Call and Responsa 2: Should a Rabbi Perform an Intermarriage?
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 10. 2014
- "Call & Responsa 2: Should a Rabbi Perform an Intermarriage?" - a conversation between Rabbi Angela Warnick Buchdahl, Rabbi of Central Synagogue in New York CIty and Dr. Yehuda Kurtzer, President of Shalom Hartman Institute of North America. Rabbinic responses are available on the iEngage Project website - iengage.org.il. Your responses are welcome, as well, and may be published if you permit. Write to shi@shi.org.il with your response.
- Krátké a kreslené filmy
I have no comment at this time except that I "love" Central Synagogue and enjoy their services. It is on my "bucket list " to some day be able to attend a service there in person. Love is love.
I think each one of us has one task... Orthodox are the guardians of tradition... Conservative and liberals or reform keeps the gates open to all jews and even to people who loves our people...
Watching Hashana services broadcast on JBS may well have changed the minds of those in dissent. I grew up in an Orthodox and then a Conservative schul. About 15 years ago I began to attend, thru the generosity of a friend, a wonderful Reform Temple in Norwalk CT. I was immediately (too many adjectives)-no word really oakamazed and involved from the beginning. It was and very much IS Judaism! There is NO difference in the content and the service is identical to my days involved with Conservative Judaism. So what is different? Music with a choir. Sounds "goyish?" Not at all. Hebrew is used. Transliteration helps those who never learned to read Hebrew. Prayers are identical. People pray and they become emotional and the Rabbi, the Cantor and the music is beautiful. Is there more English - Yes! Being our native tongue we actually UNDERSTAND! Who participates? EVERYONE. Yes, even women... There are 3 prominent branches of Judaism. It's your choice.. We can all decide and participate!.
For all those who disagree with the Rabbi's position, remember that 1) there is no specific conversion ceremony described in the Torah and 2) many biblical figures including Moses married non-Jews. What Moses and others did was to take their non-Jewish wives into their home, their family and their community, That's how they learned and followed Jewish custom. So what the Rabbi describes is in fact the original Jewish custom and tradition and was good enough for many, including Moses. The current Orthodox position that the mother must be Jewish, conversion ceremonies began over a 1000 years after Moses during the Babylonian exile. So it is the Orthodox who modified the original customs. The Rabbi above is far closer the original custom. You may agree or disagree with her approach, you feel it is good or bad for Jewish demographics, but you would be wrong to argue that the Orthodox approach is the one described in the Torah. This Rabbi's approach is far closer to that prescribed in the Torah itself.
To be clear, this is not simply a personal opinion, for example:
"With the exception of the Orthodox opinion, there is virtual unanimity among scholars that in the early biblical period, patrilineal descent was the accepted norm. At some point in time before the redaction of the Mishnah (late second century) matrilineal descent became the predominant principle in determining whether a child of a mixed marriage is a Jew.
Zlotowitz presents evidence that it was Ezra (babylonian period) who instituted the change from patrilineal to
matrilineal descent;" - Rabbi Aaron Liebman, Gvanim, Volume 4, Number 1, May 2008
+Yeshayahu ben Pinchas Cohen The Torah citation you quoted starts with "You shall not intermarry with them". Well, who does "them" refer to? You conveniently left out the the 2 preceding verses. In its original context it becomes 100% clear this section forbids intermarriage with 7 specifically designated tribal groups Moses was to have encountered in Israel. "Them" did NOT refer to all non-Jews. Indeed, Moses married Tzipporah, a non-Jew who was NOT from any of these excluded groups. I notice you did not cite any verses describing Tzipporah's conversion process. That's because no such description exists. This disproves your argument that the Torah, the 5 books of Moses, contains evidence for matrilineal descent.
In contrast, the Torah contains innumerable verses suggesting patrilenial lineage. One example is the census described in Bamidbar 1:2. In that census, "they declared their pedigrees after their families by their fathers’ houses.” (1:18). So patrimonial descent was the case from the beginning with Moses. In fact, you've got a big problem if matrilineal descent existed at that time as all of Moses descendants would not be Jewish!
More historical details:
Patrlineal descent remained the case for 1000 years while the high priests ran the temple. This situation changed for some jews at the time of the babylonian exile, i.e. the time the Talmud was developed, and the time your rabbinical/orthodox/pharasitic Judaism developed. The previously non-existent rabbinical class changed the law at the time . Why? One idea is that this reflected the fact that while in a foreign country, surrounded by non-Jews, one could only be sure who a child's mother was, not the father.
