A Look at Judaism and Jewish Identity: Part A (Column 336)
Why Angela Buchdahl is the trigger for the discussion
The column presents Buchdahl as a prominent Reform rabbi and cantor, daughter of a Jewish father and a Buddhist-Korean mother, with impressive rhetorical and leadership presence. Miky stresses from the outset that her messages are fairly predictable: standard American liberalism, a struggle against racism, equality and pluralism through topical biblical sermons. Precisely because he himself tends to react suspiciously to this genre, he tries to hear her without automatic hostility. Listening to her also connects, for him, with reading Ehud Luz's book on Jewish identity, and from here the series begins.
"Today the world is conceived": not a birthday but a state of pregnancy
In her Rosh Hashanah sermon Buchdahl reads "Hayom harat olam" not as the celebration of a birth but as a description of pregnancy: potential, uncertainty, and at times even despair, as emerges from the verse in Jeremiah. A crisis, in her view, is not only disaster but also an in-between state that can ripen into a new birth. Miky notes that there is no great conceptual innovation here, but it is a sermon that vividly illustrates the synagogue-rabbinic genre: interpreting verses, connecting them to current events, and giving direction and motivation to a community.
Three meanings of "mashber" turn 2020 into a call for renewal
Buchdahl builds the sermon around three biblical meanings of "mashber": the breaking of the tablets by Moses, the waves threatening Jonah, and the birthing stool in Isaiah. In each case, the crisis is a painful moment that exposes failure, forces self-reckoning, and opens the possibility of a better covenant, a return to one's mission, or a renewed birth. From there she moves to COVID, George Floyd, and the social and economic crisis, arguing that precisely collapse exposes longstanding problems and therefore also makes repair possible. In Miky's eyes this is a legitimate and fairly routine sermon in content, without anything distinctly "Reform" about it, but simply a rabbinic sermon delivered at an unusually high rhetorical level.
In her Yom Kippur sermon Buchdahl argues: Judaism is not race but an open covenantal family
The second sermon deals with racism in the Jewish community and in America more broadly. Buchdahl opens with personal experiences: Chabad activists who did not ask whether she was Jewish because of her Asian appearance, and Orthodox Jews who wondered whether she was Jewish despite her rich Jewish life. From there she tries to shatter myths about Jewish peoplehood: Judaism is not a race; seeing it as a race characterizes persecutors of Jews; Jews are not necessarily white Ashkenazim; and someone who enters the covenant through choice, conversion, adoption, or identification belongs to the Jewish family. At the end, she proposes viewing the Jewish people as a family founded in covenant, not in blood.
Miky accepts the principle, but rejects the examples, generalizations, and analogies
Here his criticism becomes sharper. He distinguishes between illegitimate racism and careful use of statistical indications and stereotypes, while adding that sensitivity is needed because people can indeed experience such questions as hurtful. He also distinguishes between "Judaism" and "Jewishness": Judaism as a normative system is not ethnic, even if conversion also brings one into the Jewish people. So, in his eyes, the story about Chabad or about a Black visitor in a synagogue does not prove racism. He also disputes the claim that the concept of "race" is nothing but a construction, and that "race is the child of racism": there are visible differences between groups, and the moral question is not whether distinctions exist but what one does with them. Accordingly, the comparisons among Pharaoh, the Inquisition, the Nazis, American race laws, and the State of Israel strike him as loose and at times demagogic. Still, he repeatedly stresses that opposition to racism itself is correct, and that the claim that Judaism should not be defined solely on an ethnic basis is, in his view, justified.
The deeper problem: both these sermons and many Orthodox sermons are not "Judaism"
After the local criticisms, Miky formulates his basic discomfort: both sermons, and especially the first, could have been delivered almost word for word in a church. But he immediately adds that this is not specifically a problem of Reform or liberalism. Orthodox rabbis too—liberal or conservative, including those who preach against feminism, homosexuality, or evolution—are often dealing with general systems of values, not with Judaism as such. So the debate between liberalism and conservatism is not identical to the debate between Judaism and Christianity, and the fact that one is speaking in a synagogue or drawing on the Bible still does not make the content "Judaism." That also does not mean such issues have no place in synagogue; only that they are not the core issue.
The question that will drive the series: what is the Jewish covenant, and is Judaism a value or a fact?
