They were made for each other. The best thing about these scumbags is that they won't have Jewish children and that is what real Jews should be celebrating.

My goodness! Do you people work in shifts,or what?!

Frankly, I was impressed by the willingness of the author to take on Jewish exceptionalism.

I had three questions for him:

1. Do you think that it's fair to draw a direct line from religious texts to the actions of particular individuals, if those texts are not generally acted on in that manner? Obviously, most orthodox do not go off on killing sprees.

2. Don't you think that kosher food or any other religious practices that do no harm to others are "weird" only from a modernist perspective? And that if some of these practices were looked at scientifically, they might have a rationale (say, health) we are just not aware of at present? Would you be open to the idea that there may be more science to so-called superstition than we now suspect.

3. Is there a necessary connection between a hierarchical religion and the killing of outgroups? Or could a perfectly egalitarian belief system lead to as much or more violence?

I am surprised that the talmud gave him no street sense. Either that or his little head likes his wife more than his big head can think. Dude, being modern orthodox means you have to marry in the faith (there is one jewish gay ortho rabbi, but he is a joke) and have jewish kids. That is a priori, buddy, before we even get to strapping tefillin and turning the black berry off on shabbos. If you marry out, you are out, there is no bigger rejection. Eating pork rinds is kidplay. Having a marital relationship with a non-jew, well, you might was well have burnt an artscroll torah at your reunion. I really do not get Noah feldman, he almost seems to have some demon inside him, that somehow he is smart enough to reject and criticize judaism, but not live up to it. It is as if barry bonds said, aw screw it, baseball is an elitist sport with drugged up players and money hungry owners creating an illusion of sport, and for some reason, after saying that, i do not get invited to the hall of fame. I mean, it is not like I am pete rose, or something. Dude, you REJECTED judaism with your most important life decision. Leave and get over it.

I was really disappointed in this interview. You didnt ask any tough questions. It was like a Hadassah meeting of superannuated grandmothers admiring a Hummel figure. I would have asked him why he deliberately misrepresented Jewish medical ethics in a way calculated to provoke anti-semitism. I would have asked him why he opposes an eruv in Tenafly, NJ. I would have asked him why he thinks jihad is over. You claim to be new voices. Yawn

He didn't answer any of the questions. He avoided answering any of the questions directly.

So you didn't get your photo in an Orthodox Jewish high school's newsletter. Cry me a river, build a bridge, and get over yourself.

Look, orthodox Judaism, with its women wearing wigs made of Hindu hair and its dread of mixing linen with wool and the nonsense of eruvs is a pretty nonsensical religion, and most educated Jews know it. It's long past time for us to move on.

Judaism desperately needs a Martin Luther of its own.

--Chaim ibn Amalek

Judaism did have a Martin Luther figure- Anan ben David.
However, the movement he took over, the Karaite movement is today sadly marginal.
They are very Torah true, since they do not accept any divine or quasi-divine status for the Talmud. But, you know what, they interpreted some strictures/ chumrot/ humrot of their own.
My view is that someone should start a mishmash movement, combining the best elements of Karaite and Rabbinic Judaism. Called it Rational Traditional Judaism.

Let's face some facts about "modern" Orthodoxy (I'm a 12-year yeshiva graduate myself): it's an oxymoron. Hasidim don't attempt to blend into the population whereas the modern orthodox clearly do. Modern orthodoxy, in my experience, is the most judgmental of any sect of Judaism and arguably the most hypocritical as they go through a constant schizophrenic struggle to mix orthodoxy with modernity. To their credit, Hasidim and Reform Jews rarely have the same dilemma.

In a world where the former head of one of New York's most well-known co-ed Yeshivas had to face the "scandal" of being gay (hello?? 40-something and unmarried? was the board that hired him that clueless?) and in NJ we find another modern orthodox family that founded a yeshiva one day and then tried setting up a family member with a prostitute on another, I may not "approve" of Noah marrying someone who didn't convert but I certainly admire and applaud his desire to go on the record about his experience. I'd be delighted to know him.

Lila asked some great questions. Here are two likely answers:

1. Do you think that it's fair to draw a direct line from religious texts to the actions of particular individuals, if those texts are not generally acted on in that manner? Obviously, most orthodox do not go off on killing sprees.

