Arts & Culture
Love and Numbers
By Edgar Bronfman / March 11, 2009
Here are two stories about intermarriage from my own family:
One of my nephews became engaged to a non-Jew. He was born a Jew but knew little about Judaism. When his fiancée decided to convert, he decided to join her in study. Before their marriage there was one uneducated Jew; now there are two who are knowledgeable.
My son Adam, who works alongside me in furthering the Jewish renaissance at The Samuel Bronfman Foundation, married "out" some twenty years ago. Cindy, his wonderful wife, was born Catholic. While she did not convert at the time of their marriage, they decided together to raise their children in a Jewish home. They observe Shabbat every week and have given their four children a strong foundation of Jewish knowledge. After years of active participation in a welcoming Jewish community, Cindy chose to convert to Judaism in 2006. It was a choice she made from the heart, when she was ready. Now they are a family of six engaged Jews.
The Jewish communal fear attached to intermarriage is all about the numbers. The first wave of alarm was set off by the report, in the 1990 National Jewish Population Survey, that over half of Jews were marrying non-Jews, and that in only a third of these cases would the children be raised as Jews. I well remember my own shock at these figures, which suggested that the American Jewish population could be loved out of existence.
But as I began to work in Jewish education at Hillel and elsewhere, I came to see the situation differently. In an open society, people from diverse backgrounds will fall in love. The real numbers problem is not that Jews are falling in love with non-Jews, but that they aren’t falling in love with Judaism.
In the two stories I began with, the numbers work. There is also a common denominator, and that is education. In my book, Hope, Not Fear: A Path to Jewish Renaissance, I argue that trying to prevent intermarriage will only alienate young Jews. If we increase the quantity and depth of Jewish education, we will see an increase in the numbers and commitment of Jews, no matter whom they marry.
One might argue that statistics are more convincing than stories, and that while there are exceptions to the rule, the basic math still applies. My response is that I don’t want to see statistics about intermarried families until I see Jewish communities that welcome them with open hearts and without conditions. If these communities offer a Jewish life that is rich in substance and full of joy, both disengaged Jews and their non-Jewish family members will see the value in making Judaism part of their lives.
POST A COMMENT
If all Judaism is about is being a special ingroup at the expense of acknowledging a shared humanity, well, maybe it isn’t anything worth preserving. Thank goodness for Reform Judaism, because if my 2 choices were Orthodoxy or nothing, I’d rather be a Buddhist. The most important Jewish value should be about being a mensch, religion should lead to a more open heart if it is worth perpetuating. I don’t get what the obsession is about needing both parents to be Jewish in order to be a Jew. I’m Jewish, my kid is Jewish. Period. And the fact that her father is not a Jew has no bearing, doesn’t make her less Jewish than a kid with 2 Jewish parents (even going by your stricter, Halachic interpretation). And she is very involved, at services weekly, proud to be Jewish…but more importantly the values she has been brought up with have made her a good human being. To me that is the important thing, more important than even having a specific Jewish identity. There are frum folks out there (Rubashkins, anyone?) who would shudder at their kid dating a Hindu but who are totally cool with inhumane labor practices that exploit children and undocumented workers. I don’t get that. To me, Judaism is a means to an end (a religion that focuses on ethics, helps to forge decent values) as opposed to an end in and of itself. And Judaism is far from the only faith that can forge a really excellent value system (Buddhism, for example…when was the last time you heard about a Buddhist hurting someone in a religious dispute? What would that even look like? "Meditate now or I’ll make you eat chicken!"?).
But then again, I truly believe that God has no use for sectarianism…and that all these identity politics are of human rather than divine origin.
Shalom!
I must thank you.
Previously, I read Bronfman as saying that the solution to intermarriage is education, because education will prevent intermarriage. That is, the reason Jews intermarry, is that they don’t know enough Judaism to understand why they shouldn’t intermarry. As R’ Kahane put it, if a Jew refuses to marry a gentile for other than religious reasons, this is racism. A (Jewishly) ignorant Jew, who is also not racist, has no choice but to condone intermarriage. Besides teaching anti-gentile racism, the only way for us to prevent intermarriage is to increase Jewish education.