From here the column arrives at its key question. If Judaism is not simply race, but also is not identical with a liberal or conservative basket of values, then what exactly is the content of the "covenant" that defines a Jew? What is a person saying when they declare, "I am Jewish" or "I am committed to the Jewish covenant"—what norms, practices, or forms of belonging are they committing to? This question is directed not only at Buchdahl or the Reform movement but also at Orthodoxy: even if there are ethnic or halakhic criteria for identifying a Jew and for conversion, it is still unclear what Judaism is in the value-laden, substantive sense. The column leaves this open for the continuation, formulating the question that will underlie the whole series: is Judaism a value, a fact, a normative system, or a complex combination of all of these?
Yesterday (Tuesday) morning I came across a very interesting woman, Rabbi (Reform) Angela Buchdahl (Angela Warnick Buchdahl), who serves as a rabbi at the Central Synagogue in New York City, a major Reform congregation. She also serves as the cantor of this synagogue. Buchdahl is a fascinating combination of rabbi and cantor—both at a high level—a phenomenon not usually found in our parts. Typically such a combination is a “jack-of-all-holy-trades,” meaning someone who does all the roles needed in a community, and then either he’s not really a rabbi or he’s not really a cantor. From the Wikipedia entry I gathered that she is considered one of the most influential rabbis in the American Jewish world today (here you can see her hosted at the White House by Obama in 2014 for Hanukkah), and it’s rather surprising that here in Israel almost no one has heard of her. As Yair Ettinger writes in his article about her, apparently the Jewish shtetl is also not small and not so well connected.
Her words stirred me to think and connected with issues I’ve been dealing with in recent days from other angles. This past Yom Kippur I started reading Ehud Luz’s excellent book, Struggle at the Jabbok (it was indeed a very fruitful fast). The book deals with Jewish identity and Judaism’s relationship to the use of power, from historical, sociological, philosophical, and Torah perspectives. It begins with a principled discussion of Jewish identity and, more generally, national and religious identity, and, as noted, these matters resonated for me with what I heard from Buchdahl. Therefore I thought to begin a series of columns dealing with Jewish identity.
A preliminary description
Buchdahl is the daughter of a Jewish father and a Buddhist mother (from South Korea), has an Asian appearance, and apparently underwent conversion (Reform, as I understand it) at a fairly late stage of her rabbinic leadership. She has served for quite a few years as rabbi and cantor in central Reform congregations in the United States. In a video from a few years ago here you can hear “Kol Nidrei” arranged to the traditional melody, with choir, violin, and of course organ, which popped up for me on YouTube. To my ear it’s beautiful, and that’s actually how I first encountered her. After hearing that, I happened upon (thanks to the algorithm, may it be blessed—see about it in the previous column) the fact that she is also a rabbi, and I immediately searched and listened on YouTube to two of her sermons for the High Holidays of this year, which I will discuss below.
She is an excellent orator who speaks candidly and eloquently, formulating her ideas with great clarity. One can sense that she controls her audience, the pacing, the intonation, and the voice, and I was also impressed by her command of the Bible and of Hebrew. She is certainly a powerful spiritual leader of a community, though I must say that her messages were quite predictable and at times even banal. All in all it is standard American liberalism, using biblical interpretations and their contemporary application to Black Lives Matter, women’s equality, pluralism, the fight against racism in the Jewish community and beyond, and of course in these days of 2020 one cannot avoid the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg (RBG)—how could one not?![1]
Her speeches reminded me of the addresses of political orators (like Obama, Martin Luther King, Churchill, Jabotinsky, or even our own Reuven Rivlin—who in my view is quite a good orator). They too did not present much that was new (certainly not in their speeches); their main point was the pathos that motivates—moving listeners to think and to act, instilling courage and energy. A spiritual and social leader is not supposed to present deep innovations in sermons, nor to bring new tidings. His role is mainly to lead and to spur the listeners (the community) to action and reflection. If you look at all the famous speeches in history you’ll see there are no real novelties in them. And I think in that sense she belongs entirely to the genre.
