the world, it is becoming less concentrated, less hoarded. It is infusing other families and informing new people’s lives in small ways. The sheer influence of Jewish principles, values, humor, language, attitudes, food and faith is widening.
I believe Judaism and Jewish culture has great contributions to keep making. And its broadening reach is breathtaking to behold. No matter where I go, I am more likely to encounter something familiar and share the most serendipitous connections with new people. It’s a globalized world, people. Your connections and commonalities with others are your strength. Intermarriage strengthens the Jewish people.
3) This wasn’t in the post, but regarding all the who-is-a-Jew halakhic bantering so far: You can read whatever stringencies and leniencies into Judaism as you want. You want to execute 80 witches in a day? It’s there in the Talmud, go for it! But it’s not a value I want in my religion. In many ways, halakha is too contradictory and inconsistent to create a logical faith. Which is dumb in the first place, because faith is contextual and relies on lived experience to validate.
The percentage of Jews who believe in adhering tightly to the literally-interpreted halakha is a tiny sliver of world Jewry. We cannot rely on it then to bind us together. Jewish religion can, but that’s not halakha. Ethnicity (the myth that we are “one”) might be the only commonality we have globally. Those of you who insist on halakhic definitions are cutting off your body to save your hand.
ha ha.
probably. I was just paraphrasing some Nakh. I shouldn’t make fun of MASA. It is very well meaning for sure, and I know it does a lot of good. After all “MASA is the culmination of dream expressd by Ariel Sharon that all Jews should spend a semester to a year in Israel.” and that guy had a lot of dreams, but I cannot help taking pot shots at institutions. But I do agree with Kung Fu about the advantages of intermarriage – I just don’t understand how intermarriage specifically without conversion could possibly be of any advantage to the Jewish people.
KFJ! Dude! Now I think we’re getting somewhere…
I am all about your point #1. In fact, I sort of want to frame it. When I say that intermarriage isn’t the problem, it’s Jews who aren’t educated or inspired to know about and value Jewishness/Judaism — that’s what I mean. Jewish community should not be built on some kind of fear of loving non-Jews, or distate for non-Jews at all. Ahavah haba’a besin’ah eina ahavah clal. (You can quote me on that when we write the new Talmud — [Just as a mitzva enabled by a sin is no mizvta,] Love enabled by hatred is no love. You can’t build a healthy community through xenophobia.
And as for love, well, we know how much of a cynic I am — my heart is as cold and pockmarked as a metal cheese grater — but far be it from me to bash love or the power of love. Love is great. Love is inspiring and all that crap. People shouldn’t be ostracized for their love. (Though I should point out, that sometimes a particular individual’s love might contradict the stated goals of a larger group, and it is not *necesarily* wrong to say so.)
So I’m mostly with you there. As for point #2: the benefits of mixing and matching, spreading out and learning new things, etc., I have two responses of my own.
(A) You don’t need intermarriage to do that. Accepting converts does that. Being friends and colleagues of non-Jews does that. Travel and education do that.
(B) Without some kind of core, some kind of incubator, sourdough starter, cultural focus, etc — I’m not sure how to describe what I’m talking about, but I think the Cultural Zionists of the early 20th century did a good job — without a genetic-cultural-spiritual reservoir any minority group will dwindle down to nothing.
Yes, some elements of their values/foods/big noses will filter out through the general populace, enriching life for all who enjoy ethical monotheism/gefilte fish/allergies — but the unique churning life of that sub-group will no longer exist to yield more of those discoveries and outlooks. On a purely objective level, we can say “that’s life” and trust in human diversity to toss up other exciting things to take Jewishness/Judaism’s place, but as a Jew (perhaps a privileged Jew with two Jewish parents) I’d rather see my world continue, and continue to make the great contributions you talked about.
>>“Lost? I think we’ve found something, something unprecedented in potential and scope in almost all of Jewish history. Our connections to non-Jews and our neighbors are strengthened doubly.”
Baloney. There were thousands if not tens-of-thousands of intermarried Jews during the time of Ezra during the building of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. Ezra wanted the Jewish men to divorce their wives and find Jewish women to marry. The intermarried men weren’t so eager.
The notion that widespread intermarriage to non-Jews is “unprecedented” is just ahistorical ignorance. One does not need to marry and/or sleep with members of other ethnic/religious groups to have good “connections” to them.
Following that Jewlicious trackback, I had to laugh at this:
Most children of intermarriage have been found to not identify themselves as Jews: “38 percent of the teens identified as Jews if just their mother was Jewish, and only 15 percent if their father was Jewish.”
given that in this thread we have people telling the children of Jewish fathers that it’s cute and all if we think we’re Jewish and like to play at practicing Judaism but really we’re deluded.
Hmmm … wonder why so many fewer children of Jewish fathers identify as Jewish. What could it be?
There seems to be this big disconnect – on the one hand, everyone wails and gnashes their teeth over intermarriage and what an abomination it is and tells the kids that result that they aren’t really Jewish, no matter how they identify or practice, and then they turn around and say See! Kids of intermarriage don’t identify as Jewish.
I think cW’s argument that it’s easier in some ways to raise Jewish children when both parents are Jewish has some validity in the macro sense, but it overlooks what’s going on in a lot of individual families and pretends that everyone who is halachically Jewish is actually living a Jewish life, when that simply is not the case.
I have a comment in moderation right now. I referenced cW’s earlier comment without seeing his comment at 1:04, which somewhat addresses one of my objections.
ChillulWho, you’re one of the reasons I continue to read Jewschool. keep telling it like it is. I wish you had a J-blog of your own! The pro-intermarriage stuff on Jewschool and elsewhere in the liveral Jewish world is just as frustrating to me as the anti-intermarriage hysteria.
Eric, you seem to miss the point that Ezra was pretty much a schmuck when it came to who counts as part of the community. And despite that, and despite the oodles of intermarried Jews during the time of Ezra, guess what? We’re still here!
Amen to em.
I think your parent’s love should be understood and not denied or insulted at all. My family is chockfull of intermarriage, but lucky for me I fall on Halakhah’s good side. So I think children of non converted intermarried mothers should be totally accepted and loved by the Jewish community. I would also say they should definitely be considered part of our family. But Kung fu if someone’s intermarried non converted mother is such a wonderful addition to the Jewish people – than what would be wrong with saying that her kids are not jewish, and just like the Jewish community accepted her with love into their family, the accept her non-jewish children into the family as well. We can all love non jewish people in our family, nothing hard or wrong with that – quite natural don’t you think? but why does it have to come at a sacrifice to the Torah? changing an “aveirah” into a “mitzwah”?
Saki – if the conversion mechanism wasn’t hypocritical and broken, we’d be having a very different conversation.
Aw thanks T!
Now, is my “?” back? I’m not sure how it disappeared in one of my previous comments..
dlevy,
I understand, but i don’t have an answer. yet I still ask myself why would someone be so stubborn about not converting to a religion that they want to pass on to their kids.
“So stubborn” might not be a fair characterization. I’m sure if the process wasn’t so soul-killing, some people might be more willing to engage in conversion. That said, there are plenty of people I know who are raising their children Jewish because they see the value it brings to their spouses’ lives, but don’t feel religiously drawn to Judaism and don’t wish to undergo a conversion without the appropriate faith underlying it. I know others who are fully engaged in their own religious traditions but are raising their children Jewish because it’s more intellectually honest to choose one religion rather than attempt some kind of hybrid and they just want their children raised in a positive faith tradition, even if it’s not their own.
I myself am not yet a parent or in a relationship, so I am only reporting what I understand from others. If there are other readers out there who can speak from first-hand experience, I would love to hear that.
yeah I guess the answer is no one would refuse to convert to a religion that they want to pass on to their kids, unless there is other underlying issues and motivations to consider. And in life their always is, thats why its important not to shun anyone, cause like Kung fu pointed out, our identity changes all the time and so due those issues and motivations.
The obvious question though remains: Even if we accept this disturbing idea of Jews “lost” to Judaism, how exactly is a long trip to Israel supposed to change that?
I just returned from a 5-week stay in Israel (my 6th multi-week visit so far) and was repeatedly reminded that although I would not be considered “dati” by Israeli standards, I’m FAR more Jewish, both culturally and religiously, than the majority of my Israeli friends. I don’t eat pork, shellfish, etc. (to the shock of many of my friends), I make it to Shabbat services at least 1-2 times per month (to the actual horror of my Israeli friends), I study and write about Torah (scandal!!), I observe all the major holidays (some of my Israeli friends can at least get behind the “now we eat” part of that one), and I actively engage with Jewish texts, Jewish philosophy and Jewish culture on a daily basis.