Yes. You are ignoring all of the orthodox Jewish suicide bombers.

3. Is there a necessary connection between a hierarchical religion and the killing of outgroups? Or could a perfectly egalitarian belief system lead to as much or more violence?

Yes. Communism was an egalitarian belief system
Communism resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people
Communism was created by Jews raised in a hierarchical religion
Therefore egalitarian belief systems can only lead to more violence if they are created by Jews.

Here's a king, more off the derech than Mr. Feldman, building alters to his wives' gods and goddesses, and no comeuppance. His son inherits his throne (was his son even jewish, are his descendants from his 1,000 wives?)

King David, another intermarrier. Both are exalted in the jewish faith. It's amazing how the fundamentalists overlook their own religious books, however mythical, when trying to impose shtetyl laws of the past.

I post about this on my blog for anyone who doesn't know basic facts of their own religion:

Here:
http://offthederech.blogspot.com/2006/01/if-its-good-enough-for-king-solomon.html

and here:
http://offthederech.blogspot.com/2006/01/king-solomon-wisest-and-most-off.html

It would also be worthwhile to read Baruch Cohen's "David's Secret Demons."

Some of the issues Feldman brings up, including a LOT of the contradictions, are only problems for the American modern orthodox community, and are simply not issues for modern-orthodox living in Israel. 

Intermarriage almost never comes up in modern orthodox communities in Israel-- you'd have to work real hard here to find a non-Jew to marry.  And i've never seen a modern-orthodox or dati-leumi community here exclude a couple because one of them was less religious--as long as both were jewish.

There's no issue of conflicting loyalties, as modern orthodox are the most passionately committed to the state and to the army, even despite the Gaza evacuation. 

I'll bet a lot of money that Feldman, had he been living in Israel rather than America after high school, would never have dated nor married a non-Jew.

Why does intermarriage always have to mean Jews lose out?
Why don't all our Jewish factions including modern Orthodox tell all young Jewish women- you can date any guy you want of any religion, but tell him up front that if the relationship gets serious and is heading toward marriage, I will insist that our kids be raised in the Jewish faith.
The congregations should similarly tell young Jewish men that they can date whichever women they want, but they must tell them up front that if the relationship gets serious, they will have to convert to Judaism.

Actually -

Those questions were intended for Noah Feldman or for anyone with a serious interest in church state questions. I was looking for an orthodox perspective.

Not for provocateurs.

In the same week that Feldman's article appeared, a friend and I were discussing Joey's dialogue with Jack Wertheimer. I was playing with how the article and dialogue related, and I think it has something to do with self-image versus group survival, or limits, or something.

K and F want to feel part of something, and they have every right to do so. To them their Jewish identities are part of a web of influences and experiences that make them who they are. In both cases, one more strongly than the other perhaps, they are confounded by a group that does not accept them for the kind of member they wish to be. And they seem to wish for the group to adjust its boundaries and strategies to embrace them.

But in this case the group -- represented by Wertheimer and Maimonides -- feels that certain definitions for membership are inarguable. They don’t recognize Judaism as an “influence” or a piece in the multipart puzzle that makes members who they are. Instead, it is an essence.  

So whom you agree with depends on your goals. If your goal is the preservation of a group identity, you can’t agree with K or F. But if your goal is to have Judaism inform the way individuals develop into sovereign selves and negotiate with the world, you’ll agree with them.

It’s not parochialism versus universalism. It’s Judaism as a membership society versus Judaism as a philosphy for living. A membership society certainly teaches philosphy, but in the interest of self-preservation and achieving goals defined by the group. A philosphy might foster group affinities, but its ultimate goal is to combine with with experiences and influences that make individuals who or what they are.

Just thinking  out loud here…

Feldman's father was instrumental in having Eiruvim built in a couple of communities.

Meanwhile, Noah Feldman offered his constitutional law services pro bono ($75,000 worth) to assist Tenafly in blocking Frum Jews from having an Eiruv.

Could it be that Feldman's intellectual pontification has more than a little bit to do with settling some old scores with Dad -- and with the Frum Jews he claims so much solidarity with?