I’m putting all this on the table at the outset precisely because these directions (liberalism, Reform, florid rhetoric) usually trigger strong antibodies in me, and I assume many of my readers here feel the same. Despite that, I tried—and I recommend that you also try—not to approach her words with a priori hostility. It’s worthwhile to hear things as they are, and only afterward form a position about them. I hope I succeeded in that task, and as noted, in the bottom line I was truly impressed by her. And yet, all along I felt that beyond all the criticisms I had of particulars, there is mainly one point underlying all her words that bothered me again and again throughout the listening. I tried to define it for myself and realized it is not specifically connected to liberalism or Reform, nor to demagoguery and rhetoric. Through that I arrived at thoughts about Jewish identity that I have written about before, and as noted this also connected to Ehud Luz’s book, which I will reach in subsequent columns. But first I’ll turn to Buchdahl’s two sermons. I’ll try to describe each (sometimes critically), and only then offer a more general insight that touches both and this phenomenon in general.
The sermon about “Hayom Harat Olam”
The first sermon I heard was delivered this past Rosh Hashanah,[2] and Buchdahl deals there with the meaning of the words “Hayom harat olam.” I recommend listening before reading. At least on the rhetorical level, it’s certainly an experience. Here I will only briefly describe the content.
She says that ostensibly “harat olam” is the world’s birthday. But the literal meaning of the word harat is pregnancy, which is potential but not yet birth, i.e., without a guaranteed outcome. Therefore it’s not a reason for celebration but at most for hope. Buchdahl explains that for this reason in our tradition we don’t say “mazal tov” for a pregnancy but “b’sha’ah tova” (“at a good time”). She notes that the phrase “harat olam” originates in Jeremiah 20:17, where it appears as an expression of despair: the prophet wishes that his mother would remain pregnant forever (meaning that he would not be born). In that sense “hayom harat olam” describes a catastrophe—perhaps more fitting for this year with all its troubles (the virus and of course the death of RBG, of blessed memory). But, she says, like any good supervisor, in Jewish tradition a crisis signals the chance for renewal. She says that the word “mashber” (crisis) in the Bible has three meanings that create a map helping us out of the darkness (the crisis):
- In Exodus we find Moses breaking the tablets. She asks why Moses breaks the tablets when descending, since up on the mountain he had already heard from God what Israel had done. She explains that the breaking was not a reaction to an inner feeling but an outward display. In the end God gives us new tablets in whose creation a human being is also involved, and that constitutes a better basis for the covenant between us and God. She then turns to current events: during the difficult period of the virus and the death of George Floyd (see notes on that in Column 316), the problematic attitude of the American administration and society toward Blacks was exposed, but it wasn’t born there. It existed and was known beforehand. The social fracture occurred when it was exposed in actuality. Again, this fracture is the first step toward repair and a more fitting attitude toward minorities.
- With Jonah who is cast into the sea we find the phrase “all Your breakers passed over me” (yesovevuni kol mishbarekha). The mishbarim (with hiriq) are the breaking waves. In the previous usage mashber was the act of breaking; here it names the object that breaks. And again, following the crisis and under the threat of waves that don’t let him breathe, Jonah, who is ultimately saved, rethinks and comes to understand his mission (and stops fleeing from it). So too in the storm of corona and its crises, those of us who were spared need to recalculate our path and understand what is essential and what is secondary—our relationship to our home and family, etc.—and, in fact, the voice of God to us (this of course connects to the corona midrashim discussed in Column 285).
- In Isaiah we read “for the children have come to the birthstool (mashber) and there is no strength to give birth”—a bit like Jeremiah’s “harat olam.” Here the term mashber is the birthing stool on which a woman brings life into the world. A woman sitting on the mashber has no strength to push; she doesn’t feel she is bringing life but thinks she is going to die. At some point the woman, like Sarah and Hannah and our foremothers, feels she must find the strength to push and give birth. One cannot remain pregnant forever. Again she returns to current events. The pain afflicting democracy, society, the economy, health, and more should lead us to conclude that we must find the strength to bring new life into the world. Again, the problems have always been here, but in crisis everything is exposed and reaches the limit; therefore precisely here one can find the strength to address them. In previous crises—the Depression of the 1930s and the 1970s, the fall of the Twin Towers, and more—the feeling was that New York City had died. But from the crisis they rose, took a deep breath, and set out anew, stronger. So too we must do in the wake of corona.
