Posts
Q&A With the Author of “Orthodox Paradox”
By Joey Kurtzman / July 23, 2007
Noah Feldman’s “Orthodox Paradox,” an article published in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, is a shanda fer da goyim, a skewed and distasteful takedown that invites non-Jews to gawk at the internal problems of a modern Orthodox Jewish community. Or maybe it’s a poignant and brave discussion of the challenges of bringing a traditional faith into modern life, written by a man who cherishes his people. Either way, it’s kicked up a storm of impassioned chatter throughout the interweb, where you can find both these judgments and many more.
“Orthodox Paradox” hits on themes close to Jewcy's editorial heart, what with Feldman trying to figure out what a cosmopolitan Jew’s to do with this bewildering, antiquated faith that we just can't seem to leave behind. So we had to pick his brain a bit. Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School who was raised modern Orthodox, agreed to answer my questions via e-mail.
Why did you write this article?
These are issues I've been thinking about for a long time, and that have recurred again and again in my work on the U.S. and the Muslim world. My thinking on those topics is influenced by my education in the modern Orthodox world, and I came to think that others might be engaged with similar issues.
You were surprised when Maimonides—the yeshiva from which you graduated—removed* you and your (non-Jewish) wife from a photo published in the alumni newsletter. Your surprise struck many readers as rather strange, since the community makes no secret of its rejection of intermarriage. It’s a bit as if you’d pulled out a bag of pork rinds, devoured them with relish throughout the evening, and then expressed bewilderment when someone asked you if you'd set them aside until later. What are your critics missing here?
My classmates are great. As it happens, the reunion was lots of fun and we were all warm towards one another, as one would hope. What is troubling about the view you describe—which I never sensed from my classmates—is its implication that somehow modern Orthodox people should be protected from my living my life as I choose. As if choice of life partner were as trivial as a snack. Going to a reunion is a perfectly normal part of life, and choosing not to attend, in order to shield people from my life, would be absurd. People who are comfortable with their own life choices don't get "offended" when others choose differently.
POST A COMMENT
I read his article and went to the famous debate. At first I was really angered by Noah Feldman. As time has passed, I begin to see that part of what he is saying is sadly true. Unless we become more interested as a group in learning and understanding more about who we are and where we came from and what we do when we go to shule, we will be a group of people no different than those who regularly go to a country club and engage in all the positive and negative social actions of a any club. I used to think that reform and conservative judaism will soon disappear and that orthodoxy will keep things going. Now, I am not so sure. Charedim understand that the reason you dig deep is because the next generation won’t be digging as deep as the previous generation. Charedim may look severe at first glance and an over reaction to the modern orthodox answer but if you see what happens in my shule, the charedi world is starting to make much more sense than the modern view of judaism.
Sara,
Are you suggesting Judaism drop the ban on intermarriage completely? That seems really contrary to the entire spirit of Judaism, which focuses on living a Jewish life everywhere (i.e., not just in the synagogue). That is very hard (but not impossible) to do with a non Jewish spouse.
On the other hand, there should be some flexibility in how we treat people who have intermarried. After all, we don’t necessarily shun Jews who violate other Jewish rules. Instead, we consider the totality of the person. That’s my 2 cents anyway.
In light of what’s come out since the article was published–specifically, that Feldman and his partner were not airbrushed out of the photo, and both he and the Times knew it before publication–I find his reply to your question about “being airbrushed out of the photo” odd. One would think he would take the opportunity to say, “Actually, that’s not what happened.”
Of course, if one did think that, one would have been a little bit overly optimistic about his honesty with himself and his readers.
Thanks for an interesting conversation.
–Z
A Response to Noah Feldman
Web Exclusive
Norman Lamm | Thu. Aug 02, 2007
Dear Prof. Feldman,
My first — and last — impression after reading your extremely well-written New York Times Magazine essay (more properly — a manifesto) is one of sympathy for your predicament, respect for your honesty and profound sadness at the community’s misfortune when one of our best and most well-known yeshiva day school graduates sees nothing wrong with “marrying out.” Worse: You wittingly or unwittingly exposed your coreligionists to opprobrium in arguably the world’s most public forum — even as you express admiration for the Jewish tradition, especially for Modern Orthodoxy.
True, we no longer “sit shivah” for a relative who married out. But all of us experience poignant anguish when a brilliant and once fully committed son of our people, who earnestly believes he is not rejecting his upbringing, effectively does just that in justifying his transgression and holding us up to ridicule.
And why so? Because you violated a major principle of Judaism and yet object when we, your fellow Jews, express our heartache in one of the only ways open to us.
Quite simply, my dear Prof. Feldman, you want to have your cake and eat it too. Sorry, but that just can’t be done.
Frankly, your resentment at the removal of your name and photo from the alumni list of your high school and other such petty discourtesies does not elicit much sympathy from me. Tantrums do not move me. I am moved by your resolve to continue your relationship to Judaism. And I value your suggestion that we reexamine our attitude to the social ostracism we have practiced heretofore. We certainly will not accept the violation of the law with equanimity, but we ought to rethink how we can express our displeasure in a manner that will not close the doors to teshuva — if indeed the couple wishes to take advantage of it.
Apparently, you take the matter of intermarriage lightly — something on the line of eating non-glatt-kosher meat. If so, you are sorely mistaken. True, one can make a case that out-marriage is, technically, not a more serious violation than work on Shabbat or eating on Yom Kippur. But you well know that in our times the ultimate sign of pending assimilation is intermarriage. You resent the small discourtesies you experienced, yet you ignore the massive insult to your alma mater, and to the Modern Orthodox community that nourished you all these years, by violating a fundamental law — and then punish them in public.
Prof. Feldman, I do not understand you. I am truly nonplussed. Once or twice in your article you imply that Judaism should tolerate a forbidden marriage because it is “one of my most important life decisions.” I cannot believe that you really want to exempt the “most important of life’s choices” from the purview and judgment of religion. For Heaven’s sake, do you prefer that religion — any religion — deal with any thing but that which is important in life? Is this the Judaism you want? One that will make you feel warm and fuzzy and cuddly, one that will make grandiloquent pronouncements and issue pretty pieties — anything but what is really an “important life decision”?
That is not the kind of religion for which our ancestors — yours and mine — were willing to suffer abuse unto martyrdom.
Let me now address several other (but not all of the) important items in your essay.