Now if Masa was requiring or encouraging yeshiva study, or only sending people to religious communities, than it would be a different story. But spending a lot of time with “secular” Israelis is highly unlikely to cultivate a focus on or interest in Jewish observance of any kind.
Now, it just may happen, that if you’re single and American and in Israel long enough you might find a cute single Israeli to date and who knows, maybe you’ll marry. Then you’ll sponsor your new Israeli spouse to come to the U.S. (unless you’re gay, in which case you’re sh** of of luck) and he or she will be proudly Israeli and secular here, rather than in Tel Aviv (I know a LOT of Israelis in the U.S and VERY few of them are even remotely religious). You’ll have married a Jew, but where is the “victory” for the Jewish people? Not that there’s anything wrong with that. From my perspective, mazel tov! I’m just playing devil’s advocate for Masa and wondering, where’s the strategy?
@KFJ
>Does a Jewish “retention” rate matter, so long as our children find loving partners? Or meaningful lives? An ethical outlook? Look at the big picture, people. Jews by choice may be fewer then, but at least being Jewish will actually mean something.
I largely agree with you. The problem is that many folks would prefer to define being Jewish as just those universalist goals you listed, like ethical outlook. And frankly, that’s no definition at all.
Saki:
I still ask myself why would someone be so stubborn about not converting to a religion that they want to pass on to their kids.
dlevy:
“So stubborn” might not be a fair characterization.
I would say it is significantly more complicated than “so stubborn.”
My mother did convert, over my father’s objections. It wasn’t an Orthodox conversion. No one in my entire extended family is Orthodox. I think she was sincere, but someone looking back on the 30+ years since would find plenty of evidence to prove that she wasn’t. She tried in the early years to make a Jewish home, but my father was so bitter about how the whole thing had gone down (his mother, who eats treif in restaurants, who doesn’t keep Shabbat, threatening to cut off all contact if he married my mother) that he wouldn’t go along with her efforts. Eventually, she gave up. So by Orthodox standards, I was never Jewish. By other standards … hard to say. Some would say yes, some would say no. I would describe my upbringing as culturally Jewish but fairly secular. I’ve become more observant as an adult. It’s an ongoing process, and I’m not yet where I want to be. But I would not attempt an Orthodox conversion because I would not be able to honestly and sincerely live an Orthodox lifestyle. And without that, someone will always find a problem with me.
My husband had a very traumatic journey out of the conservative version of evangelical Christianity he grew up in. For a long time, he was a militant atheist. He’s softened a lot, but he would find it very difficult to commit whole-heartedly to another religion. He finds a lot in Judaism to admire, a lot that he prefers to the religion he grew up in. I am pretty sure that if I told him it was important to me, he would convert, but I only want him to do it if his heart is really in it. No, he wouldn’t be raising his children Jewish if he wasn’t married to me. But he is, and so we are. And he is a far better partner and co-parent in that venture than my Jewish father was to my convert mother.
I think something the “just convert” crowd doesn’t really think through is that conversion is not some magic wand that resolves all the cross-cultural issues. I’m pretty sure I would not have been raised more religiously if my mother was a born Jew, but my growing observance would be welcomed and encouraged rather than treated as someone play-acting. And the non-Jewish families don’t just vanish into thin air when the non-Jewish spouse converts. We don’t celebrate any Christian holidays in our home, but we do go to Christmas Eve dinner at my in-laws’ house. I’m pretty sure we’d still do that even if my husband converted.
For the record, I’m not really “pro” intermarriage. But neither do I think my family is a tragedy. And when some of the same people worried about “retention” would tell me I’m not Jewish and my son isn’t Jewish, I just … don’t think I’m the one with the problem.
I just HAD to check before Shabbat… way too much to respond to with a few minutes left, so here are a few curt points…
Moabites are not eligible for entry in to the Jewish people
dlevy, the prohibition to marry Moabite converts applies only to men. A Jewish man is allowed to take a Moabite convert as a wife. Ruth is the epitome of convert. Questioning her conversion is like… [insert breathless hyperbole].
No one should have to jump through non-halachic hoops to become Jewish.
Desh, I agree with you completely here. The way to change the politics is not by flying off the depend and saying to hell with halacha. Like I said earlier, I am not very intimate with the politics of conversion in Israel, though I do understand they are… unseemly.
And where the hell did that “conversions can be retroactively annulled for those who are not observant” crap come from?
Desh, you probably know that it’s not an easy situation when someone who has converted properly to be a Jew is not observant of basic normative halacha – Shabbos, kashrus, etc. You can’t “undo” the conversion. In Hilchos Melachim there is a section on what is to be done to a convert who reverts to non-Jewish practice, and it’s not pleasant. A modern beis din has no authority to deliver such verdicts. Having no particular knowledge of the details of any rulings, I would speculate that instead of dealing with the dicey modern issue of what to do with such a person, the beis din simply undermines the validity of the conversion itself. It seems a much easier route to go, from a halachic standpoint. As for the politics, read above.
You can’t a priori assume that figures in the Tanach are automatically paragons of contemporary halachic observance — most of what we callthe Torah hadn’t even been developed yet! You can’t automatically assume that our anscestors were perfect representations of whatever *you* want them to be.
Chillul Who, actually we CAN automatically assume that tzaddikim are just that, spiritually righteous. As for the Torah, it says that Abraham and Sarah were living in the Messianic age, Isaac spent his days in the tents of study, Jacob was drawing down the same spiritual energy by placing sticks in the ground as we do with tefillin and Jacob’s sons were performing shechitah, prior to any of these mitzvahs being officially “given”. The idea that these tzadikim and prophets, who had a direct lifeline to G-d, needed three thousand years of codified law to know how they must serve G-d… as cool people say, puhleez, dawg.
Everyone agrees that de-oraita there are permissible methods to shave one’s face
Yes, it’s permissable, but what’s your point? You think Yosef was content with permissable, or was he an especially pious person who understood the spiritual context in which he existed? Again, we can’t disprove one another, because it’s not in the text. It’s something you just know.
Zimri’s sin was public indecency.
BZ, I won’t say it wasn’t, but you know as well as I that it was just the multiplier. The issue was him taking a forbidden woman. That he did it publicly, having been warned not to multiple times, in front of witnesses, justified death at the hands of a Zealot. Done privately, there was nothing a beis din could do about it, but that doesn’t mean it has no negative spiritual impact for which one must answer.
Even today, many non-Jews married to Jews eventually become Jews. That doesn’t prevent certain Jewish organizations from demonizing these marriages, but perhaps it should.
I don’t know what you mean here. Are you saying we should encourage intermarried non-Jews to convert? Are you saying we shouldn’t demonize intermarried people?
Mika – codified by whom? There are more opinions around than those you decided are codified.
Amit, you’re honest and educated, so you already know who are the codifiers, what normative halacha is and who observes it, what dissenting opinions are and what purpose they serve, etc. You should be teaching this class, not hoarding your knowlege and laughing from the sidelines. Anytime.
That’s all I’ve got time for.
GOOD SHABBOS!!!!
“I am not lost. Fuck you very much, Masa, excuse my manners. The scary voices of Jewish continuity say that 50% of young Jews have only one Jewish parent. Which is great. It means my generation is twice as international, twice as multicultural, twice as diverse, and twice as blessed with mutt-like intelligence and fearlessness of boundary-straddling.”
Love this quote. Very well put.
em, thanks for telling your story. I think it brings some much needed texture to this conversation about conversion and “retention rates”. Kol ha Kavod, really.
PS: mods, why has dan’s comment about masa being a paid advertiser on jewschool been deleted? I think it’s important to keep that in the mix. I also hope perhaps they will read these comments and figure out how oppossed their target audience is to their goals.
Haaretz covers more backlash against masa. It seems from her quote that the masa CEO has her head up her ass and has no idea how offensive this campaign is.
KFJ wrote “To let blood or ethnic identity ride veto over their happiness is a shonde. Jewishness is a factor but not a dictator” Why don’t you leave determining Jewish identity to those of us who give Judaism a veto as well as a vote in our lives?
“…and let them go! Let my people go. Who knows at what points in their lives Judaism will surface as a source of inspiration and meaning?”
The point is to be the one to bring that point of surfacing Judaism, and MASA will help pay for it (on selected programs I believe). I don’t understand why people feel offended… is the argument to have people figure it out themselves in their most likely already confused state?