After reading your post, I saw that Bronfman means that education will supplant the concern of intermarriage altogether, because it’ll no longer matter who is technically Jewish and who is not; a Jewishly-educated non-Jewish spouse is just fine.
So, now I’ll disagree with Bronfman. I must thank you, however, for helping me realize this.
Edgar Bronfman continues to be a rational and reasonable voice within Judaism. he’s right; it’s not the fact that people are falling in love with non-Jews, it’s the fact that Jewish values aren’t instilled. education is a powerful tool, but it doesn’t make people immune to falling in love with those of other backgrounds. rather than aiming to prevent intermarriage, the community at large should aim to increase its numbers in other ways besides simply telling the young generation to marry other Jews and procreate.
Actually, since I’ve already broached the topic, I’ll offer some words on the status of the child of intermarriage, who is perhaps not fully Jewish:
Rabbi Marc D. Angel (the rabbi emeritus of Congregation Shearith Israel, the NY Sephardi congregation), following Rabbi Benzion Uziel (the late Sefardi
Chief Rabbi of British-Mandate Palestine) writes (Tradition 1972,
"Another Halakhic Approach to Conversions"), regarding converting (via
an Orthodox conversion) a Jew’s non-Jewish partner, only for the sake
of marriage exclusively:
"Furthermore, it is dangerous to forbid conversion [in the case of a
non-Jewish spouse who is converting only for marriage] since it will
force the Jewish partners of interfaith marriages either to convert to
the other religion or to become defiled by the improper relationship.
Those who have been rejected from the people of Israel have
historically been our worst enemies. We also have an
obligation to the children of these marriages. After all, they are of
Jewish stock (Mizera Yisrael) even if their mother is not Jewish. They
are lost sheep whom we must reclaim for our people. In an emotional
passage, Rabbi Uziel writes: ‘And I fear that if we push them [the
children] away completely by not accepting their parents for
conversion, we shall be brought to judgment and they shall say to us :
”You did not bring back those that were driven away and those who were
lost you did not seek” (Ezekiel 34:4). This chastisement is
far more severe than the chastisement of accepting converts who in all
likelihood will not be observant Jews."
I myself am the son of a Jewish father and a Conservative-converted
mother, and so, once I became Orthodox, this was no longer sufficient
for me to consider myself Jewish, and I converted with the Israeli
rabbinut. But when I look at my mother and brother, I am unable to see
them as anything but Jewish. My mother taught me almost all I know
about Judaism, and it is with my mother and brother (not to mention my
father) that I attended shul, lit Hanuka candles, etc. How can I view
them as non-Jews? My entire Jewish identity is based on what she taught
me, based on her upbringing. If I
deny her part in the Jewish people, I deny my own. (I am crying as I
write this.) My mother wrote to Rabbi Angel about this, and his words of
consolation to her were truly beautiful and inspiring. While he could
not do anything, the halacha being what it is, he said that ultimately,
my mother’s status is between her and G-d, and in the meantime, Rabbi
Angel said it is great to have her be part of the Jewish people,
whatever her precise halachic status may be.
Lilit, I think you’re exactly right.
I’ve never understood how a person can object to teaching Torah to gentiles. After all, if we are to be a "mamlechet kohanim v’goy kadosh" (a kingdom of priests and a holy nation; Exodus 19:5-6) and an "ohr lagoyim" (somewhere in Isaiah…), surely, does this not mean our messages, our teachings, our lessons, our laws, have some relevance to the gentiles?
(Lilit, I recognize that you spoke of children of intermarriage, i.e. half-Jews, or whatever one may call them. Please, do not misunderstand me; I am not equating such a "halfie" with a plain non-Jew, G-d forbid. Here is not the place to determine precisely what a "halfie" is, but surely, that status is not simply that of a gentile, but rather, much closer to that of a Jew. I am speaking of plain gentiles, simply to emphasize my point, and my words apply a fortiori to half-Jews.)