You imply that Modern Orthodoxy is somehow responsible for Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir. That is a blatant example of guilt by association, and truly a low blow that is unworthy of you. If Modern Orthodoxy is responsible for Goldstein and Amir, then Harvard is responsible for the Unabomber; Yale must answer for some of the most implacable kooks in this country — both right- and left-wingers, and by the same token Maimonides School is responsible for the tergiversation of one of its most distinguished graduates.
Now, for the facts: You do not quote any source for your assertion that when Baruch Goldstein murdered Arabs at prayer in Hebron on Purim day, he did so because he considered the Palestinians as Amalekites.
I beg to differ. His act was not one commanded by his religion, but by his Kahanist politics. How do I know? Because several years before the Hebron massacre, I received a document in which Palestinians of that area were effusive in their praise for the two brothers Goldstein, both physicians, who treated them with the same professionalism and compassion that they did their fellow Jews.
So your premise is faulty, and your conclusion is wrong.
Next item: You refer in anger to the Talmudic view on whether a Jewish doctor may violate the Sabbath laws in order to save the life of a non-Jew. You are critical of the Sages of the Talmud who permitted such violations of laws of the Sabbath because of concern for maintaining peaceful relations between the Jewish and non-Jewish communities. You suggest that, on the one hand, it is an “instance of laudable universalism,” but, on the other, it is “an example of outrageously particularist religious thinking.”
Surely you, as a distinguished academic lawyer, must have come across instances in which a precedent that was once valid has, in the course of time, proved morally objectionable, as a result of which it was amended, so that the law remains “on the books” as a juridical foundation, while it becomes effectively inoperative through legal analysis and moral argument. Why, then, can you not be as generous to Jewish law, and appreciate that certain biblical laws are unenforceable in practical terms, because all legal systems — including Jewish law — do not simply dump their axiomatic bases but develop them. Why not admire scholars of Jewish law who use various legal technicalities to preserve the text of the original law in its essence, and yet make sure that appropriate changes would be made in accordance with new moral sensitivities? Plato — as well as Maimonides — taught us that every law must leave some who are thereby disadvantaged, that it is in the nature of law to serve the community even when individuals are injured. We then must seek ways to ameliorate the situation as best we can. This is a legitimate way for the Talmudic and post-Talmudic rabbis to protect the sacred Shabbat laws, and by appropriate halachic legislation enable us to live without violating our moral conscience.
Let me clarify my stand, as an Orthodox rabbi, on the issue you raised: It is strictly forbidden by the Halacha to deny a non-Jew whatever is necessary to save his or her life. There must be no discrimination whatsoever. Every human being is created in the Image of God and has a right to life and health. “The Lord is good to all and His tender mercies are over all His works” (Psalm 145).
Because the issue is subtle and highly sensitive, do you not think that it would have been more responsible of you either not to mention an issue which for centuries has inflamed antisemitic vindictiveness and exacerbated irritation for those Jews ignorant of the method and subtleties of the law, especially since such subtleties are beyond the reader not trained in legal theory? But if you are compelled to write about it, would it have been a violation of some professional code to give precedence and preference to the universalist bias of the halachic tradition?
But you took the easy way out, and thereby succeeded in holding up the Torah, the Talmud, the rabbis and especially Modern Orthodox Judaism to public ridicule, making the whole Talmudic enterprise look bigoted and racist.
Bravo! You made a trenchant point and, by the way, you succeeded in supplying via the New York Times article enough anti-Jewish material to last a good few years — as antisemites have been spewing this sanctimonious poison for centuries. Did not this possibility occur to you when you were writing your article? Why the sudden collapse of your obvious sophistication? “Sages,” the Talmud declared, “be exceedingly careful with your words.”
You apparently were equally unaware of the damage your words have caused to innocent bystanders. Example: Daniel _____, a recent graduate of Yeshiva University, wrote this letter to me that broke my heart:
Like most Yeshiva University graduates, I interact on a daily basis with gentiles for most of my day. My Orthodox Jewish identity has never become an issue or conflict. However, following last week’s New York Times article by Noah Feldman… I have frequently been getting questions like, ‘Is it true that according to your law you wouldn’t save my life on the Sabbath’ or, ‘Do you really believe that Jewish life is more important than gentile life?’ How does a young Modern Orthodox professional answer these questions in a respectful and diplomatic way so as not to demonize others and at the same time be true to his faith?
My dear Noah Feldman, it is your duty to answer him, because you are the cause of his discomfiture and perhaps his possible inability to find employment — and so for the thousands who have no access to the pages of The New York Times and who will have to live under the cloud of calumny you have unwittingly visited upon them. Of course, I don’t think you will, but should you be moved by Daniel’s predicament, call me and I will gladly give you his full name and address. You owe it to him.
If my words sound harsh, it is because I have followed your career with naches and hope for the future of our Jewish people and Modern Orthodoxy, so I write like a spurned lover. I sympathize with your dilemmas. I can appreciate the pain suffered by one subject to the social sanctions prescribed by Jewish tradition, and I can understand the feelings of one who, under the pressure of desire or love, feels compelled to ignore the biblical prohibitions. The flesh, after all, is weak. But that is no excuse for embarrassing a whole community to which you always belonged and to which you maintain you still owe a degree of fidelity (and I believe you).
In your essay, your closing words are, “My best friend just laughed.”
As for me — I cried.
I still dream that you will reconsider your remarks and your self-imposed alienation.
But whether you do or do not do that, remember: Judaism and the Jewish people will survive without you or me. But neither you nor I will survive spiritually without Judaism and the Jewish people.
Norman Lamm
——————————————————————————–
Rabbi Norman Lamm is the chancellor and former president of Yeshiva University. He is the rosh yeshiva of its affiliated Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary.
International Jew –
As we say in Russian – what is worse than an ignoramus? A militant ignoramus. We will add here – and even worse? An anonymous, militant one.
But one can arise above oneself. Study. And study the Talmud. Its not God-given, in my opinion, but it is still a brilliant corpus, study of which is worth dedicating your life to.
zbird –
Basically, your question is about how I accepted the Divinity of Tanakh, right? Everything else flows from that question.
First of all – I do not believe anything. I study the evidence and make conclusions and attach a certain probability of being wrong to such conclusions.
Two steps here:
Preambule:
A. Occam Razor is the only instrument known to me that can balance facts, logic, imagination and natural human ability to create hypothesis.
B. Occam razor is a probabilistic instrument. No conclusion made with Occam principle can be called a PROOF. So, I do not claim ANY proof.
1. I ACCEPT, using Occam Razor (see above limitations) as an easiest and most natural explanation FOR ME, that CREATION of the known Universe was not spontaneous. For ME it easier to accept the existence of an external WILL-POWER than a starting event in non-time, non-space.