This is not a new situation for us, says Buchdahl. We have often been in such crises and emerged from them. That is what the Jewish tradition teaches us: a crisis is an opportunity to take a breath, to push, and to reach the birth of something new and better, in good time.
As noted, these are not earth-shattering novelties, and yet I think listening to the sermon will leave more of an impression than reading this summary. I brought it specifically because I think it is a typical sermon that could be delivered in many synagogues, even thoroughly Orthodox ones, though here it is delivered at a rhetorical level much higher than is common in our locales. Her words contain interpretations of biblical sources and contemporary applications to our day, whose main purpose is to give people direction and motivation to draw lessons for their lives. That is what a rabbi is supposed to do in a synagogue sermon, no? Exactly as I described above with regard to political and ideological orators.
For our purposes, I don’t see anything Reform here, but there is a context and some liberal hints. In terms of content, it’s a regular synagogue talk by a rabbi to his or her community. Her next sermon is no longer that—at least in terms of its content.
The sermon about racism
The second sermon I heard was delivered this last Yom Kippur. There, Buchdahl dealt with racism in the Jewish community and beyond. Again I recommend listening before continuing to read. I’ll preface by saying that here you will find a more generous serving of liberalism and a full helping of Reform. Despite the good rhetorical level, naturally I enjoyed this one less. The messages are quite predictable and banal, including not a few fallacies typical of liberal discourse on these subjects. Again, I’ll summarize the main points for you, and this time—precisely because my concern is not to critique liberalism and Reform per se—I will accompany them with local critical remarks. I’ll reach my principled point only at the end and in subsequent columns.
Buchdahl opens with a story about Chabad Hasidim who went around with a mitzvah tank at Yale during her studies (the early 1990s). They would stop students and ask whether they were Jewish. She says that at that time there were 25% Jews there, so it was almost a rhetorical question. But, for some reason, over four years they never asked her that question. Her claim is that her Asian appearance led them to conclude that she was certainly not Jewish. Here you have an opening story about Jewish racism.
But this is, of course, typical liberal naïveté. The “racist” Chabad Hasidim did not ask a woman with an Asian appearance whether she was Jewish—just as they also didn’t ask the street cats there whether they were human beings. They didn’t ask her because the overwhelming majority of those who look like her are indeed not Jewish (and halakhically she herself is apparently not Jewish). True, as the sermon proceeds it becomes clear that she has a principled claim (that Jewishness is not a race and not an ethnic matter), so she is not merely being naïve, but this opening seems to me really a rather low rhetorical ploy. It’s a bit reminiscent of the fashionable claims of racism in the screening of Arabs/Muslims at airports.
At the next stage Buchdahl raises a more relevant argument: the Orthodox never recognized her as Jewish, even though she read the entire Jewish liturgy (the siddur) in Hebrew—something many Jews cannot do—sat in a sukkah, and so forth. She says that, unlike those Chabadniks, many people did ask her—but with puzzlement: are you Jewish?! Again, their implicit assumption was that Jewishness is an ethnic matter. Jews have their own names, their own look, and even their own genetic diseases. Therefore people think Jewishness is an ethnic-genetic-racial matter. She explains that she understood their implicit assumption: that Jewishness is innate and built-in, not subject to change. Since it is an ethnic-genetic-racial matter, then although she has a Jewish father, with a look like hers she can never be considered Jewish.
Before continuing, I must comment. Appearance indeed serves as an indicator of being Jewish (see below). But the statement that it is innate and cannot be changed is again misleading. One can convert and accept Judaism. Judaism, as opposed to Jewishness, has nothing to do with ethnicity or race. Judaism is a conception or a normative system (see below), and one can indeed enter it. True, through it one also enters Jewishness (the Jewish society and the Jewish people). Below we will see what Buchdahl says about conversion and entering Judaism and Jewishness.
