Shvitz Search
Contribute
Featured Book
Featured Album
DAILY SHVITZ
| The Noah Feldman Debate Just Won’t Die | |
 by Izzy Grinspan, October 22, 2007
|
|
TAGS:
Vive la difference: The event flier
Last Thursday night, NYU hosted a debate between Birthright
Israel founder Michael Steinhardt, rabbi and TV personality Shmuley Boteach,
and law professor Noah Feldman on the question “Are Jews different?” But as commenter agenious put it over in the Noah Feldman thread, what took place wasn’t really a
debate. (I suspect agenius and I
don’t agree on much, but we’re together on that.) It was more like a chance for three very different Jews to
air their beliefs about Judaism, followed by a mini-drubbing of Noah Feldman by
the NYU audience.
Rabbi Shmuley, who spoke first, testified to the virtues of Torah-based Jewish values. I can't top Jewlicious's hilarious description, so I'm just going to quote it: "Shmuley Boteach is, and I do not exaggerate, an evangelical Protestant minister with a beard and hand gestures." The girl sitting next to me, wearing a sensible skirt and loafers that I can only describe as tsniut, leaned over and whispered “Isn’t he great? I was at his house for dinner last Shabbat.”
Michael Steinhardt, up next, argued that Jewish values are indeed worthy, but not because of the Torah. He believes that Jews developed a series of core values over the centuries: education, tzedakah, belief in the here and now, a beneficial sense of outsiderness, a strong sense of group responsibility, and an ability to succeed any society based on individualism and meritocracy. These six values make Jews special, he explained, so we can really scrap the rest, including the Torah. At this most of the crowd gasped, and the NYU freshman in front of me put down her Sidekick and reapplied her lip gloss.
Noah Feldman: Dapper!
Noah Feldman was up next. (“He’s so cute!” said my new
Orthodox friend. She was
right—if Tiger Beat made pin-up posters of Jewish intellectuals, he’d be
their best seller.) He put forth a
third opinion: There’s no point in preserving Jewish values if they’re not
worth saving. Rather than argue
about how best to sell them to the 12 million unaffiliated Jews of the world,
we should be examining them critically, to see what good they do. “We are not in the business of
preservation for its own sake,” he said, “at least we ought not to be.”
To me, this makes perfect sense. I should reveal my biases: I’m one of those 12 million unaffiliated Jews. My family belongs to a Reform synagogue which I attend twice a year on the high holidays because, like a lot of Jewish girls, I’m fairly close with my parents. I had a Bat Mitzvah the year My So-Called Life debuted; the latter had a much greater influence on my adolescence. I’ve tried Shabbat on occasion and I basically enjoy it, but I enjoy bacon-wrapped shrimp too. My mind is open: I’m curious about Judaism and I think about it constantly. But nothing has ever successfully convinced me that a life of Jewish observance would be better than my current secular existence.
Both Shmuley and Steinhardt, it seemed to me, were preaching to the converted—or the unconverted, I suppose, in Steinhardt’s case. Shmuley’s points seemed tautological: The Torah is great because it’s great. Steinhardt seemed to be participating in a different discussion altogether; he was essentially arguing for a re-definition of “unaffiliated,” since the Jewish values on his list don’t require any kind of behavior change for most of us prodigal types. Only Feldman took the conversation away from describing Judaism and towards engaging with it.
The Jewish community's best mustache: SteinhardtI may have been the only unaffiliated Jew in the audience,
though, because everyone seemed less interested in discussing Judaism’s role in
contemporary society than in Noah Feldman’s family life. The moderator started the pile-on by
asking a spectacularly wimpy question about a legal case Feldman had handled
between two different members of the Jewish community. At the time, Feldman had said it was a
shame this intra-Jewish conflict couldn’t be resolved without bringing in the
Federal government. “So,” asked
the moderator, “when is it appropriate to bring inside Jewish issues to the
outside world?”
“Nothing is ‘inside’ anymore,” Feldman replied. If you’re proud of your community, you should be public about what takes place there. Also, he added, it was pretty obvious that the real issue at stake wasn’t the intra-Jewish legal case he’d handled a few years ago; it was his infamous New York Times article.