2. In my case I ACCEPT, as the most easy and natural explanation (Occam razor style ) that some internal mathematical qualities of Tanakh (of which I will not speak publically) are far beyond anything humans could have done at the time of its appearence, so the author was NOT a Human. That leaves little green men and the WILL-POWER. Occam Razor demands that I reject the little green men until and unless they can prove that they exist and prove that they wrote the Tanakh. I have no choice as to ACCEPT the WILL-POWER as Occamique Author of it.
Comments:
a) For those who think that I am talking about the "codes", I have to disappoint you – I am not.
b) I do not attach ANY scientific or logical value to the above. In no way I think that others should be tempted to accept my way of thinking. I will not defend or argue any of its merits of deficiencies because I do not offer this as a theory or an explanation of any sort – just as a record of my way of thinking. I may note on friendly requests.
Have I answered your question, Zbird?
…supplemented by name-calling.
Buh-bye.
International Jew.
You did not look like an idiot before, but now you do.
1. It is you who did the permanent record of your screen, not me, so even a super-basic knowledge of the Law in any interpretation should have told you that one never answers for the action of another. If you were right, than ANY original author or ANY text written by someone else on Shabbat would be breaking the law even if the author dies hundreds years ago. See, how stupid your "Doh, Oops" is?
2. You still have not shown me what I MISREAD. The only way to do that is to quote the actual Talmud quote(s) that does address pedophilia. The problem with you is that you were TOLD that its not true, but you never READ these lines yourself. You just telling us that IT CANNOT BE, but you can't point us to the actual passages which you claim I "misread".
3. I cannot accuse millions of Jews of what they never done. Are you completely ignorant in what the terms "law", "accuse", "crime" are? I would accuse the authors, but they lived almost two thousands years ago and are – alas, dead.
4. Do not make a bigger fool of yourself. Quote, if you know, the Talmudic passages about pedophilia and tell us how I MISREAD them. If you do not know, admit it, apologize and I will quote them for you.
5. I am not your pal. I have a public discussion with you , but that is all. So, please, keep your distance.
“I still plan to satisfy you request on the quotes of Talmud allowing pedophilia, but only after you tell me what anti-Semitic misreadings of Talmud you accused me of. See, one cannot just go around making such accusations without having to answer for one’s own words.”
I said your allegations that the Talmud sanction pedophilia are the same ones used by anti-Semites.
Please note the semantic difference.
The fact that you chose one of the most popular anti-Semitic internetlies is a choice you made. Deal with the fallout.
The Talmud does not “allow pedophilia.” There’s your misreading right there.
Supply the “quotes,” and I’ll supply the proof of your misreadings.
Or you can continue you to “stamp your feet” and accuse ME of incivility, while YOU accuse millions of Jews the world over of “allowing pedophilia.”
Civil?
Chaihorsky, the improvisational “Karaite”, actually almost answers a question! (And if I print out your almost-response, guess what…It’s permananent! Doh! Oops!)
“When you grow up and learn how to have a discussion without throwing your hands up and stomping your feet – you may come back.”
Look in the mirror, pal.
Alex,
I think you did a good job of answering my question about what you find authoritative (the Tanakh) versus merely persuasive (the Talmud). But you raise more questions that answers! Most importantly, why do you choose to believe that Tanakh is divine law?
I realize I'm raising a very basic question that anyone interested in religion has probably debated a thousand times. But I'm more interested in your personal answer rather than a general one. How does a Russian immigrant, who presumably did not grow up with a Karaite background, come to believe (clearly after doing a lot of homework) that Tanakh is Divine Law while Talmud isn't?
Obviously you pick up a lot of baggage when you decide that any text is Divine Law. First you need to explain any statements that might seem immoral at first glance, even if you later find an plausible interpretation that allows you to conclude that no "unequivocal instruction to do what [you] consider to be evil" can be found. Second, you've got to explain away the fact that other religions have their own, perhaps contradictory "Divine Law," and why pick one over any other? Third, you've got to account for all sorts of miracles and phenomena that either don't mesh with science or seem highly improbable. Then there's the need to find answers to modern dilemmas in a 3000 year old text, etc.
I'm not reciting these arguments so you can answer them–they are tired criticisms leveled against every text-based religion that have been answered many times over and will never cease to be debated. My question is why you, being obviously smart and educated enough to recognize these issues, nonetheless chose to adopt a "Divine Law" type of belief system.
If you just believed in Talmud, I could explain your beliefs as the result of being born into or choosing a particular culture (i.e.: Orthodox Judaism) that depends on the text. Lots of people do that. But culture can't explain your beliefs: you chose a "Divine Law" authority (Tanakh w/o Talmud) that has virtually no presence in American or Jewish culture, and you are not affiliated with the one group in San Francisco where such a culture might take root.
So what's your story?
–Z
International Jew –
Hiding your identity is fine when you say a remark or two. If you want to get answers from people about pretty serious stuff, you have to get yourself out of the dark. Criticizing PERSONALLY from a position of anonymity is disrespect.
The words "Torah true Karaite" from the mouth of an Orthodox is ambiguous. We call Tanakh – Torah, and regard it, and only it, as Divine Law, but you include Talmud into the definition of what Torah is, so no Karaite can be "Torah true" according to Orthodox, simply because Karaites do not accept Torah as Divine Law.
I do not give a damn what and how much credibility you attach or do not attach to any group and how you judge who is a "true Karaite" and who is not. I understand that judging others to be whatever it is someone thinks they should be is a national sport in Israel. Stiffnecked we were and sadly, remain to be, still. I defend my opinions and interpretations with quotes, facts and logic, not by being more or less Jew than you or any other descendant if Jacob.
For instance, I write this on Shabbat, because I do not consider computer writing (writing that does not leave permanent record) – as work and my Karaitic beliefs allow me to interpret what is work and what is not myself - so I partially accept Talmudic interpretation on the difference between permanent and non-permanent writing and completely reject the "electrical" part of it.
I still plan to satisfy you request on the quotes of Talmud allowing pedophilia, but only after you tell me what anti-Semitic misreadings of Talmud you accused me of. See, one cannot just go around making such accusations without having to answer for one's own words. And also, you will have to change your insolent tone and start being polite when spoken to people old enough to be your parents. You may not respect neither me no my beliefs, but you will be civil.
When you grow up and learn how to have a discussion without throwing your hands up and stomping your feet – you may come back.
It now appears the NYTimes and Feldman knowingly mislead readers about the Maimonides School. We’ll leave it to the lawyers as to whether that is actual malice and a basis for a libel suit. Don’t the Times and Feldman owe readers and the school an apology?