This is not the place to elaborate on the extent to which a non-Jew is able apply the teachings of the Torah to his own life, but suffice it to say, it is no small measure. If one excludes the purely "ritual" laws (which are clearly "cultic" laws uniquely applicable to the "priests" that the Jews are to mankind), one can easily say that the majority of the Torah is at least relevant to the non-Jew, and praiseworthy for him to adopt, even if not obligatory upon him per se.
If the gentile converts to Judaism, wonderful. And if remains a non-Jew, well, he’ll be a better non-Jew than he was before. No matter which way you cut it, the Torah is not irrelevant to him.
Rabbi Benzion Uziel, the late Sefaradi Chief Rabbi of British
Mandate Palestine, put it wonderfully (Hegyonei Uziel, Jerusalem 5714
vol. 2, p. 127, quoted in "Loving Truth and Peace: The Grand Religious
Worldview of Rabbi Benzion Uziel by Rabbi Marc D. Angel" by Dr. Zvi
Zohar (book review), in The Edah Journal, Volume 1:2,
http://www.edah.org/backend/JournalArticle/1_2_zohar.pdf, Accessed
February 21, 2009):
Each country and each nation which respects itself does not and cannot
be satisfied with its narrow boundaries and limited domains; rather,
they desire to bring in all that is good and beautiful, that is helpful
and glorious, to their national [cultural] treasure. And they wish to
give the maximum flow of their own blessings to the [cultural] treasury
of humanity as a whole, and to establish a link of love and friendship
among all nations, for the enrichment of the human storehouse of
intellectual and ethical ideas and for the uncovering of the secrets of
nature. Happy is the country and happy is the nation that can give
itself an accounting of what it has taken in from others; and more
importantly, of what it has given of its own to the repository of all
humanity. Woe unto that country and that nation that encloses itself in
its own four cubits and limits itself to its own narrow boundaries,
lacking anything of its own to contribute [to humanity] and lacking the
tools to receive [cultural contributions] from others.
Now, some tangential matters, not of great importance:
Some will object that the Jewish people are to be a practical example, and teach by practice, not word. Now, there is a tremendous amount of truth to this; one learns far more by watching someone swim than by reading a book about swimming. Pedagogs are well aware of this principle, and it was said by Maimonides long ago, that the heart follows the deeds. Nevertheless, despite the fact that the paramount task of the Jew is to provide a practical example, this need not exclude the power of the word. Should Jews insist on staying out of the public forum, and go out of our way to avoid speaking, just because deed comes before speech? Surely, this would be idiocy.
Some will also object that the Talmud says that a gentile who learns Torah is deserving of death. However, the Talmud also says that a gentile who learns Torah is equal to the High Priest. The Talmud reconciles these two, saying that the former refers to learning laws not relevant to the gentile, while the latter refers to learning laws indeed relevant to the gentile. Now, this is difficult to understand; is the Torah some arcane source which we must jealously guard from the non-Jewish nations, as if we have anything to hide, and let them only learn things that are directly relevant to them per se, and secretively hide anything not directly relevant to them? Surely the truth is according to the 13th century Provencal halakhist, Rabbi Menachem haMeiri. He explains that the Talmud is not speaking of the difference between learning material that is irrelevant and relevant (respectively) to the gentile per se, but rather, it is speaking of the gentile’s intent. That is, if the gentile learns with the intent to apply whatever he learns, he is like one learning laws relevant to a gentile, and he is like the High Priest. On the other hand, if he studies not with the intent to apply what he learns, but rather, he is learning for some ulterior motive (such as to inform on the Jews to the antisemitic authorities, or to use Jewish learning as missionary tools), then he is worthy of death. Professor Ephraim Urbach and Abraham Cohen likewise explains this anti-Christian polemic, when Christianity was trying to displace Judaism, and use Jewish learning to undermine Judaism.
See http://offthederech.blogspot.com/2005/11/hirschs-nineteen-letters-model-of.html and http://offthederech.blogspot.com/2005/11/hirschs-nineteen-letters-model-of_26.html for a disillusioned baal teshuva’s respect for Rav Hirsch, even after he’s stopped being observant.
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!