I think you nailed it, asc. That's a great distillation of what's going on within these debates. There's much space between the two sides; so many who find the membership society repugnant, and so many who find Judaism-as-philosophy-for-living ludicrous and inauthentic. So, in these terms my argument to Wertheimer was that there was no point in redefining the terms of admission to the membership society, as the Reform movement has done. I don't believe that we'll satisfied with patrilineal succession, or matri/patri, or please-just-find-one-Jewish-relative-anywhere. The schism I was recommending was between those who demand the membership society, and those (like me) who demand the conceptual program. I genuinely don't believe the two groups can be reconciled.

Feldman made his own decisions to didassociate himself from the Orthodox Jewish Community of people but not to disassociate himself from the philosophy. He sits astride both worlds but the worlds are incompatible. He displayed much promise when attending Maimonides School. The cost of his remarkable education was partially borne by the contributions of the Jewish Community and all graduates are expected to add value to the Jewish Community that spawned them. He has done nothing positive for the Jewish Community. I say, leave him alone and perhaps some day he will return to the faith of his Orthodox teachers. But now, his words carry no weight, no insight, and no inspiration. He is an academic success and a Jewish failure. He could have tried to argue his points with some of the learned Rabbis (as does the iconoclast Dr. Marc Shapiro). That would have given him credibility. But instead he went out on his own to publish issues that bothered him to achieve a personal catharsis. Forget him; he had his moment of fame. Let him live in Iraq to assist the Iraqis with their own constitution. They might even accept a Jewish scholar from America.

Dear Mr. Feldman,
I am unclear as to your position Jewishly although I applaud your article. Did your wife convert and/ or are your children being raised as Jews? Obviously you know that there is a major difference in all of Judaism between 'marrying out' and bringing someone in. Your failure to address your personal situation, while revealing many Modern Orthodox inconsistencies, is a glaring omission within this article. First I thought you were very brave to write this, but then I realized that you aren't brave at all, it's easy to write about the flaws of others while hiding behind the veil of mystery about who you are and where you stand. So, Mr. Feldman, if you really want to be courageous, tell us: where do you stand?

So I'll tip my hand here -- I came into a serious Jewish life, as an adult, on the side of Judaism-as-philosophy-for-living. Jewish text and ritual was this amazing set of tools and resources for living the examined life, asking the big questions, finding some big answers. It was the foreground identity that put the background into perspective, and I loved adjusting the focus from tight angles to wide.

 But now that I have kids, and have a front row seat on maybe twenty years of Jewish educational and organizational change, my own perspective has shifted. I don't think I can transmit the "philosophy" without the membership. I'm making "maximilist" choices for my kids (day school, intensely Jewish neighborhood, synagogue-as-center-of-family life) because I don't trust the ideas of Judaism -- as opposed to its lived experience -- to survive unless there are Jewish communities that are committed to living those ideas, as opposed to just talking about them or appreciating them.

I often disagree with Wertheimer (see http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/100506/edcolPeopleWhoNeed.html and http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/062206/edcolPeopleWhoNeed.html and http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/2005/101305/edcolbabybust.html) but in this case I'm on his side.

"I don't trust the ideas of Judaism -- as opposed to its lived experience -- to survive unless there are Jewish communities that are committed to living those ideas, as opposed to just talking about them or appreciating them."

That's one honker of a false dichotomy. There's no need to choose either a Judaism based on inherited membership criteria or a Judaism limited to pleasurable chat. A "philosophy for living" (though "philosophy" is probably too narrow a word here) would ostensibly influence the way one lives, no? No one's arguing that Judaism should be reformulated in a way that leaves it with little relevance to the lived experience of most self-identified Jews. That's the Judaism we've already got.

Joey,

You acuse ACS of presenting a false dichotomy between a "Judaism based on inherited membership criteria or a Judaism limited to pleasurable chat." But ACS position is that there must be a community for Judaism to be full expressed and transmitted. He said nothing about how that community defines itself.

So, in these terms my argument to Wertheimer was that there was no point in redefining the terms of admission to the membership society, as the Reform movement has done. I don't believe that we'll satisfied with patrilineal succession, or matri/patri, or please-just-find-one-Jewish-relative-anywhere.