An effusive 2004 NYU grad stood up to gush about Birthright. He said he’d been to the recent reunion, and the whole room burst into applause—I guess a lot of people had been there. On the bus on the way up to the Steinhardt estate, he’d been struck by what he described as a spiritual experience: a sudden, overwhelming certainty that someday he would have his own kids, and Birthright would send them to Israel too. “You’re doing a good job,” he concluded to Steinhardt, “and it’s working.”
Then he turned to Feldman. “My question is for you. How are you going to raise your children?”
“Ooooooooooh,” said everyone in the room. This was the Jewish equivalent of smacking your dueling partner with a silk-lined glove.
Feldman replied that of course he was raising his kids Jewish—it’s a part of who he is. But he’s also raising them in his wife’s tradition.
Preach on: Rev ShmuleyThe girl next to me chose this moment to whisper that she
has a friend who thinks it’s evil to raise as Jewish the children of a
non-Jewish mother, because when they turn 18 they’ll find out that they’re not
real Jews. “Can’t they convert?” I
asked her. Just like that, our
friendship ended.
Agenius wonders why Feldman wants to be accepted by his community. He’s a success in every other aspect of his life—Shmuley compared him to Einstein, another intermarried Jew who did his people proud—so why does he want to be a star among Jews, too?
This question may have been intended rhetorically, but it’s a good one. Why would someone embrace both Judaism and a non-Jewish spouse? Perhaps because, for most of us, Judaism is only once facet of our fractured 21st-century personalities. We’re not used to swearing total allegiance to any single identity, and we see no reason to join organizations that ask us to give up every other part of our selves. That’s why unaffiliated Jews don’t show up to debates about Jewish values—because they’ve come to believe that you can’t engage curiously with Judaism without becoming a Super-Jew. (I see this all the time as a Jewcy editor recruiting writers; I ask them if they want to participate in a professional relationship with the magazine, and they react as if I’m trying to get them join a cult.) Of course it’s risky to ask secular Jews to participate in honest discussions about Judaism; they might discover that they don’t like it. But to me it seems like a worthwhile pursuit – much more useful than fretting about Noah Feldman’s personal life.
* * *Past Jewcy coverage of Noah Feldman:
Q&A with the Author of "Orthodox Paradox"
JTA Misses the Point on Feldman
The Rules of Engagement
The Feldman Flare-Up
 |
Izzy Grinspan is Jewcy's ex-managing editor. Her work has been published in Salon, The Believer, and The Village Voice. More... |
Author Douglas Rushkoff and Rabbi Andy Bachman debate God's place...
And prostitution need not contradict Jewish beliefs
An idiosyncratic novelist and an ex-John Edwards blogger become...
The Esquire writer talks about his year of living Biblically
Woody Allen’s late films are more autobiographical than you’d...
| Dev Blog | Privacy | Submissions | Contact | |  | | Comment Policy | About Us | FAQ | Masthead |
| Hosting provided by Tilted Planet | ||
zbird
I wish I was there... or not
I think this could have been a fantastic and eye-opening talk if the room had been filled with people asking the kind of questions Izzy raised. But considering the crowd that she described, I'm glad I missed it.
--Z
Anonymous
That's a very interesting
That's a very interesting point about Judaism expecting or demanding a disengagement from other elements of one's fractured identity. I wonder how many Orthodox people have given it thought?
I was raised in the yeshiva system and am living an Orthodox life, but there are many aspects of my personality that don't jibe with Orthodoxy. Does that mean I'm a complex individual, or does it mean I'm imperfect and must improve?
You decide.
zbird
the devil's in the details, anon....
You say: "there are many aspects of my personality that don't jibe with Orthodoxy"
Well, if the "aspect of your personality" that doesn't jibe with orthodoxy is, say an aversion to legal/talmudic discussion, I'd say you can't argue with taste.
On the other hand, if you're talking about the occasional cannibalistic impulse, I'd say you must improve (and see a shrink!).