Feldman is a lawyer. I thought the legal codes of ethics required lawyers to act truthfully. Sounds like Feldman needs to go back to school. If he doesn’t hold by those codes, you’d think he’d at least agree not to act a false witness?
I am more than perplexed – as has now been confirmed by the Jewish Week (I had heard a couple days ago), Feldman’s image was not airbrushed out of the picture – there were multiple large group pictures; in the version that happened to be printed, he and 16 others did not appear. He knew that, because the NYT acquired the photos and showed him.
And yet knowing the photo had not been doctored, he still leaves the impression that he had been airbrushed out. In one of your first questions, you ask him essentially how it felt to be airbrushed out – and he fails to correct you.
Obviously, Feldman failed to learn many halachic lessons at Maimonides. Why is lying? How do you feel that he misled the public, and then you in this interview?
You are all being absolutely ridiculous. I consider myself Jewish, but very, very secular. I dated an Orthodox Jew for a few months last year and that’s what got me reading this site. I kept my mouth shut for those four months, now luckily, I don’t have to.
Do you understand the Torah was written thousands and thousands of years ago and not meant to be taken as law, but rather stories to help guide your life? You all seem to take it word-for-word. You are reducing who Noah fell in love with to something as trivial as a bed-time snack. You don’t chose who you fall in love with. You can all brainwash yourselves into thinking otherwise, and have fun in your forced marriages, but that’s just not how it works.
As a pretty secultar Jew, I think extremeism in any religion is the worst thing. Nothing should be taken that seriously. Have your faith, but don’t let it completely govern your lives to a T. But then this is just my opinion…
These debates are intellectually interesting but I wish people would spend more time analyzing the real issues of this world, the ones that effect all of us as fellow human beings. I’m not a Jew or actively part of any other ethnic or religious group so I don’t have to waste time and energy, other than this short email, addressing mystical (and possibly non-sensical) notions of identity. Join the rest of the world and help us make it better instead of promoting the ideas of separation and superiority that underlies much of this discussion.
So I haven’t registered at Jewcy…yet. Big frikkin’ deal. Even if I did, I could “plonk” in and out. Or I could register under an assumed name. Or place of residence. How in the world would that change things?
Newsflash: It wouldn’t.
One of these IS my real name and place of residence:
David Goldstein Be’erot Yitzhak
Joel Silverman Ma’ale Adumim
Jonathan Shapiro Be’er Ya’akov
Benjamin Cohen Ma’ale Levonah
Daniel Solomon Zofim
Michael Levy Nehalim
Jacob Horowitz Alfei Menashe
Gabriel Jaffe Kfar Adumim
Choose one from Column A and one from Column B.
Isn’t this fun? You might even guess correctly.
By painting yourself as a Torah-True Karaite Jew, you assume a certain credibility, which allows you to besmirch the Talmud with impunity…Not unlike Noam “I am a Zionist” Chomsky or Norman “Son of Holocaust Survivors” Finkelstein.
Unlike most Orthodox, I actually admire real Karaite Jews far more than your garden variety Re/form/enewal/constructionists. At least Karaim believe in divinity of the Torah and have an actual religious structure to which they adhere. Real Karaim don’t make it up as they go along.
With each evasive and condescending non-reply, you confirm my suspicions.
Thank you. I’m done with you.
Shabbat Shalom.
International Jew:
Your childish insulting tone, your hiding behind a childish nickname and lack of registering information means that you are just another nameless troll who can plonk in and out at any moment. Why are you so surprised that you are treated as such? Why are you scared to show your real face? Look around – even young ladies here are often write under their own names.
1. You just do not understand where you are. This is public forum. We discuss ideas here, not private lives. How I observe and what I do on Shabbat is my personal business and none of yours. You can ask politely and I can answer, but you cannot demand, I mean if you are not a complete child and understand what privacy is.
2. I would absolutely answer your question about pedophilia in Talmud, but you predated your question with a judgement – that I was disseminating anti-Semitic MISREADINGS of Talmud. So, tell me which misreadings you were talking about. You cannot claim that you know that these are MISREADINGS and deny to answer WHICH. That is, if you want to be taken seriously.
I am not reluctant to answer – if you would politely ask what I refered to, I would quote. But you already stated that whatever I refer to, were "anti-Semitic MISREADINGS" and you need to understand that you cannot throw such accusations without substantiating them. So, my young, distinguished friend, the ball in in your court.
Chaihorsky,
I asked you about your professed Karaite faith. To recap:
As a Karaite, do you sit in the dark on Shabbat?
Eat only cold food? How about tzitzit?
To use the parlance of Rabbinical Judaism, are you an “Orthodox” Karaite or a “Reform” Karaite?
Do you “observe” your Karaism? Or is your Karaism of the “pick-and-choose” variety?
Is it defined by what you DO believe, or by what you DON’T?
You answered NONE of these questions. You simply hurled a few platitudes, insinuated that the Talmud sanctions pedophilia, and avoided any of the direct questions I asked of you. (Again, your remark about the Talmud’s advocacy and/or tolerance of the “sexual treatments of children” is a common one among Jew-haters. You brought it up. Therefore, YOU’RE the one who needs to substantiate such an incriminating allegation.)
Now, you insist that I qualify my use of the term “misreadings” (used in response to your first NON-Reply BEFORE you answer ANY of my queries? How very convenient for you.
Your reluctance to answer any of the questions asked of you is quite odd.
International Jew:
I may not give you the answers you wanted to hear to support your views, but I did answer. You, on the other hand cannot answer your own accusation – WHAT ARE THE MISREADINGS? You call it "MISREADINGS", so you claim that you know the source. If so, tell us what you meant. Simple, straightforward question. If you have no idea of what I am talking about, do not call it "MISREADINGS", ask me politely and I will substantiate my words with direct Talmudic quotes. But if you think that I will take rude orders from someone who is not grown up enough to openly use his name – you are delusional.
I do not judge your faith and I am not interested in your opinion on mine. I am too old for the "who is a bigger Jew" game.
Again, if you ask politely and answer with arguments, not slurs, we can have a discussion. But you have to answer my question about the MISREADINGS first.
*Neither, apparently, is particularly deep.
“I NEVER not answer questions.”
I asked you several questions.
You did not answer any of them.
Not one.
That is some “NEVER.”
And I did not accuse you of being an anti-Semite.