From an Latina Orthodox convert:
The video sucks. I think we can all agree on that. As for the issues of intermarriage, conversion, etc., they’re the same old arguments Jews have been arguing about forever. They’re nothing new and I think that all the comments prove is that these topics are heady and indeed, very personal because family (whether Jewish or not) is involved. I must say I was pretty impressed that for the most part people were able to keep it together and be respectful because I think that’s what’s missing from their conversations.
Sorry “these” not “their” conversations.
Just want to point out again that the ad is not about intermarriage. I’m not sure what the ad is actually about (“assimilation” is mentioned) but it doesn’t mention intermarriage. The ad seems to be a Zionist recruiting ad which while perhaps offensive (in that it assumes that everybody who lives outside Israel will eventually be lost to the Jewish people) is understandable from within the narrow parameters of nationalist Zionism: i.e. the negation of Diasporic life as a viable alternative to the rich Jewish life in Israel.
It seems to have been missed by the fine folks at Massa that there is plenty of rich Diasporic Jewish life which is not in need of saving by a shallow nationalist ethnic Zionism.
“Look at the big picture, people. Jews by choice may be fewer then, but at least being Jewish will actually mean something… Look at the big picture: plan for the long run. Invest in quality, not quantity.”
First your assuming we have the numbers to go for quantity. Now quality is where its at, %100.
“Jewish by technicality is a statistical sham to make yourself feel good”… would you rather have non jews have themselves feel good as jews, is that more genuine? The main reason for confusion and loss of “qaulity” is assimilation and of coarse intermarriage.
Why are you pushing assimilation?
The Ha’aretz article says the campaign organizers were talking about intermarriage when they said assimilation. From Chorus of Ape’s link:
The campaign, which launched on Wednesday, urges Israelis to report the particulars of acquaintances living abroad so that these people, who are “in danger” of marrying non-Jews, can be persuaded to come to Israel.
…
It features images of missing-person posters, with Jewish-sounding names written along the bottom. The message is that assimilated Jews are “lost” persons who must be brought home, to Israel.
Campaign organizers say that about half the world’s Jews marry outside the faith, and are calling on Israelis and Jews to enlist to prevent the “strategic national threat” posed by assimilation.
Areyeh,
if you understand this to be only about assimalation then the video is ofcourse rediculously shallow. Secular Israelis who’s Jewishness is a sloppy version of “deconstructing Harry” and “full metal jacket” saving their lost brothers and sisters in the Jewish rich diaspora life – it’s an insult. But even though it’s not explicit, I think a lot of people see this as referring to the only advantage israel does have over the diaspora – since israel is a gehtto the size of NJ by default even though Israelis would intermarry in a heartbeat, they simply don’t have a chance. And on the face of it, that’s an advantage – at least until they accomplish their goal of joining the EU.
dlevy: “Remember, too, that matrilineal descent was not always the halachic determinant of who is a Jew.”
What do you mean by that?
“even though Israelis would intermarry in a heartbeat, they simply don’t have a chance.”
it’s not so much that they don’t have the chance, they don’t have the choice.
…its not like theyre being forced
Love.
That’s what it all comes down to, right KFJ? It has to be about love, because love is the one thing we can’t control. Love is illogical. Love is irrational. Love drives us, moves us to do what we never thought we were capable of. Love infuses our lives, and fills them with meaning.
You hit the nail right on the head, KFJ.
It’s all about love.
But love of who, or what? Who do you love, KFJ? Do you love G-d, the source of our life, the reason and purpose for Jewish existence as a people? The love of G-d that drove untold numbers of Jews to sacrifice their lives rather than worship idols? Let’s talk about love.
The love of G-d that drives me and countless other Jews today to do the irrational, the illogical – wearing tzitzis, wrapping tefillin, keeping Shabbos and kashrus, learning halacha, finding a Jewish soulmate and doing what we can, and even what we thought we couldn’t do – merely to please the one we love?
I know that love very well. From modeh ani in the morning to the bedtime shema, it is a living love, a vibrant love, an endless love. It is a love that when I fail it hurts me, because it hurts the one I love.
Yiddishkeit is not about halacha, stringency and yarmulkas. Yiddishkeit is about love. And if you have that love, as anyone who loves knows, then to do what your beloved requests is not a stringency, but a liberation. If my beloved wishes that I know halacha then give me halacha, and let me search its depths to understand my beloved. And if my beloved wishes that I keep Shabbos, then I will do so with my entire being.
To love, to truly love, means to make room for another inside yourself, to understand that it’s not all about “ME”, and what “I” want. If this is true between two human beings, how much more so is it true between us and the source of our existence?
A Jew is in this world to love G-d, as we reaffirm daily, for instance, in the Shema: V’ahavta es… You shall love G-d with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your might. Now THAT’S love! Don’t just repeat the words, FEEL them in your chest, LIVE them in your life, know that it is a love which does not yield to time, or space, but endures in the soul, and heart, and might of a Jew.
As you said, KFJ, it all comes down to who you love. If that is resolved, then who one should marry, and how we should raise our kids, and if a ger should convert… the answers don’t need to be sought, they are found.
I don’t see anyone pushing assimilation here, but rather respecting the right of indviduals to make their own choices.
I’m guessing Justin was just making a quip about how intermarriage is legislated against in Israel.
The whole discussion of intermarriage is moot. It’s not the intermarried Jews my tax shekels care about, its those that are not repeating the Likud party line and directing their charitable donations to AIPAC. Us lefties are just as “lost” to the ISraeli government as Jews with only one Jewish parent.
This is NOT about religion. This is only about the secular state of Israel trying to perpetuate the myth that it is essential to the continued existence and well being of the Jewish people.
I love ISrael. It is my home and my country. I pay my taxes and do my miluim. I also deplore and abominate the many things that make Israel a problematic country, foremost among them the occupation and nationlist character of the country (“Jewish and democratic”? who are you kidding?). But the Jewish people did nicely without an Israel for 2000 years, and having an Israel doesn’t stop us from yelling “HOLOCAUST” every time we feel that we’re under any kind of threat. So this is all about the myth that may perpetuate aliyah, which we’ll sell to anyone who is willing to listen.
Not religion. Not Torah. Not Shulchan Aruch. Just nationalism, thank you.
Anony-mouse etc:
See Shaye Cohen’s The Beginning of Jewishness. It significantly complicates the origins of the so-called matrilineal principle.
Also: just to re-emphasize a point that’s been made, it hardly seems insane to suggest that the “assimilation” mentioned in the video refers to intermarriage. The video says that “more than fifty percent of young Jewish outside Israel assimilate” which seems like a totally meaningless statistic unless it’s making reference to the well-known fifty percent intermarriage statistic. (I have no idea where this stat comes from or how it’s measured, but I’m sure everyone here has heard it before).
“I don’t see anyone pushing assimilation here, but rather respecting the right of indviduals to make their own choices”.
I felt that the respect was directed towards expanding Jewry in a way that diversifies and raises the quality of jews rather than shun those making these respected choices. Meaning looking on the bright side and honing it.
Its at least justifying assimilation, which IS quantity over quality.
That seems backwards to me. Surely those who assimilate reduce the quantity, while those who are coerced from assimilation dilute the quality.
the Jewish people did nicely without an Israel for 2000 years
Doesn’t Amit NOT believe in the concept of Jewish peoplehood?
KFJ, you cheer me up.
When people say “assimilation” what do they mean? Is that anyone who is not Orthodox? Is it intermarriage? It is a real drag for children of intermarried couples to listen to attacks on our parents. Meanwhile, it always kills me that these kinds of programs focus on young, college-aged people – once we’re past breeding age, no one cares.
“That seems backwards to me. Surely those who assimilate reduce the quantity, while those who are coerced from assimilation dilute the quality.”
…KFJ was arguing that assimilation “expands” the Jewish horizon (and as i think was mentioned Judaism does not need assimilation for that). I was clarifying how the message was given and how it doesn’t make much sense.
As for people being coerced from the intermingle … how can you say assimilation reduces quantity and yet dilute quality only if being coerced? So if people arnt coerced theyll be better off (quality-wise), yet still reduce quantity? Your usually have very strong points but I think you should be clear on that.
When it comes to assimilation quantity and quality are not necessarily exclusive. As for the next generation those who know people with one jewish parent see how it only causes confusion.
And those who have one Jewish parent can attest that they’re doing just fine, thank you very much, and don’t need you (or me) to diagnose their confusion.