This brings me back to my original question to you during your dialogue with Wertheimer. Why do you dismiss the Reform/Reconstructionist project to redefine the terms of admission to the Jewish people (e.g. "membership society") to anyone of Jewish parentage who self-identifies or anyone else who choses to self-identify through a less restrictive conversion process? While you still have a "membership society", it most certainly not based on inherited membership criteria, but rather by a commitment to engage the Jewish tradition and live a Jewish life.

And no we don't work in shifts.

Everyone who has participated in this discussion has made some good points. My basic question to Feldman is: what did he expect? Imagine for a moment a priest who announced that he was marrying being upset that his church did not include his personal announcements in their newsletter; or an Islamic leader who married a Jew being disappointed that his successes were not highlighted by his community... come on, it is common sense to "understand" that these communities are acting naturally. The real question for Feldman, for whom religion is so very important, is how he could marry someone who was a member of any other religion. It would obviously be a different story if his wife had converted or, alternatively, if religion was simply unimportant to him.

I think the root of this lies in very simple dilemma.
If one accepts Talmud as God-given "Oral Torah", as in Rabbinical Judaism, - then one has no problems with any Orthodox maximalisms. But then one has to make peace with all the anti-Gentile and anti-Christian hate that Talmud include.

If one, like myself, follow the Karaite doctrine and rejects Talmud as God-given Law and accepts Karaite tradition of a personal right to interpret the Torah (Old Testament), one is not obligated to accept parts of Talmud that can be quite outrageous and see it as just an ancient historic document. One, BTW can be quite orthodox within Karaite doctrine or quite liberal. Like Protestantism vs. Catholicism, it allows (but not obligates) all degrees or piety.

Mr. Friedman appears to hang in-between by not accepting some Talmudic directions that his conscience rebel against, but not denying Talmud its divine origin.
That half-position is very weak, funny and indefensible. One cannot say, effectively, that some God laws are good and some are bad. If Talmud is God-given its ALL God-given. And vice versa.

Cool, a Jewcy Karaite! I dig it!

mhpine, perhaps I misinterpreted what asc wrote. He says that he doesn't believe Judaism can "survive unless there are Jewish communities that are committed to living those ideas, as opposed to just talking about them or appreciating them," and that he agrees with Wertheimer in this respect and has made "maximalist" choices including an "intensely Jewish" community. I read all that as a rejection of his youthful view of Judaism-as-philosophy, which he now views as so much feckless "talking and appreciating," rather than as just a simple vote for the importance of community. Otherwise, why wouldn't he have simply sought out a community that shared his initial understanding of Judaism?

I did see your original question, and it was one that stuck out to me as requiring an answer, and so I made a mental note to sort out my thoughts on the matter. Mental notes are great for that. So inevitably, here I am, still needing to think about this further, but for now I'll just give you my half-digested take. 

Less restrictive membership is a good thing. I was wrong to say above that there is "no point" in the Reform movement's efforts in that area. Recognizing patrilineal succession is good, as is a simplified conversion process. It's not that there's no point, but that I don't think it represents a longterm fix. Ultimately, there is still a definition of Jewishness that's usually rooted in ancestry, and the same insufferable, tiresome question of "Who is a Jew?" remains present, not least in the fretting about how far to bend. To take some random examples from my very limited experience with the Reform movement: A Reform synagogue maintains a friendly policy to non-Jewish spouses and family...but then a Jewish member wants the rabbi to marry her and her boyfriend. He's not Jewish. Is this where we draw the line? And then a new couple arrives at the synagogue. They're lovely and they know their way around a siddur. Turns out the woman's not Jewish. So what, we're fine with that. Her husband's not Jewish either. They're both Christian, with no interest in converting. Is this where we draw the line? No, let them stay. But what if they want to be members? Is that where we draw the line? What if they want to lead services? Is that where we draw the line? A Jewish couple is getting married. His best friend is not Jewish--a  Japanese-American Buddhist!--but has been at so many Jewish dinners that he knows the ha-motzi by heart...the groom wants his Japanese Buddhist non-Jew friend to cut the bread and say the ha-motzi at a Jewish wedding! Is this where we draw the line?