(But, as the saying goes…If the foo shits…)
You just happened to use slurs famously used by anti-Semites, a fact which I did point out. Why don’t YOU elaborate on the Talmud’s alleged “ugly allowances on sexual treatments of children,” instead of just putting it out there. Then we’ll see what kind of “scholar” you really are.
The depth of your “scholarship” is likely matched only by the depths of your “Karaism.”
International Jew:
Are you running away? I am not finished with you. First – I did answer your question, but now you accused me of being an anti-Semite, so now its your turn to answer. Tell me about the MISREADINGS and we will get back to more of your questions, no sweat. You can check my other posts – I NEVER not answer questions. So stick your "fake and phony" back where they came from and answer MY question.
If you have no answer – then we understand why you want to run away.
Your non-answers speak volumes.
The words “fake” and “phony” come to mind.
Joey,
Is it too late to ask one last question: Why the lie?
“An article in the Jewish Week disproves Noah Feldman’s claim that his reunion picture was cropped to remove him and his wife, and quotes my old buddy Josh Wolff:
Noah Feldman, who ignited a firestorm of criticism last week with his pointed attack on Modern Orthodoxy in The New York Times Magazine, admitted this week that he learned before publication of his article that he in fact was not intentionally cropped out of his reunion photograph…
The photographer, Lenny Eisenberg, told The Jewish Week Monday that he had difficulty capturing as many as 60 reunion participants within a single frame. Eisenberg ended up taking several shots from one side, then the other, and several people on the far side — not just Feldman and his fiancée — happened to be out of the picture when it finally appeared in the newsletter.
Josh Wolff, executive director of Maimonides, told The Jewish Week, “What we were accused of doing is false.” What happened was “nobody’s intent. It’s very obvious that not everybody fit into the picture. Why some people were standing on the inside [of the picture] versus the outside was not orchestrated by us.”
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/
The International Jew -
Wai, wai, wait- what MISREADINGS?
my delineation of the tent did not focus on divinity of texts, but rather on one issue: intermarriage, which was the starting point of mister feldman’s new york times article. i thank you for relating to my comment, but i was not trying to limit the definition of the tent to exclude karaites, i was trying to relate to mister feldman’s thesis which was unclear for he left the question of intermarriage to his readers and then proceeded to other less relevant questions of morality versus doctrine. yes, these are important questions and deserve to be grappled with, but mister feldman failed to deal in depth with his point of departure: intermarriage.
great softball interview JEWCY – how about asking some real questions which we all want to know the answers to:
1) Noah – what was so lacking in your soul that you determined to leave the practice of your faith and develop an intimate relationship with someone that does not share your traditions. what deeper conection can there be than the spirit and soul.
2) in what ways do you remain a practicing orthodox jew?
3) has your wife started any jewish education or learning as a result of your passionate connection to your jewish heritage?
I am not passing judgement on Mr. Feldman, i am simply pointing out that the HEART of the matter was not addressed in the article (surprising for someone that you would imagine to be intellectual and self aware) This matrer is the fact that modern jewish education itself falls short when instilling a strong jewish commitment in its students. Feldman made his choices for certain, and this is his right, but i ask where is his commitment to the traditions that have lasted for over 3000 years? the issue here is lack of commitment, many thousands of happy, succesful, self aware, modern orthodox people manage to thrive in the secular world while still. Mr. Feldman, what complells so many others to leave thier people intirely, as in intermnarriage and eventually non jewish children and grandchildren?
Micheal Antebi:
Now you are talking funny.
1. You said:"Orthodox Judaism in all its magnificent and pluralistic variations (Modern, Hasidic, Litvak, Bobover, etc.) . Why is it funny? Because about a hundred years ago Orthodox Jews did not even consider Hasidim being Jewish, let alone Orthodox!
2. You said about Orthodoxy "That's why its been around for almost 4,000 years", but Talmud, on which interpretation contemporary Orthodoxy is based is only half that age! I have no doubt that you know that, but your careless arguments just show how negligent you are to the very subject.
You snapped at the end: "End of discussion". This is childish, my distinguished friend. Knowledgeable people do not end the discussion that way. Only ignoramuses when they run out of moves, so they mess the pieces on the chessboard and yell "I won!".
Not that I imply anything.
You also said something like we should be very careful discussing Talmudic Orthodoxy. Here it is very hard to argue with you . And I totally agree. And we are careful. As a matter of fact we are so careful, that all you can do is issue condemning statements, call names and not even once have you confronted any of the arguments directly on the subject. If we were not that careful I expect a great scholar like you would already wipe us off these pages with your brilliant arguments. That I would respect and welcome wholeheartedly. Listening to someone who proclaims himself a Talmudic student and instead of arguments issues laughable Robespierriean threats – is pathetic.
But you managed to turn your entire “response” to me into an etymological exercise. How Rabbinic of you! And replete with oblique references to standard-issue anti-Semitic misreadings of the Talmud. At least you’re coming out of your shell and beginning to show your true stripes.
So, do you “observe” your Karaism? Or is your Karaism of the “pick-and-choose” variety?
Is it defined by what you DO believe, or by what you DON’T?
The International Jew:
Please, read my post carefully, all answers are there.
I have no idea where from you pull the your "anti-Talmudist" construct. Talmudist is a Talmud scholar and not only I have nothing against study of Talmud, I believe that such a study in depth is a must for any religious Jewish student. Again, why don't you just read my post? What I am against is accepting Talmud as a Divine Law and giving Divine authority to some ideas and behaviors based on Talmud. There are very few of those, BTW. To summarize VERY crudely, that would be the most of what is based on a Talmudic idea that some of the Commandments are only forbidding toward Jews and allowed toward Gentiles. That "Do not murder" only means "Do not murder a fellow Jew", the "Do not steal" only means "Do not steal from fellow Jew", etc. Plus some very ugly allowances on sexual treatments of children, that sort of things.
So, calling me anti-Talmudist is like calling someone who is against legalization of rape an "anti-Sexualist".
Mr. Chaihorsky,
As a Karaite, do you sit in the dark on Shabbat? Eat only cold food? How about tzitzit? To use the parlance of Rabbinical Judaism, are you an “Orthodox” Karaite or a “Reform” Karaite? I can’t help but feel from your tone that you are an anti-Talmudist in Karaite’s clothing.
TIJ
A young member of an Orhodox congregation came to the Rabbi and told him he will no longer be coming to synagogue because he became an atheist. The Rabbi asked him, "Have you read through the entire Bible and Prophets?" The member said "somewhat."How about the 63 volumes of Talmud? Or any of the hundreds of commentaries by the greatest minds of Judaism? The member had to admit he hadn't. The Rabbi told him, "You're not an atheist, you're an ignoramus."