Show me any Jew – whatever the parentage – who doesn’t experience confusion around religion and I’ll show you someone who isn’t doing Judaism right. Judaism has never been a religion of certainty, and anyone who implies otherwise should be treated with suspicion.
>>“Eric, you seem to miss the point that Ezra was pretty much a schmuck when it came to who counts as part of the community. And despite that, and despite the oodles of intermarried Jews during the time of Ezra, guess what? We’re still here!”
—dlevy · September 4th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Hmmmmmm let’s see here. Ezra was “pretty much a schmuck” because he….. invited these intermarried families to come back from Babylon and participate in the building of the Temple? Knowingly accepted them as part of the small nucleus of people that would resettle Israel and reconstitute the Jewish country?
So what exactly makes him a “schmuck”? The fact that he didn’t endorse a practice that necessarily consigns most intermarried couples’ children to write themselves out of the Jewish people? Was he supposed to endorse that??! Why???
Sounds like your attitude is: “Agree with me and endorse my behavior…. or you’re a schmuck.”
Eric, it was not those returning from bavel that Ezra excluded, but those who stayed in Judea. And he did so on the grounds of purity of blood. That is what makes him a shmuck.
Since I was the one that brought up Ezra. I should say, he was a prophet and led Israel out of exile. In our history he is second only to Moses. A quick review of his book would show he is no schmuck:
Basically the Persians let us go back to Israel and rebuild the house of God in Jerusalem by order of their king. When we got there we started rebuilding and tears of joy were shed at every occasion. The old men that had seen the first house standing, wept with such a loud voice you could hear it from a distance. It was a good time.
Then the people who where living on the land, who had been had been settled in Israel by the king of assyria came to us and said ‘Let us build with you because we seek your God just like you do, and we have been sacrificing to Him for a long time.’ But our community leaders response was ‘You have nothing to do with us. We’ll build it ourselves like the king of Persia said.’ After that they became our bitter enemies, and actually halted the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple with political espionage and terrorist attacks. (note the irony)
Then it was Pesach. Basically two groups showed up, the Gulus Jews and the remnant of the original Jews who had not intermarried and adopted other Gods. The remnant of those who had adopted other Gods obviously weren’t invited, and the Guluth Jews who became persians obviously never made aliyah at all.
So, we were enjoying our comeback – when the cholent hit the fan. The people of Israel, and most excessively the community leaders, where intermarrying with just about everybody, including the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. They where worshipping those abominations their new spouses called gods.
When Ezra heard this, he ripped his garment and robe, pulled the hair out of his head and beard, and sat down appalled and bewildered. He couldn’t believe it! We had angered God and he had destroyed Jerusalem and made us slaves to the persians and now God had somehow forgiven us and put this crazy idea in the persians head to let us free and rebuild Jerusalem and our temple. He wept that he had given us a little fence in Judah and in Jerusalem, and now, Oh God! what are we going to say after this? we have gone against your mitzwoth again! Marrying people that do these abominations? God is going to eat us alive for this, there will be no one left this time, and no escape!
While Ezra prayed and confessed – weeping and throwing himself down on the floor before the house of God. We saw his genuine pain and tragic pose, and started to gather around him. We were very sorry. Then one of the community leaders said to Ezra, We have broken faith with our God and married these foreign women of the peoples of the land, but don’t give up Ezra, we can still get rid of them and you can make a new covanant. Come on, get up Ezra, do it for us, we are on your side, just do it.
And he did. They kicked them out and swore not to do it again. And that’s our covenant for you.
Nechemia gets into to it too, and he’s got us going down to ashdod and beating people up for not speaking hebrew and for marrying ashdodies. But there is only so much paraphrasing I can do in one sitting. The bottomline is, I think if he where alive today, dealing with our exile and our return, his approach would be utterly different, much more understanding. That was then and this is now. That is why Judaism doesn’t work as well without out a Prophet, kind of like grouping around in the dark, everything is relative, maybe marrying into another religion is a good thing for God? Maybe wearing my socks on top of my pants makes God happy? Maybe so!
Saki, you’re my hero.
As for the Torah, it says that Abraham and Sarah were living in the Messianic age, Isaac spent his days in the tents of study, Jacob was drawing down the same spiritual energy by placing sticks in the ground as we do with tefillin and Jacob’s sons were performing shechitah, prior to any of these mitzvahs being officially “given”.
Where does it say that?
Are you saying we shouldn’t demonize intermarried people?
Well, yeah. But also that even if Tziporah converted at Sinai, her marriage to Moses was no less an intermarriage at the time than any other intermarriage in our own time (some of which also result in conversion later on).
A selection of replies:
T: I’m not “pro-intermarriage” in that I think every Jew should marry a non-Jew. But let’s say that I did make such a suggestion: I still don’t believe that Judaism or Jewish life would vanish. Like em said, I don’t think mixed Jews are tragedies. More so, I think there’s great wisdom and vigor among us that would otherwise be silent.
rejewvenator: I presume you’re talking about secular Jews. So long as they call themselves Jews, those people will be regarded by non-Jews (including the Jew haters) as Jewish. It’s not a definition that will fly with you, but there’s sort of no way around it.
em: Thanks so much for sharing your story with us. Discussing this in the abstract is what enables the ignorance. Really, thank you very much.
MS: Leave determining Jewish identity to people who have no idea the myriad factors that comprise identities? No no, I think you might be the least qualified actually. If you’ve never had to play mix-and-match with multiple religious, cultural, national, culinary, linguistic, spiritual and racial building blocks of identity, then you’re not qualified in the least to make that decision alone. We have. Hi, we’re from the world and we’re here to educate you.
Aryeh: The commercial seems to be made by people who can’t even distinguish between assimilation and intermarriage. That 50% intermarriage statistic is more urban legend than accurate, as JJ Goldberg showed on his blog today.
Anonymouse: Your relationship with God cannot be my relationship with God, because I don’t roll over and do whatever I’m told. I fight, I argue, I reason, and I judge back. Much like my Biblical forebears did. Post-Holocaust I also think demanding a renegotiation is quite permissible. But I hear what you’re saying and my love of the Divine also pains me when I fail. But thankfully the Infinite, halakha and my love for both are not all the same thing. It’s a negotiation for us all and rather than resist it, I embrace it. In essence, God is my favorite debate partner.
…”our relationship with God cannot be my relationship with God, because I don’t roll over and do whatever I’m told. I fight, I argue, I reason, and I judge back. Much like my Biblical forebears did. Post-Holocaust I also think demanding a renegotiation is quite permissible.”
Yisra-el = God wrestler = Kung Fu Jew.
now I get the connection! Your actually fighting with God. It puts the whole Pro-Arab-Nationalist, Pro-intermarriage, Anti-everything-else-thing in context. Your like the Kotzker, Reish Lakish, and Jonah wrapped into one, with a Kung Fu Conquistador on top – and your sticking it to God for all the crap he’s put us through. Your the Jewish Major Kong from Dr. Strangelove riding the A-bomb straight into the eye of God. Well none of those folks got anything on you, your an original. And if that’s your stated intention than your deserve some serious props. I have officially joined your fan club.
Upon reflection, that was a little over the top. But I really do understand your relationship with God a lot better.
Saki – to counter Ezra, someone wrote Ruth. And Ruth won.
Thank you! As a halfie and a Jewish professional I say this -not quite as clearly – all the time. Judaism is beautiful AND strong. We will not disappear, so let’s focus on flourishing!
@KFJ My point was not to try and figure out what label to apply to Jews who do not express any particularist Jewish values. My point was that we can’t walk away from those values and practices in favor of the universalist ones. The integration between our particularism (avadim hayinu – we were slaves) and the universalism it is meant to engender (since we were slaves, we should know how it feels and do better by others) is the heart of Judaism. Embrace particularism without the universalism and you wind up with a strongly-identified Judaism that’s a big turn-off to anyone not deep inside of it. Embrace universalism and you wind up with this very attractive value system, but one that fails to sustain communities and common commitments and identities.
…”to counter Ezra, someone wrote Ruth. And Ruth won.”
Ruth is not a counter, but a caveat. Love know no boundaries – an authentic person with the determination, humility and love for God can break through any stereotype, bigotry or even tradition. That still happens today.
That is not rightly a particularism though, many people are slaves are slaves to some extent or another, some under comparability harsh conditions as those described in Torah.
And this is why there is no need to give up Judaism to embrace universalism, while there are obviously conflicts with particular lines of thought, the two are not inherently compatible.