After this opening she said that in this sermon she wants to shatter several of the myths regarding Jewish peoplehood. At the outset she states that Jewishness is not a race. On the contrary—and here come the expected examples—treating Jewishness as a race characterizes precisely the haters and persecutors of Jews, from Pharaoh through the Inquisition to Hitler. In her view, the idea of Jewishness as a race was created by Jew-haters to justify violence, racism, and persecution against us, and, ironically, we ourselves adopt that conception regarding ourselves. Here I wondered where she drew the idea of the Inquisition’s racism from. On the contrary, they gave Jews the option to convert to Christianity and were then prepared to ignore their race. That is, they pursued Judaism as a religion, not Jewishness as ethnicity. As for Pharaoh, I didn’t understand where she got the racial element. Does she think one can also read gender there (“every boy… and every girl you shall let live”)? Pharaoh persecuted the Jews, but I don’t know whether he would have waived persecution for Buchdahl because of her Asian appearance. The only one who hung the matter on race was Hitler, who indeed developed a racial theory as the basis for his persecution of Jews. But the analogy to Pharaoh and Torquemada is on her responsibility alone. As is well known, precisely for such reasons “we do not respond to homiletics.”
Here Buchdahl moves to the claim that contrary to the (American) stereotype according to which a Jew is a white Ashkenazi of European origin, the truth is that Jews today have all kinds of appearances: Sephardi and Ashkenazi, African, Asian, and more. Here too she is not precise. Sephardi and Ashkenazi—of course that’s true and uncontested; who disputes that? One might argue that Sephardim are discriminated against, but who doesn’t see them as Jews?! (Perhaps non-Jews in America due to ignorance.) But as a matter of fact an African appearance is not a Jewish appearance. An African Jew in America is almost always someone who converted or his descendant. This is not a regular Jewish community, and mixing them into the Ashkenazi–Sephardi axis is a demagogic attempt to lean on the feelings of discrimination that exist there as well.
It’s important to sharpen the point. I too think it’s right not to follow appearance as a criterion for Jewishness (who even thinks otherwise?), but it is not true that, factually, appearance says nothing. We operate throughout our lives by means of stereotypes, and usually it works. One must be careful not to cross an ethical line in using them and not to take them too far, but we cannot completely dispense with them in our dealings with people in our lives. That demand is an illusion or a liberal slogan, baseless and unfounded.
She added that a 2019 survey in the U.S. found that about a seventh of Jews are people of color (I don’t know whether that includes regular Mizrahim or not). One can, of course, wonder what the criterion for their Jewishness was (I would bet that those among them who converted according to halakha are a shining minority), but I fully agree (who wouldn’t?!) that her claim has a place: we shouldn’t ignore these facts and remain with the Ashkenazi stereotype (which is really more prevalent in the U.S. than in Israel). And then she says to her listeners: you’re surely saying to yourselves, “I don’t believe it. After all, I don’t see any of these around me.” And to that she says: you’re right. They really aren’t here. And on this Yom Kippur we must repent precisely for that.
She describes a Black rabbinical student who came to the synagogue and was asked at every turn whether he was Jewish and what background he came from, whether and how one might help him, etc.—signals of blatant racism in her eyes. In my eyes these are entirely legitimate and appropriate questions (if asked politely and carefully), and in fact, if they were not asked, there would be alienation and a lack of engagement with the stranger. But in liberal discourse this is always racism.[3] When you see someone who looks like an outsider, it’s appropriate to inquire who he is and whether one can help him. By the way, later Buchdahl says that asking a Black person to take my drink order (as a waiter), or asking a woman with an Asian appearance whether she is the babysitter of the baby at the brit, is not necessarily racism. But we must remember that the people we ask experience it as racism. In these words there is a measure of justice, and therefore one must certainly be cautious and gentle in these matters.[4]
Now she moves to a discussion of racism in America, a burning contemporary issue. The Jewish community, in her view, should see the fight against racism in America as its own fight. We should reexamine the racist assumptions embedded in us, if only for reasons of survival—otherwise we may lose generations of Jews and their descendants (or those who are not absorbed because of their foreignness, or ordinary Jews who are unwilling to live in a racist community). She tells of a couple who came to her ready to convert—the woman Protestant and the man Jewish. At that very moment the woman asked him what “Jewish” means to him, and he answered that he’s not really religious, but for him Jewishness is a community where when you enter a party or event you can approach and join other people who belong to that community (who are also Jews). She asked him: so I and the rabbi (=Buchdahl) don’t belong to Jewishness in that sense? In the end they married, but she did not convert. This is apparently an example of her claim about the loss of people and generations because of the racial approach to Jewishness. Again, I don’t really understand. Nowhere in her telling was any racial matter mentioned. If the fellow had seen Buchdahl wearing a tallit (as she does), I imagine he would have seen her as Jewish as well. Moreover, it is quite likely that for him Jewishness was not a question of race but of familial belonging. The fact is that he was willing to marry a Protestant woman—that is, he certainly did not reject her on a racial basis. He merely expressed the feeling that Jewishness is a kind of family—but one to which you can indeed join (I remind you they approached her to convert). The impression is that Buchdahl sees racism everywhere, including places where there is no necessity to see it. She shoots the arrow and then draws the target—but I must say that this is the way of preachers everywhere and of every kind (without distinction of religion, outlook, race, or sex).