A young member of an Orhodox congregation came to the Rabbi and told him he will no longer be coming to synagogue because he became an atheist. The Rabbi asked him, "Have you read through the entire Bible and Prophets?" The member said "somewhat."How about the 63 volumes of Talmud? Or any of the hundreds of commentaries by the greatest minds of Judaism? The member had to admit he hadn't. The Rabbi told him, "You're not an atheist, you're an ignoramus."
A young member of an Orhodox congregation came to the Rabbi and told him he will no longer be coming to synagogue because he became an atheist. The Rabbi asked him, "Have you read through the entire Bible and Prophets?" The member said "somewhat."How about the 63 volumes of Talmud? Or any of the hundreds of commentaries by the greatest minds of Judaism? The member had to admit he hadn't. The Rabbi told him, "You're not an atheist, you're an ignoramus."
It is obvious Feldman is a biased prisoner of his own desires. The longing for acceptance from Orthodox Judaism while violating its Laws colors his entire argument. I am sure Benedict Arnold had what he thought were solid arguments as to why he betrayed his country. The sad—and tragic—part is that he has to commit outright calumny to justify his intermarriage. The things he said should outrage everyone who cherishes Judaism.
He has a simple solution; convert his wife or create his own form of Orthodox "Judaism" and he'll be temporarily content. Or he can join with the other forms of fantasy "Disneyland Judaism" like Conservative, Reform or Reconstruction or other Judaic cults with the knowledge that these forms are already bankrupt and that his future is an assured assimilation.
Or he can, as hundreds of thousands of alienated Jews today, come back to the folds of Orthodox Judaism in all its magnificent and pluralistic variations (Modern, Hasidic, Litvak, Bobover, etc.) of those who follow an immensely rewarding Torah-true existence by following God's laws instead of "going after your heart and eyes." That's why its been around for almost 4,000 years while historically all other breakaway movements are dwindling or have diasappeared.
End of debate.
zbird:
First off – I am not a member of Karaite community – the only one I know in the US is in San Francisco, BTW. You can find more at their sites – just do the search. I do not talk for them, am not connected to them and I am not a specialist Karaite practices, customs, etc.
I do, however, accept the basic Karaite belief that Talmud is not God-given and Torah, as Tanakh – is. And also that every Jew allowed and to the certain extent obligated to interpret Torah and not just bow to the Talmudic interpretation (although one can). You question of the rule of interpretation is a very good one. It is my firm belief that if one interprets anything, there is no other way to do that other than based on one's knowledge and conscience, to the best of one's abilities. Depending on knowledge and life experience one, probably, will also evolve in such interpretation with age.
With respect to your words about Tanakh being " no lack of racist, outdated, or otherwise immoral lessons, I strongly disagree. It contains a RECORD of such things, but does not contain anything that I would see as a direct and unequivocal instruction to do what I consider to be evil.
Let us take a strong example. For instance in case of the stoning to death, (Devarim), if I would be asked, theoretically speaking, for a opinion after the authorities already made the decision of a death penalty, my interpretation would be killing with a stone bullet. If I would be asked to interpret "stoning" myself, without the death penalty decision already made, I would throw a small stone at a person and make him leave the community forever, thus making him civilly dead.
Has also to be said that not accepting Talmud as God-given Law does not mean not admiring immensely its wisdom, complexity and brilliant intellectual value. I firmly believe that any Jewish education has to include much study of Talmud in depth. But its racist, violent and barbaric parts has to be honestly and openly exposed and carefully cast aside as the legacy of violent and barbaric times.
Have I answered your question?
Alex from Reno:
You mentioned a number of times in this conversation that you reject the Talmud as the word of God because of its racist, ethnocentric tendencies. But do Karaites accept the Torah as the word of God? I don't know anything about this sect except what you've explained, and I'm curious to find out more. What is you rule of interpretation? Is the Torah the highest authorities? One's moral sensibilities? Some other source?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems from your comments that the Karaites stress the need to interpret the Torah on your own and not just accept the Talmudic interpretation. But if the problem with Talmud is its racism/ethnocentrism/failure to keep up with the times, then can you really accept the Torah as the word of God? It's been a long time since I read the Torah cover-to-cover, but I seem to remember there being no lack of racist, outdated, or otherwise immoral lessons between Beresheet and D'varim.
oops. The link actually is:
http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Intermarriage_and_the_N.Y._Times.asp
You said the following and I am very intrigued:
*****************************************************************************
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.
******************************************************************************
What you say is fascinating and thought-provoking. I have also felt, from my personal interactions, that the modern orthodox community tends to be incredibly judgmental, moreso than other factions (including ultra-orthodox) within Judaism. Am I right? I’m confounded by the fact that increased religious observance seems to bear no correlation with increased benevolence or empathy or kindness toward one’s fellow man. (–in fact, quite the opposite seems to occur.) This has confused me for a while now. And while reform Jews and Hasidim may not “get” other denominations, each group as a whole does seem to be more accepting of other realities than modern orthodox do. Why is this? Why does the modern orthodox community seem so self-impressed and judgmental? (Or is my perception wrong?)
For the record, I actually agree with Rabbi Blech’s response to Noah Feldman’s article: http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Intermarriage_and_the_N.Y._Times.asp
yonahred:
You state it as a given that there is just a single "tent" labeled "Jews R us" and everything else is outside or on the fence. This reminds me of my daughter 2d grade obsession with girlie "clubs" and who is in "our club" and who is out. Fine for a 9 years old, but preposterous for a people. Certainly, the management of the "Jews R us" franchise want everyone to think that "Jews R us" is the only place where a Jew can buy his toys, but we are too smart a people to fall for that. There is a huge tent "Hasidism", with many a smaller tents inside, there is a small Karaite tent, and others, some of them poor and humble, some rich and condescending. The rich makes better commercials, but the current one "If you are not buying from us you are not a Jew" is laughable.
noah feldman’s article is a good starting point for any number of discussions. as has been observed by other commentators, it is not a very deep analysis on the major departure point of mister feldman’s- the question of intermarriage.
at any given moment in jewish history, there are those who are clearly within the tent and there are those who are clearly outside the tent and there are those who clearly straddle the fence. (mixed metaphor). mister feldman, who has married out and who takes his kids to synagogue, is clearly straddling the fence. when he objects to certain torah or talmudic laws that go against his moral sensibilities, this does not place him inside or outside the tent, for even jews inside the tent should grapple with laws that offend their moral sensibility (even if they conclude that divine or rabbinic law must trump their sensibility, a thinking person should grapple.)