That is; the two are inherently compatible.
what do you mean when you say you embrace universalism? How do you define universalism and how are you relating it to the conversation about assimilation and intermarriage?
I am using the term to to refer to the general concept of holding equal concern for all of humanity. It relates to the conversation because opposing intermarriage is a rejection of universalism.
…”opposing intermarriage is a rejection of universalism.”
so if I were to insert your definition of universalism into that sentence it would read:
“opposing intermarriage is a rejection of the general concept of holding equal concern for all of humanity.”
does that makes sense to you? you must mean something else?
That is what I meant; rejecting marriage outside the tribe is contradictory to the concept of holding equal concern for all of humanity. Does that not make sense to you?
no, I can have equal concern for them without any shtupping, in fact maybe more. I wouldn’t say that a brother and sister do not have equal concern for each other just because they are rejecting marriage between themselves. I wouldn’t say somebody who has rejected marriage with an Israeli unless they move to New York, as contradictory to the concept of equal concern for all of humanity. And I also wouldn’t say that someone who is rejecting intermarriage outside his tribe, the tribe which is the repository for all the basic beliefs and history upon which his every reason and logic is operating upon, does not have equal concern for all of humanity.
Kyleb,
When you visit a sick relative in a hospital, do you first visit every other patient in the building? After all, how is the suffering experienced by any human being less significant than that of your relative?
What specifically bothers you about the continued existence of the Jewish people?
KFJ,
You have a lot of faith in me – I don’t do everything that I’m told, but I’m trying. Obedience. That’s in the Shema as well: (Vhaya im shamoa…) And it will be, if you diligently obey My commandments… Did our Biblical forebears make a name for themselves through the opposite of obedience?
Is disobedience to our creator so praiseworthy? Has disobedience served our people well?
I can appreciate your anger at the Holocaust, I share it, but is that really what we’re talking about here, in 2009, free, prosperous and at a relative peak of Jewish life?
Perhaps it would help if you elaborate on what you are negotiating and demanding of G-d, and how this is reflective of your love. I am interested to see how different, or similar, our approaches are.
Saki, we are in agreement on all of your examples, and i am at a loss as to how you apparently assumed otherwise. My position here is that those who coerce others out of intermarriage do not have equal concern for all of humanity; are you suggesting otherwise?
Mika, rather, a visit from a relative is more significant. An example of holding unequal concern for all of humanity would be dismissing a person’s request for your consolation simply because you consider him part of another tribe.
As for the continued existence of Jewish people, I would not want it any other way. What specifically are you bothered by here?
Kyleb,
I don’t know about Saki, but you and I are in full agreement. I certainly don’t hold equal concern for all of humanity. I don’t stop in every hospital room on the way to see my relative, I go straight there. I would not choose the life of a stranger over the life of my child, parent, or sibling.
Furthermore, I don’t see how someone who shows a lack of concern for their own family, their own community – where their commitment and actions matter most – has any credibility to claim they care for anyone but themselves.
Lastly, the example you gave for “unequal concern” is inconsistent with the intermarriage issue. The issue is “unequal concern”, not “ethno-exclusive concern”. It is natural that a crying child is best consoled by their mother, father, close relative or family friend, as opposed to a complete stranger. The issue is certainly not whether we should console a black friend more than a white friend, which you seem to be implying.
…”those who coerce others out of intermarriage do not have equal concern for all of humanity”
How so? please explain.
Coercion is an act of disregarding the wills of others to impose one’s own, and having equal concern for all of humanity one can’t cite allegiances to justify anything of the sort.
OK, so now we are clarifying your position. Which is a good thing.
1) Would you say that rejecting marriage partners outside your own religion is contradictory to the concept of holding equal concern for all of humanity? Same goes for tribe?
2) Is coercion through force or threats in order to prevent intermarriage, precisely what you find as contradictory to the concept of holding equal concern for all of humanity?
You can’t a priori assume that figures in the Tanach are automatically paragons of contemporary halachic observance — most of what we callthe Torah hadn’t even been developed yet! You can’t automatically assume that our anscestors were perfect representations of whatever *you* want them to be.
Chillul Who, actually we CAN automatically assume that tzaddikim are just that, spiritually righteous. As for the Torah, it says that Abraham and Sarah were living in the Messianic age, Isaac spent his days in the tents of study, Jacob was drawing down the same spiritual energy by placing sticks in the ground as we do with tefillin and Jacob’s sons were performing shechitah, prior to any of these mitzvahs being officially “given”. The idea that these tzadikim and prophets, who had a direct lifeline to G-d, needed three thousand years of codified law to know how they must serve G-d… as cool people say, puhleez, dawg.
Nice lingo, dawg. But the Torah doesn’t say any of that anywhere. In fact, the Torah spares no details in describing the failings of our ancestors in lurid detail. The Mefarshim/commentators frequently argue over how and when most Patriarchs and Prophets sinned and what punishment they received for doing so. In fact, in Gemara Shabbat 55B there is an assertion that only 4 people in human history died without sinning. It’s always been normative Orthodox practice to learn from both the righteousness of our ancestors and from their mistakes and flaws. Our forebears inspire us and instruct us through their *humanity* — if they were perfect spiritual beings, there’d be no point: we might as well take lessons from angels.
Everyone agrees that de-oraita there are permissible methods to shave one’s face
Yes, it’s permissable, but what’s your point? You think Yosef was content with permissable, or was he an especially pious person who understood the spiritual context in which he existed? Again, we can’t disprove one another, because it’s not in the text. It’s something you just know.
You were arguing that Yosef never would have shaved his face, because that would have meant he wasn’t a completely spiritual righteous person. I pointed out that shaving one’s face doesn’t make one unrighteous, or unspiritual, or a sinner – otherwise it would be forbidden by halacha, or used as an example of “naval birshut hatorah” (which it’s not). It’s true that there are sectarian parts of the Jewish world who have their own special reasons for choosing not to shave — but that doesn’t mean that by any objective Torah standard beards are more spiritual than clean faces. That would be like saying that not putting hard boiled eggs in your chulent is evidence of spiritual deficiency. As an ashkenaz person, I reject that notion as insulting and contrary to halacha. Just because a group of jews decided to invent huevos jaminados and make them important in sefardi shabbos cooking doesn’t mean that they are more righteous. So too with beards. It has ALWAYS been halacha that there are permissible ways to shave one’s face. That means there is a spiritual equivalency between shaving and not shaving – it’s a choice, like eating beef or chicken. Some Jews invented the idea that beards had special meaning for them — but doesn’t make it true for everyone else.
MASA pulled the ad.
Update:
Masa drops the advertisement from its campaign, citing misunderstandings on “Israel speak” and “Diaspora speak.”
Chillul Who?
As I said, and as you reiterated, from a halachik standpoint, there’s no issue with cutting one’s beard in a permissible way. You seem to be saying that keeping a beard is something some fringe group of Jews invented, not a universally Jewish ideal that surpasses the letter of the law.
There are such things, of course: we have Pirkei Avos, for example, universally accepted ideals and instructions, which surpass the letter of the law. One can be a fully observant Jew and not understand or fulfill the instructions of Pirkei Avot. Yet, there is general (I would say universal) agreement, that Pirkei Avos is a set of ideals and instructions that a Jew should seek to understand and live up to, and that doing so contributes positively to a Jew’s physical, emotional, intellectual, communal and spiritual development.
Do we really need to be throwing reverse ad hominems at each other? “I’m offended! No, I’m offended more!” Relax. I love you. You’re a beautiful Jew. We’re exchanging ideas, not chopping each other’s heads off.
Does the beard serve any spiritual purpose? Or, alternately… Does a beard have any spiritual significance?
You seem to be saying that keeping a beard is something some fringe group of Jews invented, not a universally Jewish ideal that surpasses the letter of the law.
You got it! 🙂 That’s exactly what I’m saying. For most of Jewish history, beards were common. Then fashioned changed, halachically-permissible methods of shaving became more numerous, and depending on where you were, beards became less common (except during Sefira and the 3 weeks). These days, at least in the US, there are more beards around (because beards are stylish and sexy).
Certain specific ideological subsects of Jews, mostly Chasidim, decided at one point that not shaving held a special meaning for them. And to this day very very few Chasidim shave. Which is great for them. But that doesn’t mean that the Chasidim are right and the others are wrong, which seems to be what you’re saying.
I don’t believe I brought up Chassidim, and certainly Chofetz Chaim was no Chassid in the normative sense, yet he was quite vocally and vociferously against Jews shaving their beards. I also view the Zohar and other kabbalistic works as the inheritance of the entire Jewish people, which brings me back my question…
Does the beard serve any spiritual purpose? Or, alternately… Does a beard have any spiritual significance?