She then moves on to shatter another myth and claims that scientists have shown that race is not a scientific matter. Race is a human creation or definition whose goal is to perpetuate the privileges a certain group has taken for itself. In her polished phrasing: race is the daughter of racism, not its father. In these words there is a claim of fact (that division into races is unscientific and not factual) and a claim about motives (that it was created to reinforce a privileged group). For my part I don’t understand the meaning of the factual claim (I hope she does). Today there are racial characteristics that anyone can identify. That’s a fact in every sense, and I assume it can also be described scientifically. Her claim sounds to me like the assertion that the division into species and genera in the animal and plant world (taxonomy) is a human creation. Of course the terminology and the partition are human creations (meaning one could have partitioned otherwise), but there is no doubt that this partition reflects something in the world as it is. Is the difference between a cactus and a lion—or a human being—a subjective human construct? That’s nonsense. Moreover, why even discuss whether race is a fact or not?! What matters is what one does with that distinction. So much for the factual claim. As for the conspiracy claim, I have nothing to say. Once it is clear that division into races has reality, there’s no point in seeking conspiracies to explain its emergence. Beyond that, such conspiracy claims are very dubious to me even when there is a phenomenon that truly lacks scientific basis (see my series from Column 178 onward that deals with Marxist discourse, and much more).
In short, she’s not right. Race is indeed the father of racism, not its child—though it is the stepchild. Racism is a reprehensible stance, but that does not mean racial distinctions lack factual basis. There is no need to deny differences between races in order to confront racist ideas.[5] You can accept the fact that there are differences between races and that they can be distinguished, and still reject a discriminatory racist attitude. Specifically regarding Jewishness, there is indeed room to discuss whether it has a sharp racial definition. It’s quite clear to me that it doesn’t, and there’s no need for it either. But contrary to what she assumes, no one claims that there is such a definition.
Immediately afterward she goes on to describe the Nazis’ attitude toward the Jewish race. In their view, even if a Jew converted to Christianity it would not change his being Jewish. So what? They viewed Jewishness as a racial matter, and apparently were mistaken (specifically regarding Jewishness). Does this prove anything about us? Their principal error was not the scientific error—that Jewishness is not a race. That’s a scientific error like any other. The problem with Nazism was that it developed an attitude toward people on the basis of their race. That is indeed a racist approach worthy of every condemnation. But does anyone defend Nazism today? Buchdahl draws here overblown comparisons and takes analogies to places with no connection to the source. Thus, for example, she claims that the Germans were influenced by American race laws (regarding Blacks). And therefore? Does that mean Americans are as racist as the Nazis? Even if in the past this was true (and even there I think the claim does not quite hold water), how is it connected to our time? Moreover, the Germans also wore trousers and drew on other intellectual and scientific sources. Does that invalidate all those sources?! This reminds me of the approach that accords the Nazis the right to define who is a Jew: whoever’s ancestors were persecuted by them because of their Jewishness (who are you to tell me I’m not Jewish if Hitler, the supreme Jewish authority, wanted to kill my grandparents?!).[6]
She explains that when the State of Israel was established it adopted the “Nazi” rule of a quarter-Jew as the criterion for which refugee it must absorb (one grandparent Jewish; i.e., the child or grandchild of a Jew). Here is an analogy that makes an Olympic leap from Nazism to the State of Israel (all of Yair Golan’s doctrine on one foot). By the way, I quickly checked and saw that the mainstream Reform movement also proposes a racial definition, since in its view the child of a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father is not considered Jewish unless raised as a Jew and explicitly identifies with the Jewish religion—whereas the child of two Jews is considered Jewish in any case. Is that not racism? Incidentally, in many Reform communities worldwide this lenient criterion was not accepted, and they adopt the halakhic criterion to this day. This is, of course, not an attack on Buchdahl, since I assume she also opposes those conceptions. For her, Jewishness is nothing but culture and values with no dependence on any genetic or ethnic context. This, of course, greatly sharpens the need to define who is a Jew—that is, what is Judaism, in her view? Now we’ve reached the core of the discussion.