--Z
Anonymous
Noah Feldman
Actually he looks like a dork.
Jonathan
Scope of orthodoxy
Annon at 5:44, I'm curious what aspects don't jibe with orthodoxy. Do you mean issues that are clearly halachic under any orthodox definition or do you mean issues that are cultural under some orthodox definitions? (E.g., are you talking about whether watching baseball is really shtuss or something less serious?)
Charles Kaplan
A woman who resided in
A woman who resided in Gush Katif and was expelled from her home as part of the disengagement has been diagnosed with inoperable brain cancer that is spread all over. She is on chemo and radiation, but Kupat Cholim only authorizes one or the other, not both at the same time! Each pill that she takes costs 700 shekel, and they are taken daily throughout the course of treatment. In the US, checks can be made out to Chevra Anshai Toras Chesed with a note enclosed specifying it is for the cancer patient from GK and mailed to Moshe Schilit, 413 Grand St. Apt. F-204, New York, N.Y. 10002. Tizku lemitzvos
Anonymous
Not jibing
Jonathan and Zbird - I mean both.
I'm not a cannibal. And I can study talmud with the best (or the upper-middle-best) of them. But I love 'secular' culture and liberal politics and I find fundamentalism of any stripe abhorrent. So I'm not a good 'frummy.'
I enjoy spending time with gentile friends far more than I do spending time with Jewish ones, for example. So I'm conflicted, is all.
Chaim Richman
I cant believe all of
I cant believe all of you are engaged in the writings of an insignificant former Jew, noah feldman, when the Temple Mount is being ravaged
jarbise@emory.edu)'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status='';"> DO-NOT-REPLY@templeinstitute.org)'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status='';">DO-NOT-REPLY@templeinstitute.org)'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status='';">
"Avraham was one."
(Ezekiel 33:24)
Mar Cheshvan 11, 5768/October 23, 2007
This past week's Torah reading, parashat Lech Lecha (Genesis 12:1-17:27), relates to us the story of Abraham.
Avraham avinu - our patriarch Abraham - was the world's first Jew, the world's first monotheist, and the world's first activist on behalf of the one true G-d, Creator of the heavens and the earth. We are taught by our sages that we should seek to emulate Avraham. But is this truly sound advice?
Should Avraham have destroyed his father's idols, thus proving the falseness of the prevailing cult of idol worship, or should he have adhered to the "politically correct" doctrine of his day?
Should Avraham have openly defied the tyrant Nimrod, who, enraged by his icon smashing antics, had him thrown into the fiery furnace, or should Avraham have accepted "majority rule" and publicly denounced his own actions?
Should Avraham have left the financial comfort of his own society, the political security of the land of his birth, and the cozy social status of his father's house, only to venture out to an unknown destination?
Should Avraham have pushed the limits of his own intellect in trying to discover the one power which guides all creation, or should he have swallowed, hook, line, and sinker, the prevailing dogmas taught by the finest professors in the most prestigious universities?
Should Avraham and Sara have shared with all who were thirsty for truth their new found knowledge that there is one G-d Who rules all creation, or should they have bowed to the spirit of "pluralism," and remained silent out of respect for "multiculturalism"?
When Avraham arrived in the city of Shechem, should he have "built there an altar to HaShem" ( Genesis 12:7), or should he have kept a low profile, so as not to offend the locals?
When G-d said to Avraham, "to your seed will I give this land" (ibid), should he have politely declined, noting that the land was already occupied by other nations?
Should Avraham have entered the war of the "four kings against the five," (ibid 14:9), or should he kept to himself, the nations be damned?
Should Avraham have crossed "international borders" and defied the "international rules of law" in pursuit of freeing his captured nephew, Lot, or should he have pleaded to the nations to intervene on his behalf, perhaps attaining a sign of life?
Should Avraham have undertaken G-d's command to circumcise himself and all males "born in your house" (ibid 17:13), or should he have demurred from this "barbaric" practice, aimed at separating himself from the family of nations?
Should Avraham have laughed with delight when G-d promised him and Sara, already an elderly couple, a son, or should he have insisted that it was medically too risky, and therefore unacceptable?