Mika:
You’re right, I brought up Chasidim, because the Chasidish community is where one will most often hear the assertion today that beards have special metaphysical properties.
To answer your question, I do not believe that beards have any spiritual significance. I hold by my teachers that the Zohar and other works of medieval Kabalah are books of importance to the history of Jewish thought, but that they are no more authoritative than the Kuzari, Igeret Teiman, Sefer ha-Chinuch, the Heichalot literature, or any other great works of Jewish metaphysics or philosophy. As in, in Orthodox Judaism (I was raised and educated Orthodox) the halachic system is authoritative. Halacha is a Chovah, if you will. All the different philosophies of the mystics, the rationalists, etc are a Reshut.
So for those who believe in the Zohar and particular forms of Kabalah, I can see that beards have special spiritual significance for them. But for the rest of us, not so much.
Re: the Chofetz Chaim, for him beards were a question of assimilation. In his era and place, shaving one’s beard often meant leaving the traditionalist community and Jewish observance and going off to the cities of Poland to live as a secularist or a Maskil.
Saki,
1) I think denying a proposal on such technicalities does show lesser concern for at least some, including one’s self, but not necessarily unequal concern for humanity.
2) I am speaking of coercion in it’s full range, from expressing disapproval to threatening death.
…”I think denying a proposal on such technicalities does show lesser concern for at least some, including one’s self, but not necessarily unequal concern for humanity.”
Am I to understand that you do not find the idea of exclusively marrying with in one’s faith, nor one’s personal choice to do so as reflective of unequal concern for all humanity?
“I am speaking of coercion in it’s full range, from expressing disapproval to threatening death.”
Is expressing disaproval of a family member’s actual proposal of intermarrige what is in question or is it expressing disaproval towards intermarraige at all?
Saki,
yes to the first, and only the former count on the second.
well then we have reached some consensus.
1) Is expressing disaproval of a family member’s intermarriage while it is still theoretical, reflective of an unequal concern for all humanity, or is it expressing disapproval of a family member’s intermarriage once it is actual which is reflective of an unequal concern for all humanity?
2) Also, is there something specifically reflective of an unequal concern for all humanity, in expressing disapproval of a family member’s actual intermarriage, or is it the expressing disapproval of a family member’s choices in general which is reflective of an unequal concern for all humanity?
Ok, thanks Chillul Who?
Saki,
1) Yes, that is disregarding the will of another to impose one’s own, preemptively.
2) Just the former not the latter. For instance; opposing a marriage because the fiance is an alcoholic does not demonstrate unequal concern for all humanity, but excusing such alcoholism because one identifies the couple as members of the same group does.
????? ?????????, ??? ?????? ????????
“and do not cut down the edges of your beard”
(Leviticus 19:27)
I’m not a karaite, but honestly now?
what are we talking about here?
Saki, how do you define the edges of your beard?
kyleb,
So if I understand you correctly, you do not find the idea of exclusively marrying with in one’s faith, nor one’s personal choice to do so, nor ones expressing this idea to others, as reflective of unequal concern for all humanity. But once a family member is actually involved in a relationship that could or has resulted in intermarriage without conversion, then if you where to express disapproval towards intermarriage without conversion than it would be reflective of an unequal concern for all humanity.
1) if you were to express interest in the marriage involving conversion would that be reflective of an unequal concern for all humanity?
Saki
standard rabbinic parsing of the pasuk:
Tashchit = “Destroy” = shave using a single-piece razor/blade that slices along the skin
Peat Zekanecha = “Corners of your beard” = five indefinite points along the jawline
The word used is PAS, I tried to write it in Lashon Ha’Kodesh but it turned into “???”
The word PAS is used elsewhere in the Torah to define the outer parts of a whole. The example used in the Torah is you have a field with a center and four sides. Therefore the northern outer section of the field would be called the NORTH-PAS, the southern outer section would be called the SOUTH-PAS, and so on. Once PAS is understood, it is hard for me to understand the Pasuk as referring to anything other than not cutting your beard off. That and taking into consideration that since the beginning of time until the enlightenment all Israelites have been pictured with beards when other ancient peoples where not. On egyptian papyrus, babylonian obelisks, Israelite wall paintings, roman mosaics and etc… I am well aware of some poskim rulings and also the nice and tighty orthodox explanation that Chilul shared. This is Talmud Torah for me NOT halakhah L’misa. Also I am not a facial hair crusader, but it just doesn’t seem right?
interesting!
I just noticed that the actual pronunciation would be PATH. Which is pretty awesome, Cause that means the northern outer section of the field would be called the NORTH-PATH, the southern outer section would be called the SOUTH-PATH.
so cool.
Technically, for your pronunciation need, there are two vowels in the word: Pei’at. / Pei(tsereh)-Aleph(patach)-Tav. / P(ei)-‘(ah)-T.
I can’t find the references now (it’s almost midnight and I’m sleepy), but the rabbinic definition of “tashchit” as “shaving with a straight-razor-like device” is based on a logical extrapolation made by comparing this verse to a similar but not identical verse elsewhere in the Torah. The rabbis of the mishna/talmud resolved the discrepancy by considering that some methods of shaving were permissible, and others were prohibitted.
Chilul,
My Chumash reads PEI (shwah) ALEPH (patach) TAV = PATH
TASHCHITH is used in the Torah in reference to cutting down trees, note: not just uprooting or tearing out but cutting. It is part of one of my all time favorites Deuteronomy 20:20:
“When you are besieging a city for a long time, making war against it to seize it, you should not destroy (TASHCHITH) the trees there by wielding an axe against them; you can eat of them, but do not cut them down; for is the tree of the field a man? that it should be besieged by you?”
PATH is used in reference to the outer parts of cities, fields and beards.
Saki writes:
My Chumash reads PEI (shwah) ALEPH (patach) TAV = PATH
That’s the semichut; the non-semichut form is pey aleph hey.
It’s Deuteronomy 20:19, 20:20 adds that you can cut down non fruit bearing trees.
“Eric, it was not those returning from bavel that Ezra excluded, but those who stayed in Judea. And he did so on the grounds of purity of blood. That is what makes him a shmuck.”
—Chorus of Apes · September 6th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Actually he excluded people who had joined the idolatrous nations surrounding Israel. But hey, what would a Biblical prophet know about reconstituting a nation? Certainly not half as much as a devotee of early 21st Century secular leftist values. But apparently he wasn’t a believer in those. Therefore he must be “a shmuck”. Which is kind of convenient, wouldn’t you say?
“Saki – to counter Ezra, someone wrote Ruth. And Ruth won.”
—Amit · September 7th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Uh, not exactly Amit. :-/
Ruth was written about half a millennium before Ezra. So based on your chronological argument, Ezra won.
Unless the messages of these books are totally unrelated to your assumptions about them.
I may be opening a can of worms, but why does halachic argument tend to derail jewschool conversations? Sometimes I think it’s a powerplay to shift the conversation from the real impact of Jewish culture on individual lives and communities to an esoteric conversation that only those with certain halachic bonafides can participate in.
why does halachic argument tend to derail jewschool conversations?
Actually I learn more interesting things about halakha through some of these comment threads than reading or classes, actually.
an esoteric conversation that only those with certain halachic bonafides can participate in
Ha. This is the progressive beef with orthodoxy in a pinch, no?
an esoteric conversation that only those with certain halachic bonafides can participate in
Kung Fu Jew writes:
Ha. This is the progressive beef with orthodoxy in a pinch, no?
No. Progressives can be esoteric too, and progressives can still have a beef with non-esoteric manifestations of Orthodoxy (e.g. kiruv organizations).
Again I don’t see Ruth and Ezra as counters at all. They are complimentary as I explained to Amit. When Naomi was returning from the field of Moab, after the death of her husband and two sons, those sons being the deceased husbands of Orpah and Ruth, she told them to back to their people. If Ruth had not cried out to her “Listen to me, don’t leave and not let me follow; wherever you go, I will go; and where ever you live, I will live; your people shall be my people, and your God – my God. Where you die, I die, and there I will be buried; for God should do exactly that to me, and more! if anything but death do us part.’ Would we have had Dawid Hamelekh?
well chorus of apes?
please rescue the conversation from falling into the pit of beard laws by addressing the issue at hand.