In most of those cases they did draw the line, and said no. But enough already. There's no amount of bending that will put an end to these tiresome, poisonous debates. Just forget about the boundaries and build a Judaism strong enough to survive without them.

why doesnt he save himself and all of us agony by converting to Islam? That might make his Iraqi constitution more acceptable, and even a better way of poking the eyes of the Jews he hates. Perhaps he could have a dialog with Adam (Pearlman) Gadahn, another notable byproduct of conception from an intermarriage who has made his mom proud by running al Qaeda's al sahab media outlet

Why our dear rabbinical orthodox friends here cannot just address the issues instead of spewing childish hate? Why, as people so well educated in the subject, you cannot just argue your points as intelligent scholars you suppose to be?
And another thing - what are you afraid of so that you hide behind anonymity or some ridiculous nicks?
What is wrong by having your real name attached to your views?

Kudos for pointing out a fundamental truth about Modern Orthodoxy, which is what drove me away from Modern Orthodox communities: "Modern orthodoxy, in my experience, is...arguably the most hypocritical as they go through a constant schizophrenic struggle to mix orthodoxy with modernity. To their credit, Hasidim and Reform Jews rarely have the same dilemma."

But why would you want to get to know Feldman on the basis of his article? Clearly, the man can't let go. AND: from his bio, it is obvious that the prestige bug, which is a Modern Orthodox illness, has infected him from an early age as well, all the way into adulthood. Furthermore, like most Modern Orthodox, he's a hypocrite: look at some of the b'rachot in birchat hamazon and imagine Feldman saying them with a straight face at the conclusion of a dinner with wife and children.

chabad more inclusive? actually if you read thew writings of chabad, you'd find them to be the most racist, xenophobic, ultra-nationalistic then any other jewish group today, with a theology that says, there's a racial superiority of the jew, over the non-jew, and that non-jewish souls are from evil, and that they incapabale of doing any good, and that any thing good, that a non jew does do, he does it for his own honor. That's from the Tanya, lubavitch's holy book. in a "medicinal book" put out by chabad, called" Healthy in Body, Mind & Spirit" they print out a letter, of the last lubavitch rebbe, writing that not only do jews have a superior soul, but that they also have healthier and superior bodies...

most people are ignorant of this, but if wanna get rid of this kinda xenophobic hatred, start with chabad.

It's a very real dichotomy, Joey, much as we would like it not to be.  Judaism not lived in a coherent shared-community way simply does not last, however beautiful and inclusive and universal that version of Judaism (Reform, Reconstructionist, Renewal, etc.) might be. 

That's what ASC and others have realized through the hard work of raising kids, of seeing through the real challenge of passing on Judaism to one's children.  Assimilation is genuinely an avalanche among non-orthodox Jews in America, Canada, France, England, Australia, South Africa.  Forms of Judaism that don't make those exclusive communities and forbid or limit intermarriage, simply aren't surviving.  It's not that there's anything wrong with them per se-- it's just that over generations, they provably don't last.  There might be some other way to redefine Judaism that isn't Orthodox, yet is strong and preserves Jewish identity, but none of us know what that way is yet.

As far as alleged xenophobia, etc. in Torah and talmud sources, it's easy to point fingers, but it's important to remember context.  Most actual Torah-Neviim-Kethuvim prohibitions on goyim are only referring to specific nations who had particularly dangerous forms of 'avoda zara' or unique enmity with am yisrael; the prohibitions did NOT extend to all nations.  In Talmud times up to the present, one must keep in mind the context-- of Jews being an embattled and persecuted minority, whose experience of the surrounding Christians and Muslims was overwhelming negative.  One need not throw the baby out with the bathwater: to recognize Jews' status in the world today as not needing the kind of anti-goyishe attitude that once was needed, is not to say that Talmud is worthless or bigoted.  It's not and wasn't.

Joey -

I'll be brief - you guys are a very educated crowd and can catch things "on the fly".

I was not born into  Karaism, I came to accept it's principles as exactly the remedy for what most of your readers are struggling with - you call it a dichotomy between Orthodoxy and "modernism", which is a bit elusive, I call it the dichotomy between Orthodoxy and HUMANISM.

In Karaism, by denying Talmud its God-given status one not at all throws the Talmud away, far from it - but one does not need to follow it at THE Law, to the last comma and interpretation. 

Imagine for a moment that US Constutution, a document that most of the people on the planet consider one of the highest achievements of human spirit, is declared God-given, not unlike the Talmud. Lets see...