Should Avraham have challenged G-d's declared intention to destroy the city of Sodom, the righteous alongside the evildoers, or should he have denied his own responsibility as a partner in the tikkun - rectification - of G-d's world? Or should Avraham have, in the name of "humanism" and "moral equivalency," denounced G-d and His intentions altogether?
Should Avraham have risen early in the morning, saddled his ass, and brought his son, his and Sara's only son, the son he so loved, Yitzchak, "'to the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will show you'" (ibid 22:2), or should he have said, "there is a limit to commitment; nothing is worth risking a life for; I'm heading back home to Ur."
If Avraham had played by the rules, and stayed at home, abandoned his dreams and accepted as a fact of life the futility of making a difference, his name would have never been recorded. If Avraham had remained Avram, the world today would be indescribably impoverished.
Being a "friend of G-d" as Avraham is described by our sages, entails taking risks. The prophet Yechezkel - Ezekiel - tells us, "Avraham was one." (Ezekiel 33:24) An individual, unique. We attach ourselves to the One G-d through our own oneness. Yes, we should strive to emulate the proper role models, and yes, we should always seek the guidance of those whose knowledge is greater than ours. But like Avraham, we must not allow ourselves to be boxed in by the current trends; we mustn't be cowed by the latest "truths." Unless we are willing to become bricks baked in Nimrod's oven, to be placed in someone else's edifice of self aggrandizement and complacency, characteristics which drive G-d from this world, we must strive to be alive, alive to G-d's truth, clinging always to Him.
This past week, on the 842nd anniversary of the great Maimonides', (Rambam), ascent to the Temple Mount, history was made. A group of G-d fearing Jews, in the face of the prevailing rules which oppressively forbid Jewish worship in this the holiest place in all creation, managed to perform the sacred ceremony of birkat kohanim - the priestly blessing, as described in Numbers 6:24. Risks were taken in doing so. Small considerations were overcome by greater ideals. This is how we move forward in the service of G-d. This is how we build the house of HaShem.
Join Rabbi Chaim Richman and Yitzchak Reuven on this week's Temple Talk, as they discuss last Thursday's history making ascent to the Temple Mount, the remarkable journey of Avraham avinu - our patriarch Abraham, the pressing need to make ourselves more knowledgeable and less ignorant about the mitzva of morat hamikdash - "reverence for the Holy Temple," as it is performed in our days, and the Israeli government's unholy attempt to cover up the Temple Mount destruction which took place this past summer.
Anonymous
One facet
Izzy, like Feldman, misses the point about Judaism -- meaningful Judaism, that is -- when she sees it as one of many facets of a contemporary identity.
zbird
to anon 5:23
The cannibal comment was completely in jest. I hope you didn't take offense.
It sounds to me like you're very much an American--and I mean that in a positive sense. You of course have a background and culture that means something to you, but you don't live in a ghetto--you're not completely ethnocentric, which is why you can relate to people of different religions, on levels that transcend your heritage. It's no surprise you're hanging around at Jewcy.
Frankly, I don't really see anything wrong with your choice of activities--to use your words--it sounds like you're a complete individual. When you say you're conflicted, does that mean you feel guilt or doubt about your choice of lifestyle? I'd be interested to hear what you mean by "conflicted"
--Z
h.
World Wrestling for Jews (without the tights)
i wish i could have gone to this, alas i was still at work when the lecture began and probably when it ended.
i admire all three of these men for different reasons: Steinhardt is a visionary with his idea to send Jews of all backgrounds to Israel for free. it has certainly been a huge success. Boteach is extremely intellectual and lends his traditional wisdom to all kinds of people and situations (as seen in TLC's "Shalom In The Home"). Feldman, despite the controversy surrounding his intermarriage, is highly successful in his profession and isn't afraid to be brutally honest about what's wrong with this picture called Judaism.
i agree with Izzy that there are more important things to discuss than Noah Feldman's personal life. and if those NYU students can't realize that, then they're the ones who need their heads examined.
Post new comment