Saki, are you arguing for argument’s sake? It’s settled halacha that shaving the beard is allowed with specific instruments. For the rundown on the reasoning, see Makkot 20a. As Chillul Who? said, it’s not obligatory, it’s reshut. It’s not something one should expect schar for, nor lashes for that matter.
I started growing mine rather mindlessly. I was never a fan of shaving and would often let a week or two go by before I felt I had to do it. Quite innocently I got busy with school and just didn’t think to shave, or I did think of it, but in the elevator, where I could do nothing about it. A week passed, then another week, then a month. My girlfriend at the time didn’t mind, so I just took the easy way and let it bush out. I kept Shabbos at the time, but not much else, so it wasn’t a conscious “Jewish” decision.
It’s been almost four years, and I can’t say I miss shaving one bit. I don’t think I’ve even thought to shave it once in all this time. Thank G-d mine came in reasonably shaped – a friend has one follicle growing here and two follicles growing there.
Spot on that far, but you drifted off from there. It is not a matter of timing, its a matter of respecting right to have such ideas and make such personal choices, each of us no less so than any other. The same holds true with expressing interest in a marriage involving conversion, and with the beard issue for that matter.
CoA, instead of watching from the sidelines, dig in. The best way to learn is to pick a position you know absolutely nothing about and dive head first into the middle of a rhetorical fistfight. You may get bruised and bloodied, but I guarantee you’ll surprise yourself.
Kyleb,
So you are saying that if I were to express the idea of myself marrying exclusively with in one’s faith to others that is not reflective of an unequal concern for all humanity, BUT if I were to express the idea of OTHERS marrying exclusively with in one’s faith to others that it would be reflective of an unequal concern for all humanity?
Saki,
No, it is the other way around; expressing the idea that others should not chose marrying outside whatever group demonstrates unequal concern for humanity. There is nothing wrong with talking the pros and cons of either possibility, but disparaging branding one option right for all and the other as wrong creates unnecessary strife over what we should all respect as a personal choice.
Eric: Ruth was written about half a millennium before Ezra. So based on your chronological argument, Ezra won.
Eric, please get up to speed on your biblical scholarship.
@CoA, halakhic arguments are usually presented in such amateurish and unambiguous forms here, that anyone with the knowledge to counter them throws up their hands in disgust and goes back to their homework.
Saki!
My apologies… I’ve hopefully learned not to try to teach grammar from memory late at night without the text right in front of me. Hopefully I haven’t destroyed my credibility 🙂
It is Pe’at, not Pei’at. Pei(shva)-Aleph(patach)-Tav.
As BZ said, it’s the smichut form of Pei’ah. Pei(tsereh)-Aleph(kamatz)-Hei.
I’m not sure where you get a word with only two consonants though when you transliterate it as “Path”. Where did the glottal stop (Aleph) go?
Side comment… how often do I get to stay “glottal stop” in a Jewschool conversation? Not often enough!
For anyone still interested, the Rabbinic discussion of allowed/forbidden shaving methods is (as was mentioned) in the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Makkot Pages 20a-21a.
The two slightly-contradictory verses in the Torah, upon which the Rabbinic discussion is based, are:
Leviticus/Vayikra 21:5 (which is addressed to the Priests and uses a form of the verb Legaleach/To shave)
and
Leviticus/Vayikra 19:27 (which is addressed to the entire people and uses a form of the verb Lehashchit/To destroy).
Why does halachic argument tend to derail jewschool conversations? Sometimes I think it’s a powerplay to shift the conversation..
Sometimes I think you’re paranoid, CoA. 🙂 I think that halacha is a geekdom like any other geekdom, and that some people just get easily distracted and run headfirst into the minutiae without regard for who will be able/interested to follow.
I think also sometimes people make halachic assertions to back up their opinions on broader issues – in order to argue against their positions, sometimes you have to argue against their halachic understanding.
It also comes up because halachic discourse has been THE main language of Jewish religion, ethics, and philosophy for over a thousand and a half years. It’s hard to avoid sometimes.
Don’t take this to mean I’m not sympathetic to the problem of exclusion and too much jargon – just that I think it makes sense that it happens this way. My solution: People should be more forgiving in discussion, be willing to explain what they’re saying, and be willing to learn new modes of discourse.
and be willing to learn new modes of discourse.
…”Jewish Sparks” Chabad people, that means YOU!
I actualy wasn’t trying to get into a halakhic debate. I was just pointing out that I have no idea how you would reach the conclusion that you can shave off your beard from reading the posuk? I mean it has to mean something? What’s the point of telling you not to cut off your beard when it means to tell you that you can. By the way it is my understanding, but I have no way of verifying, that various poskim hold that cutting off your beard is not halakhicly acceptable. I apologize if I am in correct but if my mort serves me correctly the chazon eish and the tzemach tzedek where in that camp. In the tzemach tzedek’s reasoning it is not even about this pasuk but actually the torahs restriction on dressing like a woman. Which makes it d’oriasa. Again I know that halakhicly it’s settled everyone on agrees what the law is. And if Amit wants to add something more than patronizing comments that’s cool. but I still don’t understand how a don’t turns into a do?
Eric, please get up to speed on your biblical scholarship.
—Amit · September 9th, 2009 at 6:09 am
Thanks for the tip, Amit. I am. The political-based “anti-Ezra” theory of authorship is entirely theoretical and unconvincing. (And frankly more than a little presumptive and self-serving.)
When you look at how deeply Ruth integrates and interrelates with other themes in Scripture as well as the Talmud and Midrash, the anti-Ezra theory looks really weak.
Saki:
See the Mishna, the Gemara, the Mishneh Torah, and the Shulchan Aruch on this topic.
Not shaving at all became popular in Chasidish and some other Kabalistic communities in the past few hundred years. Add to this the pressure of resisting assimilation in the Modern era, and you can see where the Chazon Ish, the Chofetz Chayim, the Tsemach Tsedek, etc. were coming from in their fiery arguments against shaving. But even they, who were great leaders in their communities, can’t erase the plain-on-paper fact that shaving is only prohibited under certain circumstances in the halachic literature.
It’s like anything else in the Torah. Does “an eye for an eye” literally mean that we poke out somebody’s eye in retaliation? No! Similarly, “Do not destroy the corners of your beard” does not mean that shaving is prohibited in all forms under all circumstances. To understand any halacha we have to look back through the rabbinic literature and the modes of interpretation.
Eric writes:
When you look at how deeply Ruth integrates and interrelates with other themes in Scripture as well as the Talmud and Midrash
Are you saying that Ruth was written in response to the Talmud and Midrash?
BZ – of course it was! The Talmud was given at Sinai, and Ruth was in the time of the Judges!
And if Amit wants to add something more than patronizing comments that’s cool. but I still don’t understand how a don’t turns into a do?
Never became a “do”. Nobody says “do shave”. They say “do not shave in a manner not in accordance with the rabbinic interpretation of the Torah”, which means “use scissors. Or an electric razor, or a safety razor (yes, some hold that its permissible, foremost among them Rav Chaim Hirschensohn of Hoboken, NJ)”.
(…and now I see CW has pre-empted me)
But I do have one more comment to add, which I hope is not snarky or patronizing. If you *do* initiate a halakhic discussion, assume everyone here knows at least as much as you do. So check your sources and be careful. The crowd-source with inevitably call out mistakes.
Amit, now that’s a name I haven’t heard in a while… how’d you get familiar with the great Rav Hirschensohn of Hoboken, author of Motsaei Mayim?
Are you saying that Ruth was written in response to the Talmud and Midrash?
—BZ · September 9th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Huh, where’d you get that idea from?
Eric writes:
Huh, where’d you get that idea from?
From you, who suggested that the relationship between Ruth and Talmud/Midrash is relevant in dating when Ruth was written.
CW – he was very big for a while among all six religious lefites in Israel. R. David Golinkin is working on an annotated edition of his shut. Plus, I use Or Zarua all the time, and doubleplus, he was mattir (permitted) the safety razor!
Well, it technically is: we know from the Talmud that Ruth was written BEFORE the Talmud!
Again I wasn’t approaching this from a rabbinic position. I am well aware of the rabbinic responsa on shaving. The bottom line is that most forbid even an electric razor, and most permit a scissors. According to about 10 poskim, shaving is cross dressing and therefore forbidden from the Torah and not the Rabbis. In practice a Jew will rely on the most liberal rabbinic response or submit to the most restrictive rabbinic response – and rabbinic judaism will accept either position as long as it is defensible. However thats not what I was talking about, what is the propose of the torah saying such a thing if it has no real meaning at all? its a question from me to you.