First Rabbi Bush will tell us that "All men created equal" means only that all AMERICANS are created equal and so Guantanamo is fine, these people are foreigners. Well, isn't it the same as Talmudic interpretation that "Do not murder" means "Do not murder a fellow Jew"? 

Second, Rabbi Cheney will tell us that "pursuit of happiness" means a right to beg a torturer to skip an electric shock up your ass while he water-board you. If you think such a relief is not enough to be considered happiness, you were, probably,  never tortured. 

And so on - you got my whiff.

Just declaring US Constitution God-given, immediately opens a quick possibility to convert it into a monster. 

Another feature of Karaism is to allow to interpret the Pentateuch. It does not mean that it supports any interpretation, but its your responsibility to interpret and argue the interpretation with your conscience.  If you tend to agree with Talmudic interpretation - so be it for you, if not - not. Just take a moment and think about this!

Karaitic interpretation opens a way to be truly Jewish in the truly Biblical sense  AND truly scholarly in Talmudic sense, without accepting the racist and the ridiculous. But how "legal" is it? Well, all you give up is accepting a document that was written by people (nobody argues that) as a God-given. I am sure this point can be argued pro and con by much better Jewish scholars than yours truly. One finds the answer for oneself in one's own heart and by one's own scholarly examination.

Aint it gorgeous?

That's exactly right. I've come to the same conclusion.
Let's start our own schism!
Seriously!

If you read Noah's piece and Shalom Auslander's upcoming book "Foreskin's Lament," you will find two people who rejected Orthodox practice but still are struggling with the implications of that decision.

Both pieces point to the challenge facing Modern Orthodox Jewish educators in creating a way to be open to society yet true to a centuries' old tradition. This is not a new problem, but one that is more challenging today because of the freedoms afforded us in this country, which are unprecedented historically. Today there are no barriers to participation for Jews in this country.

Each of the posters on this blog have their own opinion, but it ultimately boils down to the future of Judaism in this country. Whether one is Orthodox, Conservative or Reform, we have to grapple with how can Judaism be taught to the next generation, so that they embrace it, if we believe it should continue.

As a non-religious modern Zionist admitted "You can jump over another piece in chess, but just don't call it chess."

Is Feldman part of the New York Times cabal has consistently disparaged Orthodox Judaism over the last 30 years? When did you last find an article by Jew or gentile that has shown Orthodox Judaism in a positive light? Usually it's about some small cult or break-off group rather than authentic Judaism.

Printing Feldman's article is as if the Times printed an article by Benedict Arnold complaining that the United States has refused to allow him to lve in the USA.

After 12 years of learning Judaism did he not have an inkling that intermarriage is worse than the three cardinal sins you must give you life for; idolatry, adultery and murder? We can accept a Jew who has committed those three sins, but Feldman has excluded himself from the Jewish nation yet he still wants to be accepted.

Well, then, let him do so by choosing to separate from his gentile wife instead of separating himself from his nation.

It's tragic that Judaism has people like him who cannot understand that successfully living in the gentile world means keeping the Torah 100% while doing so. That is why when we bless our sons on Shabbos we say they should be like Ephraim and Menashe; they were the first children who were born in exile while remaining 100% true to Torah.

Joey,

         Thanks for providing me with a response, even if you had preferred to chew your cud a bit while longer on the issue.  I confess, however, that I still don't have a clear understanding of what your proposed conceptual community or boundary free Judaism would actually entail in the real world.  I think you need to flesh this out more fully in a blog post, but in the risk of veering this discussion too far off topic, I am skeptical about the prospects for success for such a conceptual community. 

         First, I would note that even the most inclusive of communities need, and have, boundaries.  America is about as inclusive as a community can be.  However, only citizens can vote.  Tourists - even those who love baseball, apple pie and the Bill of Rights - can not.  If you want to participate fully in American civilization, you have to make a decision to join the membership group.  Why it should be any less so for a small, minority civilization like Judaism is unclear to me.