at the time of the nazerene (aka yoshke aka jesus)his followers were clearly within the jewish tent. some time after paul’s arguments won the day regarding circumcision and other issues, jesus’s followers were clearly outside the jewish tent. when various jews throughout the ages converted to christianity, they chose to leave the tent. today when secularism and assimilation are the bigger threat rather than outright conversion, there is a way station between inside and outside and thus straddling the fence.
there is some validity to the attitude of “whose side are you on?” certain historic circumstances: hitler for example force even those outside the tent into the tent (or gas chamber in his case.) there are other circumstances: russian communism for example when one had to choose sides in order to avoid being labeled anti revolutionary. the circumstance in america is maybe not unique but certainly quite different from the extremes of last century’s fascism and communism. thus the possibility of straddling the fence exists at this moment. and fence straddlers might be counted in or out depending on the perspective of the counter and the fence straddler.
one other point needs to be made: not all jews live in post christian urban societies where the rejection of religion is ascendant. certainly most jews in america seem to gravitate to the large cities where (except for the few weeks following a disaster like 9/11, when there were few atheists in the foxhole) secularism and the rejection of religion is the norm and the trend. but the other major grouping of jews is in israel, which is not only different because of the lack of choice regarding intermarriage, but also different in that it is in an islamic neighborhood, where religion rather than secularism is ascendant and not something which can be dismissed as easily as it might in america’s urban centers.
Pants Wearer:
I do not think you made point here. You said several things that may as well be true, but where you go with this remains unclear. Your direct question to me was:
"And though the Talmud isn't exactly glowing in its portrayal of non-Jews, using "master race" is a wee bit excessive, no?" – my answer is NO, its not.
If Gentiles are proclaimed, as you know, to be "closer to animals than humans", then Jews are the ONLY true humans. Its WORSE than "master race". Its the ultimate racism – denying the human equality to others. Interestingly, also, how it seeped into the secular – Itzhak Shamir was quoted once, talking about Palestininans "Why would we even listen to the people who just got off the trees?". Obviously "getting off the trees", imply evolutionary Darwinianism that is a direct contradiction of Torah. That notion that Jews are above Gentiles given as a Darwinian argument is very common among secular Jews and quite revealing. My take on it – we want to believe that we are above others and will always look favorably at any theory that supports it, religious or scientific. Sad and sick, if you are ask me.
First time caller, long time listener.
Gilanah and Anonymous Gentile: "they" didn't do anything to Prof. Feldman. I'm sure his fellow alumni were happy to see him, and enjoyed catching up. But someone at the school must have though that maybe, in fundraising publications meant to spur donation from alumni, highlighting a fairly prominent alum's intermarriage might be counterproductive. A Jewish school, whose goal is Jewish continuity, might not want to emphasize one of its failures.
That sounds excessive. I agree intermarrying does not end a person's Jewish life; indeed, Boston is a leader in maintaining intermarried families' involvement and connection to the Jewish community. But it certainly impairs continuity, and makes being involved more fraught with stress, and countervailing interests, and difficult questions. And a school, trying to portray itself as successfully navigating the fence-riding of modern Orthodoxy, might not be too keen on emphasizing this particular choice.
Alex: you cannot believe that most American Jews know enough about Talmudic law to use their rejection of it as the basis for enjoying a cheeseburger. While you may be sufficiently well-read to reject its teachings, the average American Jew is more likely to have spent time figuring out what happened to Tony Soprano than what the Gemara says about non-Jews. And though the Talmud isn't exactly glowing in its portrayal of non-Jews, using "master race" is a wee bit excessive, no? A Jewish website, in a conversation about tolerance, might be the ideal place to follow Godwin's Law.
For those knocking modern Orthodoxy as hypocritical: really, aren't all Jews, in some way, hypocritical? Whether it's nominally tolerant secular Jews ripping all frumkeit as cultist or isolationist, or whole Orthodox communities ignoring Dinah D'Malchusa Dinah (The law of the land is the Law, just like halacha), or individual commenters engaging in ad hominem attacks when we haven't even made it out of the month of Av, no one is safe from their own hypocrisy.
The author above (yet another Anonym) said: "Jews educated and ignorant about Judaism…". No, my dear Anonymous friend. We ARE educated and we ARE knowledgeable about Judaism, that is precisely why we question some of its Talmudic opinions and that is why I, (I never met Noah and have no knowledge of his opinion) – that is why I, to remain a Jew, chose the Karaite interpretation that does not accept the divinity of the Talmud.
You would like to think that many American Jews distance themselves from Rabbinical Orthodoxy because we know too little. So that we look like naive children who just do not know what is best for them, blah, blah, blah. I have bad news for you. Its not true. We just cannot constantly condemn Nazis for their disgusting racial superiority bullshit and harbor our own, very similar, albeit secretive beliefs with a straight face.
Respectfully,
Alex.
I think that realistically speaking, intermarriage is the symptom of a wider problem of Jewish apathy. Assimilation is often seen as something of a disease that ravages a person against their will. But what we see here is that Jews, educated and ignorant about Judaism are increasingly choosing to intermarry and live non-Jewish lives. This is the same in Israel, only there because the population is mostly Jewish, Jews inevitably marry Jews. When Israeli’s leave Israel though, they tend to marry out of the faith as much as North American Jews. What we have here is a crucial identity shift, where Jews who are just as secular as the mainstream see their religion as an ethnicity, just as Irish-American’s do, and so forth. Judaism is being abandoned, and it is not because Jews don’t like the anti-humanitarian statements in the Talmud or other texts. It’s because religion as a whole doesn’t play a big role in every day life. This is true for non-Jewish faith groups as well. The Jewish people are CHOOSING to assimilate, in a completely conscious and comprehensive way. The Jews who have intermarried know about the concerns other Jews have about intermarriage, they have read publications about the topic, and so do Israeli Jews. The fact of the matter is and as painful as it is to hear it. Jews are CELEBRATING assimilation, mocking Judaism, and transforming Jewish identity to the point where, 100-200 years from now, Jews will be an extremely small religious group, not unlike the Zoroastrians (Parsis) of today. The Orthodox tend to more resistant to this trend, but its still there, and it is common among Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionst, (even Karaite) and all the other streams of Judaism. There are many reasons for why this is the case, but it is highly unlikely that the trend of Jewish assimilation will end any time soon. It’s painful for me to admit this, but I think Jewish people shouldn’t fool themselves and should do some serious soul searching and determine if Judaism is really worth preserving for themselves.