“From you, who suggested that the relationship between Ruth and Talmud/Midrash is relevant in dating when Ruth was written.”
—BZ · September 9th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
No, BZ. I meant exactly what I wrote. Study some of the Talmudic and Midrashic expositions on Ruth, and its interrelationships with the other books and episodes in the Tanakh, as well as the people and themes of Ruth that interconnect with Ruth’s personal, and the book’s thematic, predecessors and followers. The level of thematic, lexical and personal connectedness is very strong — and IMO strongly counterindicates the “response to Ezra” theory.
In any event it’s obvious that if Ruth was really made up as a politically motivated comeback to Ezra, then it doesn’t have any legitimate place in the canon and should be tossed out as anything worth holding on to. As a petty local rejoinder it would be an inauthentic representation of Judaism, and it certainly doesn’t warrant us giving any credence to whatever viewpoint it’s trying to advance.
I don’t understand where you guys are going with poor old Ruth. But I am sure we all understand that Ruth takes place before Ezra in the timeline of the Tanakh. Not that it matters because they are not at all in any contradiction.
Saki writes:
But I am sure we all understand that Ruth takes place before Ezra in the timeline of the Tanakh.
And the movie The Ten Commandments takes place even earlier!
…”If you *do* initiate a halakhic discussion, assume everyone here knows at least as much as you do.”
Amit, what did I do wrong this time?
…”expressing the idea that others should not chose marrying outside whatever group demonstrates unequal concern for humanity. There is nothing wrong with talking the pros and cons of either possibility, but disparaging branding one option right for all and the other as wrong creates unnecessary strife over what we should all respect as a personal choice.”
So your saying that discussing the pros and cons of marrying within or out of your faith, coming to a personal conclusion about the pros and cons for yourself, and acting upon that conclusion does not demonstrate an unequal concern for humanity. But coming to a conclusion about the discussion on the pros and cons of marrying within or out of your faith, and applying that conclusion to all and not just yourself does demonstrate an unequal concern for humanity?
also, does coming to a conclusion about the discussion on the pros and cons of marrying within or out of your faith, and applying it to all but not expressing it to others demonstrate an unequal concern for humanity?
or just coming to a conclusion about the discussion on the pros and cons of marrying within or out of your faith, and applying it to all and then expressing it to others demonstrate an unequal concern for humanity?
im talking timeline. what are you talking about?
I think the term “continuity” is the wrong one to use. Firstly, Jews know that we will exist (and Judaism, I would point out) forever. It’s a Divine promise, and has been good for 3,300 years.
The question is therefore NOT whether Jews or Judaism will survive- it’s whether the millions of Jews who are unaffiliated will lose out on the ancient treasure that has been maintained for them.
To the writer- the fact is that intermarriage has a direct correlelation with Jewish identity. It means in a generation or 2, they will no longer be Jews. But again, Judaism and the Jews will be here forever- it’s about those Jews who are disconnected.
Robert writes:
To the writer- the fact is that intermarriage has a direct correlelation with Jewish identity. It means in a generation or 2, they will no longer be Jews.
Assuming you’re not talking about genetic/halachic definitions of “who is a Jew” (since intermarriage has no effect on the number of matrilineal Jews — do the math) but rather self-definition: If being Jewish were more compelling than not being Jewish, intermarriage would actually increase the number of Jews, as more people are brought into the fold. If things more frequently go in the other direction, whose fault is that?
Bz,
just cause read biblical criticism doesn’t mean you can’t have a conversation about the timeline the tanakh presents itself with. Loosen up. Even an anthroplogist does that.
Robert,
good point. But kyleb seems to suggest that your concern for those Jews shows an unequal concern for humanity. Kyleb could you adrress the last question above, thank you.
And Prince of Egypt comes before that!
But Saki (and Eric) – Seriously. Books of the bible that have late elements of language in them are late. Books that know other stories to expound onobviously late (otherwise – how do they know the stories?). (E.g. Esther and Daniel and Ecclesiastes). And just b/c they’re late doesn’t mean they should be thrown out of the canon (compare Deuteronomy and Leviticus). They’re in, and they’re every bit as inspired as the other books (the rabbis tell us so). So it’s not inauthentic. It’s ruach hakodesh that both Ezra and Ruth are in. And its also Ruach hakodesh that tells us that while Ezra tried to send off all the gentile women, Ruth, a MOABITE and a woman, is the great grandmother of king David (a story which miraculously does not even get hinted at during any time in the David cycle in Samuel. hm).
Get it? It’s eilu ve-eilu divrei Elohim Hayyim, yes, But the halacha is like Ruth. (Because she’s later – hilkheta kevatraei: the law is like the later authority.
Robert,
Some won’t, others will. Some intermarried spouses will eventually convert to, and others who without marrying in too.
Saki,
If by “last question” you mean your assumption of my option on Robert’s comments; no, I do not think they demonstrate unequal concern for humanity, and I am at a loss as to how you could have mislead yourself into believing otherwise. If the “last question” are referring to is something else, please restate it.
Kyleb,
sorry for jumping the gun. I think this is a much more reasonable conversation than last time. I could not understand how you felt that “opposing intermarriage is a rejection of the general concept of holding equal concern for all of humanity.” Seems so utterly ridiculous to my thinking and since you seem like a reasonable person I wanted to know where you are coming from – so I could learn something or maybe teach something. I think I have a much better idea, but I still don’t understand precisely what you are taking as evidence of an unequal concern for all humanity. This is where I was up to, one clarification and one question:
1) So your saying that discussing the pros and cons of marrying within or out of your faith, coming to a personal conclusion about the pros and cons for yourself, and acting upon that conclusion does not demonstrate an unequal concern for humanity. But coming to a conclusion about the discussion on the pros and cons of marrying within or out of your faith, and applying that conclusion to all and not just yourself does demonstrate an unequal concern for humanity?
2) In your opinion does coming to a conclusion about the discussion on the pros and cons of marrying within or out of your faith, and applying it to all but not expressing it to others demonstrate an unequal concern for humanity??or just coming to a conclusion about the discussion on the pros and cons of marrying within or out of your faith, and applying it to all and then expressing it to others demonstrate an unequal concern for humanity?
Amit, when did we start learning halachah from Nach? As ingenius and compelling as biblical criticism is it is not science but scholarship. If some one chooses to accept rabbinic scholarship instead you would not be able to call him “false” because there is no clear observable evidence to back either side just linguistic effects and scholarly explanation. So if someone wants to have a conversation framed within the timeline that the tanakh presents itself in, I’m not sure why that should be grounds for ridicule. We don’t need biblical criticism to know Ruth was not part of the David cycle, it’s presented as such in the Tanakh, and its placed in ketuvim (lit “writings”- the later and third part of Tanakh, the hebrew bible) I also don’t understand why you insist Ezra didn’t except converts and Ruth came to counter that, but I am ready to learn. Within the book of Ezra converts where one of the ten recognized social classifications within Israel along with freed slaves of Jews, and Nethinim – the descendants of the Canaanites who served in the Temple. It seems abundantly clear that Ezra would have accepted converts had that been what was going on. The book of ezra makes it clear that it had nothing to do with blood, but in fact the abominations they called Gods.
Saki,
1) Yes, the latter case shows disregard for those who do not share your opinion on the matter.
2) The first less than the latter, but both demonstrate a disregard for others.
Perhaps it would help you understand my position if you though of it from some attentive perspective; imagine we were discussing black nationalists who hold disdain for blacks who marry outside that perceived group.
Anyway, I’m curious as to why you are so interested in my position. Surely you aren’t scoping me out for wedlock? I am single and open to possibilities, but I’ve got the impression you don’t rightly consider me your type.
sorry kyleb, I’ve been happily married for years, and to a convert no less. PLUS I never said I was a woman. We can just be friends! You also seem to be one of the few willing to take the conversation past the initial declaration of opinions, and into some debate. And even though I may not agree with you in the slightest, at least its a breath of fresh air. And I’ll be more careful with whom I quote from now on, and that’s thanks to you.
Now it seems to me that in your opinion, we are not speaking about the world of ideas, in the world of ideas I assume that you would allow free debate and any amount of attempts to change other’s views on life, but that even simply entertaining the idea that my views about any matter should apply to other people’s life choices is, although not a offensive as expressing it, at the very least an unequal concern for humanity. If I am correct in my understanding of your opinion, why should that show an unequal concern for humanity? Maybe my concern is that their life choices should benefit themselves and all humanity?