          Second, even if you remove the bounds of peoplehood, you will still have boundary issues.  What if the nice Christian couple, now sitting on the religious affairs committee of the boundary-free shul wants to include a reading from Luke into the service?  What if the Buddhist friend wants to tack on his own faith's prayer of grace with his perfected motzi?   How is the resulting product going to be recognizably Judaism, let alone a Judaism that can be passed on to the next generation?

           Drawing boundaries is not a pleasant task, but its one all communities of meaning must ultimately do.  The best that can be hoped for is that those boundaries are drawn based on principles, not prejudice.

To Michael Antebi:

Having so many sects and movements over the ages claiming to be "autentic Judaism" makes your point, well... pointless. Orthodox Jews at some time regarded Hasidim as non-Jews. Inside Orthodox Judaism at the beginning of the century Zionist Rabbis were considered anathema and nowadays Orthodox purists like Neturei Karta is called a sect. Marrying a non-Jew may be enough for a certain sect at a certain time to exclude the member from the its community, but nobody can exclude anyone from his people unless he does it in his heart. Jewish history gives us a pretty good idea that we never were as monolithic as some would like us to believe. There were always sects, movements and religious dissent. So the very claim of "authentic Judaism" is just a naive self-delusion.

Speaking of authentic, if there is such a thing that we can (sadly) call authentically Jewish it is that exact readiness to accuse and indite a fellow Jew for anything he does, that we, in our shteitl, did differently. That is why HaShem called us "stiffnecked". And it was NOT a compliment.

Rebecca Friedman asked Noah Feldman why he published his article in the New York Times Magazine section for his article, and asked "What relevance do you hope it will have to not-specifically-Jewish readers?"
This is an extremely naive question. Based on the research which shows that 50% of self-identified college students have one born Jewish parent, and that other studies show that only somewhere around 50% of Jews affiliate, one can only assume that many of these students, their parents, and many other Jews are not exposed to or reading Jewish press. This article would not reach at least 50% of the Jews who might find it interesting and thought-provoking.

If Jews persist in only writing to each other in Jewish press, then we are ignoring a large percentage of the Jewish people, and not letting them know of the vibrant Jewish world that exists beyond their narrow Sunday school upbringing.

The idea would be to live a Jewish life both in and out of the house. Easier said then done, but by automatically denying your children to be Jewish the author has chosen to help destroy Judaism and leave it both out of the house and out of his life...

Who put that crazy idea in these people that a Jew must be  a rank and file soldier of one particular interpretation of Judaism (his)? And why are these people so cowardly anonymous?  Well, may be we shouldn't be surprised - one may not want to put his name below these idiotic remarks.

Noah,s children, BTW, are Jewish, if they choose to be, and they do not need anyone's approval for that. Shish! If they decide to go Orthodox and the fact that their mother was not Jewish would be significant for them, they can chose to go through giyur and be Jewish "that way" if they decide so. Why so much venom? Oh, I may know why. Once I heard from a never-happy-Yiddishe mother that her never-smiling, morbidly over-mothered and severely obese daughter would certainly find herself a husband if "these shiksas" wouldn't steal them from her. What a defender of Judaism! My soft advice that her daughter needs to learn how to smile and take care of herself was met with dramatic puffs and huffs from the mother while the young one downed another two pastries.

If Noah raise honest, educated, healthy, kind and compassionate children, I say he would do more for Judaism than all the eugenic Jewish racists taken together.

The reason American Jews are leaving Judaism is because they don't even know what it is. They need Orthodox Judaism 101 to begin with. The growth in Orthodox Judaism has been phenomenal all over the world and there are thousands of books in English from Orthodox publishing companies like Art Scroll, Feldheim, Maznaim, etc., for those who wish to enlighten themselves.
Through the centuries all of those Jewish breakaway sects—some very large and powerful at times—usually disappeared or assimilated into the gentile world as is happening especially with Reform (some congregations are mostly gentiles as reported a few years ago in the New York Times magazine).
This straw man argument that Orthodox Judaism does not allow pluralism is used by Conservative and Reform Judaism (which become more similar year-by-year). 
All forms of Orthodoxy (Hasidic, Litvak, Sephardic, Neturai Karta, etc.) may have variance of customs, and possible arguments with each other as families usually have, but all agree on the authenticity of both the Written and Oral Torah as given on Mt. Sinai by God. They all agree on the keeping of Shabbat as an acknowledgment of a Creator and they all keep the halachic laws of not doing work, lighting candles, eating three meals with the family, not riding in a car, etc. 
The children of a woman who marries a gentile are always Jewish; the children of a gentiles are always gentile. The excluding of a member of our club (which is open to gentiles as well) only happens because they marry unconverted gentiles.
Feldman wishes to have it both ways. As much as they may debate many parts of halacha, no kind of Orthodox practice accepts intermarriage as they have not done since Mt. Sinai. Any Jew who violates that prohibition and cast his lot with non-Jews will eventually, as per the "enlightened" Moses Mendelson, and the NYT Sulzberger family (who are Episcopalians) see his children or grandchildren assimilated into the non-Jewish world. Unfortunately many Jews were lost in this manner and will continue to be lost unless they realize that full committment to Torah and halacha is necessary in living as a practicing Jew.