I find the usage of the word "permissible", when applied to saving a human life in itself beyond disgusting. It is an absolute OBLIGATION for anyone, doctor or not doctor to attempt to save human life in ANY circumstance and for doctors its not only moral but also professional obligation and even discussing the very possibility of any other way of looking at it makes me sick.
There is another, issue here. If an Orthodox doctor only performs the saving of Gentile life during the Shabbat with not having the very task of saving life at heart, but rather doing it only to prevent the wrath of Gentiles against Jews in case that he refuse to do it, then three questions arise:
1. How can anyone be sure that he does the best he can if the task itself may be repulsive to him on Shabbat? How can a patient be sure? Wouldn't the honest thing be to state his situation, take minimal required care of the patient until a Gentile doctor arrives and not to ask for pay for his services?
2. If Orthodox doctors truly believe in Talmud being a God-given Law, that, obviously, trumps human rules and laws in their eyes, shouldn't they make it clear to the public of their beliefs so the public knows that by asking an Orthodox doctor to perform his professional services during Shabbat, they may be getting more of the diplomatic rather than medical service? As a paying customer, wouldn't t be their right to know?
3. Shouldn't Orthodox medical students demand to change the wordings of Hippocrates Oath to be changed to reflect their beliefs? Because if not, that only means that they do not take the Oath seriously. Isn't public trust in licensed medical doctors undermined by Orthodox doctors by either not openly stating their situation with work on Shabbat or openly distancing them from Talmudic Law on the subject?
I am not a professional writer, so please forgive me if my words fail to be as impressive as Noah Feldman’s are in his delusional article “Orthodox Paradox” (NY Times Magazine, July 22, 2007).
My issue is not with Mr. Feldman. He apparently suffers from a very common disease known as “Jewish Geniusitis”. This frequently occurs when someone with a substantial Jewish heritage and education perceive themselves to be so intelligent that they are unable to fathom the possibility that they could actually be wrong about something. The stricken individual is therefore free to presume themselves qualified to pontificate on matters which go far beyond their own personal experience. Mr. Feldman’s need to cry out publicly about his perceived lack of acceptance by his “own” says volumes about him, and less about the institutions which he himself credits with helping him become who he is today. Talk about biting the hand that fed you.
No, my issue is with the mindset at the NY Times. Is it possible that there is not one individual there who looked at Mr. Feldman’s article and said, “Maybe we should consider the source?” Clearly, this article must have resonated loudly with the magazine’s editors. It must feel very comfortable to approve an article whose content you bear no responsibility for while still allowing its author to claim victimhood at the hands of the “Orthodox”, whoever you think they are.
Once again, the NY Times manages to print a swipe at the ethnic sub-group that protests the least. To paraphrase what James Baker is purported to have said about the same sub-group: “F*** ‘em. They don’t buy our paper”.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments, anon. You're a big big tzaddik, enormous. Obviously, the question relates to the issue of intention that Noah raised in the piece. You might benefit from giving it another read, there's an interesting scene in which Noah's yeshiva teacher insists that Shabbat may be broken to save the life of a non-Jew only if one does so with the intention of promoting "the ways of peace" (i.e., protecting Jews from harm at the hands of non-Jews) rather than out of the comparatively frivolous desire to save the live of another human being. As you surely know, this is not a novel point of view, so I have to guess that you're feeling bitchy because you don't like seeing it discussed in the New York Times magazine. I feel you. It's a hillul hashem for non-Jews to read about such nasty, morally bankrupt arguments emerging from the Jewish tradition. I think the best course of action would be to write the NY Times a very angry letter.
“Should Jews take a strong stand against the rules for breaking Shabbat to save a life of a non-Jew?”
Joey, you don’t really seem like the sharpest knife in the drawer. It’s a wonder Feldman agreed to this interview.
The article, and halacha state explicitly that it’s permissible to save the life of a Jew on shabbat and break any necessary laws to do so. Did you even read the article? Do you even know anything about Shabbat?
I agree with the previous commenter; this was a pathetic interview.
It defys history that the Jews are still around. Without a land, scattered all over the world, etc. Even the antisemitic historian Arnold Toynbee had to admit it violated every historical rule. We believe God has kept us (the Orthodox) and we have kept his laws. Those Jews in the past who have created new forms of Judaism have always dissolved into the gentile world as is happening now with Conserative and Reform Jews. They are bankrupt in the USA and now are trying to bring their ever vacillating and foreign ideas to Israelis.
I wish to thank the commentator who wrote that we should consider the critirques of both Sholom Auslander and Feldman of Modern Orthodoxy. I think that the comparison is quite apt.
Both Auslander and Feldman use intellectual/moral arguments to justify what were essentially emotional decisions. Auslander was the victim of abuse and Feldman a victim of something else (arrogance? ambition? anger at his family?). It wasn’t for nothing that Feldman took on the fight to deny Orthodox Jews the opportunity to have an eiruv, especially since his father had been instrumental in helping to set a few of them up.
Moderator : Please delete my above posts.
Thanks
I slandered Rabbi Blech by saying that he slandered the modern orthodox community when in fact he didn’t do this. Rabbi Blech if you are reading this, please forgive me and to anyone moderating this thread, please delete my comment. Rabbi Blech is a good Rabbi whose comment I misunderstood based on a misinterpreation of grammar. It just shows why people shouldn’t jump to conclusions and how people often carry with them pre-concieved biases which influence their interpretation of something which might be completely wrong. I was completely wrong with how I reacted and Rabbi Blech’s article is a very good article which I agree with:
check it out:
http://www.aish.com/
Click on Intermarriage and the NY Times or do a search for it.
For some reason it’s not posting correctly:
http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Intermarriage_and_the_N.Y._Times.asp
I made a mistake with posting this comment above starting with “Feldman isn’t even a Rabbi…” I criticize Rabbi Blech when I in fact just misunderstood him. I really need to brush up on my English skills.
This is the article.
See for Yourself.
Rabbi Blech in NO WAY attacks the modern orthodox.
http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Intermarriage_and_the_N.Y._Times.asp
Rabbi Blech does not hate the Modern Orthodox. I misunderstood his comment. I guess I need to brush up on my English skills.
http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Intermarriage_and_the_N.Y._Times.asp
I misunderstood what Rabbi Bleck said. Please remove this comment.
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 Orthodox if not most, speak out against inter marriage or do not support it.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s exactly right. I’ve come to the same conclusion.
Let’s start our own schism!
Seriously!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
And no we don’t work in shifts.
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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’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?
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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?
My goodness! Do you people work in shifts,or what?!
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.
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!