The babylonian exile ended after 66 years. The temple was rebuilt and the high priests (Saduccees) didn't agree with all the new teachings of the rabbinic Jews (Pharisses). In a previous post you cite Ezra 10 as further proof of matrilineal descent. Ezra occurs at the end of the Babylonian exile, 1000 years after the Torah. It can't be used to explain what was going on at the time of Moses!. I understand you follow the Talmud/rabbinical teachings, but if there is a dispute please don't fault those who side with Moses and the original high priests. And yes, the Karaites follow the original practice as well. When the 2nd temple was destroyed so were the high priests and many of their followers. While history has been cruel to all jews, this is exceptionally true of the Saduccees and their followers. Rabbinical Judaism is now in the majority and therefore so is matrilineal descent, and therefore most Jewish literature is written from this perspective.
I understand that you choose to follow the revised tradition. I respect that. Please don't diminish the more ancient beliefs of others. In so doing you not only denigrate Karaite Jews (recognized as Jews by the State of Israel) but you also denigrate the original high priests and the first 1000 years of Judaism.
I know you believe the Talmud is also the word of God. I respect that but that is a matter of faith. Since it can't be proven why can't you accept that the Karaites have the right to their view as well? I know, you feel the Talmud was passed down orally for 1000 years before it was put into writing. That seems to fly in the face of Exodus 24:12 which clearly says everything handed to Moses was written: there is no mention of the Talmud or any oral law. Moreover, it seems kind of odd that if the Talmud was so central to Jewish teachings that nobody would think to document it for 1000 years, if nothing else to ensure authenticity of the original source. Anyone who has played the game "telephone" (AKA chinese whispers) knows what happens when you pass a short story on orally for a few minutes; doesn't bode well for the idea of passing an entire book down for 1000 years. But again, I respect your belief. Please respect others.
+Yeshayahu ben Pinchas Cohen Well Yeshy, if I may call you that? There is an interesting scientific aspect to this. DNA analysis has shown that most hkenazi, east-African and Indian Jews have paternal lineage that traces back to early ancestors in Israel. In contrast, maternal lineage traces to local non-jewish women. In other words, the forefathers of Ashkenazi and other Jews were Israeli men who migrated from Israel and married local women. If matrilineal descent is the standard, you need to hope that all those mothers underwent 100% proper conversion ceremonies. That might have been difficult in a then jew-free Europe - not too many rabbis to be found! No concern exists if patrilineal descent is the standard.
www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html
I think we can agree that the discussion on matrilineal vs. patrilineal largely hinges on whether one reads the Torah as it is written, or whether it is interpreted by the Talmud. Thus, the issue of matrilineal vs. patrilineal depends on whether one accepts the Talmud as oral law, or whether it is the malleable writings of men.
I agree with you there is little value in rehashing this debate. My feeling is the points you made are matters of faith, and are "circular arguments" in that they must first assume the Talmud is oral law. which cannot be proven. My points are based on basic facts, logic and obviousness. I didn't attempt to provide a full list in the earlier post, but other justifications worth noting are the rabbinical debates and contradictions in the Talmud, and the fact that a portion of the Talmud is in Aramaic (the language of the later Babylonian exile) as opposed to Lashon Hakodesh/Hebrew. I also think it is worth reiterating for interested readers that for these reasons most scholars, except the orthodox, view that of the Talmud as a Babylonian rabbinical text. On the other hand, since the orthodox are more dominant in teaching the tradition, the average jew is more familiar with the orthodox opinion. Just as Hillel and Shamai disagreed so shall those reading this.
Kol hakavod to you.
For completeness, here are responses to your specific comments:> If descent by father was the case, then Arabs would be Hebrews because Ishmael's father was Abraham! No problem. Abraham was not a jew/Israelite. By definition neither existed until after Moses.
> must point out that Ezra was a prophet and not a rabbi, so this could not have been a post-exile rabbinic invention
The book of Ezra describes the return from Babylonian exile so it seems to be the product of that period. As such it can only be used to understand the traditions in place at that point in time.
>As for Bamidbar 1:2, that's referring to tribal affiliation, and Rabbinic tradition has never denied that one's tribal affiliation is patrimonial.
The key here is exactly as you said: it is Rabbinic tradition that assumes the patrilineal descent described here is referring only to tribes, not to jewish lineage. So once again, if you just read the Torah there is no basis for this conclusion.
+Yeshayahu ben Pinchas Cohen Jewish migration to Europe began before 120 AD, so the situation you describe is not applicable to the time of the first Jewish migrant. But the more critical point is that by definition there could not possibly be Rabbis in Europe when the first jew got there, unless the first jew was also a Rabbi. Something we will never know.
> Just out of curiosity, were you born a Karaite?