People were friendly to Feldman's face at the event; the rejection he received was in the photo in the newsletter. Photoshop spared the crowd from having to reject a classmate directly. They got the pleasure of his company without the confrontation; I can see why he was surprised. That's what struck me as weaselly about the whole incident: If you're going to shun someone based on unacceptable behavior, go ahead and do it in actual life, not just in the record of your life.

Michael Antebi:

Dear Michael,

With all due respect I question your first assertion that "American Jews are leaving Judaism is because they don't even know what it is". I think its just the opposite - American Jews KNOW WELL what it is and find it difficult to be associated with SOME of its outrageous corners. This impossibility to reconcile the openly racist, aggressive, intolerant views of Talmud with HUMANITY, is the key here. People are fair in their core and they do see that what we DEMAND as fairness and equality for ourselves, we fail to GIVE BACK, as Jews, if we follow the certain Talmudic laws. As a Jew who was born and raised in USSR, I had little problem with Talmud, because of the Brezhnev times state anti-Semitism that made me angry and vigilant and it was easy for me to accept Talmudic "master race" core or half-close my eyes on it. But after years of living in America my anger disappeared and my sense of fairness made me look at Talmud with different eyes.

Do not get me wrong, I have no problem with us being "choosen" by Almighty as his servant nation and as His favorite nation. But that's between Him and us, not between us and "them". And Talmud puts us above "them" and American Jews know that and again - it goes against their sense of fairness and justice for which they, themselves, just recently fought so vigorously during Civil Liberties Movement times.

Respectfully,

Alex Chaihorsky

Reno, Nevada. 

@Gilanah Shoshanah: It's not just weasely, it's that they did PRECISELY what they are accusing him of but on a much more personal and crueler level --- by not being direct, they are trying to have it both ways -- the benefits of his company when it's convenient to them but only on their terms. He calls it an example of a paradox, I call it immoral because they are acting out a lie.

As the subject line indicates, I'm a Gentile. But I am from homogenous ethnic group that is not welcoming of anything outside the bloodline/clan (b/c our group traces everyone by clan) and I've married out. I also am a fairly new parent making decisions about how to shape my young child's identity even as there are people who share his background who will hate him simply b/c he's not "100%". So when read this article, I didn't interpret as a man trying to make sense of what he learned and his identity, I took it as a parent trying to protect his kids by playing offense. And I applaud that.

Feldman isn't even a Rabbi yet Rabbi Blech acts as if his actions reflect the entire orthodox community. Following by this example, all of orthodoxy should be labeled as "extreme religious fanatics" for banning Slifkin's books even though many reject the banning. And all of Orthodoxy should support separate sidewalks for men and women, accept that the Rebbe is the messiah, etc. The actions of one man does not reflect an entire community. Rabbi Blech should not slander the MO community this way from one's man's actions when he wouldn't want the entire orthodox community slandered this way, love your fellow as yourself. Sadly this article appears, just days after Tisha B'av. Speak out against Feldman but leave the modern orthodox community alone. Do a search for "modern orthodox" and "Noah Feldman" in google (with the quotations). Look at the first search result listed. Mine currently reads 'osewalrus'. He apparently considers himself Modern Orthodox, went to the same Yeshiva as Feldman yet SPEAKS OUT AGAINST HIM. He criticises what Noah says. He calls himself modern orthodox. Don't bash Jews without cause, especially when many Modern Ort