No
+Yeshayahu ben Pinchas Cohen No, not implying the original migrant was an individual. Just keeping it simple to make the point. Whether it was 1, 10, or 30 people, etc. there were no jews before them and ALL the wives would have required conversion. Its just impossible to know if that happened, even if Rabbis were present. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. That's all I'm saying. After all, there are plenty of rabbis today, but not all intermarriages involve converts (which is what started this conversation!). You are assuming that every single one of the original migrants were very religious, and that their wives were willing to undergo the full conversion process. You want to believe this, but there is simply no way to know. There are a lot of similar assumptions to many of your other arguments. You believe the assumptions to be gospel (pun intended) and so everything makes unquestionable sense to you. It is less clear if one focuses on facts and logic.
Do me a favor and look up "confirmation bias". This is a well studied phenomenon where humans tend to believe the first thing they are told. Its hard to "unlearn" this even when contrary facts are presented. In fact, when contrary facts are presented they are reinterpreted to suit the pre-existing belief system. This is human nature. We need to actively be aware of it to prevent it from occurring. It is a very powerful force. Studies have suggested this led to the failures of the Yom Kippur war, i.e. Israeli leadership had decided that victory in '67 was so complete that the arab armies would never attack. In retrospect it was clear that Israel had all the intelligence to know in advance that an attack was coming, they just reinterpreted the data to fit their pre-determined belief. Confirmation bias has led to the fall of companies and potentially nations.
If you think about it, confirmation bias is a key component to any religion or faith based belief system. If you were asked to prove that Jesus could not have been the Messiah described in Jewish texts, you would easily come up with obvious reasons why this belief is internally inconsistent with those very same texts. Same with the Trinity. You really have to go out of your way to reinterpret things and make assumptions to get to the point that these beliefs are consistent with the Jewish texts that Jesus himself believed in. But yet, Christians will be as firm on this as you are on the Talmud being oral law. And for Islam the list of such things is lengthy. One thing I find interesting about Judaism is that it has the least number of contradictions and things that need to be taken on faith. But the Talmud as oral law, would be one of those things. Fortunately the Talmud as oral law is not required for Judaism to remain logically intact.
The majority of the maternal DNA is European which is indicative of a founder effect, i.e. the founders were largely European women not the subsequent generations. The authors of the study make this point as well.
+Yeshayahu ben Pinchas Cohen
>If as you yourself said, we can't know for certain if they were converted or not, then this cannot be cited as proof of patrilineal lineage. The doubt prevents anyone from doing so.
I never offered this as proof of patrilineal lineage. I offered it as a problem if matrilineal its true. The argument for patrilineal was entirely independent of this issue.
I'm laughing right now as you insist that I'm a Karaite :) As I said I'm just looking at the facts and trying to make logical conclusions. I could be a well-studied Zoroastrian and be in the same position to make these arguments. I don't think I'm promoting either view, actually. My point is to make all the facts available, discuss it in the open. Right now one side is doing most of the talking in the Jewish community. Ultimately people will decide. Isn't that the Talmudic approach? After all the Orthodox don't follow Shammai anymore, but to this day they still hear him out.
I do hear you on the trending demographics in Reform and Conservatives, and its implications. Whether past traditions are helpful now is irrelevant when describing what those past traditions actually were. Realistically, the demographics the issue is not whether people convert or not. As you know there are many conversions that are done simply to appease their partner, and are not heartfelt. The real issue is whether Judaism is TAUGHT to the next generation, not whether genes are passed to the next generation through the mother or father. Yes, the orthodox do that well. Some Reform/Conservative do that, others do not, but their ability to teach is independent of how they handle weddings. I suspect Rabbi Buchdahl's would argue that she's not going to deny them an education simply because they refuse to convert.
The fundamental problem in the congregations that don't teach this well is that their members don't really want to do this well. They go to temple for bagels and lox and latkes and little more; and they stop paying their membership dues if they get more. For these people, orthodox judaism is not the solution because they will never join. The question is how to connect with these people. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'm certain that it is not discussions of ancient mechanical practices like the proper order to wash ones hands or that God forbids people from carrying on Shabbat, unless of course there happens to be a rope around the community. That's where the Talmud, Shulchan aruch, etc become a negative, and fortunately, in my opinion not fundamental to Judaism. Judaism has always maintained its basics while changing to meet the times (Rosh Hashana two day, etc.). It is beyond me why the rabbinical jews who first changed the religion to reflect the times, are precisely the ones who refuse any change now? In my opinion, instead of teaching and imposing these mechanical rules, the basics should be taught in a modern way, e.g. how Dennis Prager teaches in his classes?
I think that Rabbi Angela is spot on. We cannot keep dividing and sending our young Jewish Interfaith couples away as if they do not count.
Rather lets love and welcome all into the fold especially when they are are aspiring to have a Jewish home.
I think she right on
The Torah instructs us by saying we must not do intermarriage.