Who is a Jew?
She reaches this at the end of her words: the heritage and tradition from all generations before us, starting at Sinai, are very important and meaningful in her eyes. Therefore that is exactly what should define Jewishness, not ethnic-racial criteria. Instead she proposes thinking of us as a family. One can enter a family through birth, adoption, choice, or covenant—sometimes stronger than blood (as in marriage). The birth of the Jewish family was through a covenant with God, not on an ethnic-racial basis. At the beginning of Parashat Nitzavim all those standing before God are enumerated, and this includes everyone, even “your stranger who is in your camp.” Therefore, in her eyes, the fundamental definition of Jewishness is anyone who enters that covenant. That and no more.
But even that doesn’t give me a good definition. What does that covenant mean? Who is a party to it and who is not? Is it enough for a person to say that he is a party to that covenant? After all, anyone can say whatever he wants. Doesn’t this require something more from him? The definitions I mentioned above from the Reform movement—that require a declaration of commitment to the Jewish religion—are unclear for precisely the same reason. What does that declaration say? I’m not speaking about the question of credibility—i.e., whether I believe the person making the declaration (since anyone can declare anything). I’m asking about the meaning of that declaration: what does it mean to be Jewish? When a person declares “I am a Jew” or “I am committed to the Jewish covenant,” what exactly is he supposed to mean? Going to synagogue every Sabbath? Sending a child to a Jewish school? (What should be taught in a school so that it will count as a Jewish school?) Speaking Hebrew? Residing in the State of Israel? Opposing racism?
The most important question in my eyes—and the one underlying the discussion—is whether Jewishness is a value or a fact. But we will get to that later. I want to end this column with a brief discussion of the main underlying issue that bothered me in these two sermons.
What actually bothered me?
Beyond all the particular points I described in the second sermon, as I said, I felt there is something more fundamental that accompanies all my critiques, and in fact is far more basic than they are. This is not a debate over degrees of liberalism, since that’s a debate I conduct with many people, including non-Jews and non-religious folks (both against the conservative pole and against the extreme liberal pole). Beyond that, at least in the first sermon there was no expression at all of Reform positions, nor even of liberalism. And even in the second sermon I concluded that what bothered me was not only that. So what is it?
On the one hand, what she says in both sermons is indeed relevant and topical. In the first sermon one can even see that it is connected to sources (as is typical of connections to the Bible and its interpretation—that’s the essence of the genre), though in the second this exists less, to my taste. But even regarding the principle of her second sermon I fully agree: in my view it is not right to define Jewishness on an ethnic basis (I simply don’t think that’s what people are doing, and therefore I don’t share her critique). I also agree that racism is negative (though I think most of the phenomena she described are not expressions of racism). In short, that’s not what bothered me. The examples and fallacies are specific matters, but there is something more basic here. I’ll say more: in both sermons (especially the first) it seems to me she delivered the message and the linkage to sources no less well than any other synagogue sermon that relies on the Bible—and in my view better than most.
My first conclusion was that these two sermons as they are could be delivered verbatim at the church next door to her synagogue (and they likely are delivered there). Who would disagree with the condemnation of racism? Who would disagree that we should rise, shake off the crisis we’re in, and set out anew? Who would not be willing to learn all this from the Bible? In short, the point where I felt a question was: in what sense is this Jewishness?! It is seemingly a talk about values, and therefore it could be delivered in exactly the same way in any forum and place around the world. Even the reliance on the Bible is, of course, not unique to Jewishness (not to mention the connections that can be made in all sorts of other directions in the same way), certainly if one sees it as a source of inspiration. Many diverse people see it that way.
But here is another surprising point. Sermons given by Orthodox rabbis are not very different from the first sermon, and to a large extent even from the second. There are Orthodox rabbis who could say exactly the same things; that is, the question of what here counts as Jewishness is not connected to her Reform identity. Moreover, even in her second sermon, which is harder on an Orthodox ear, there will be rabbis who will say similar things (I myself agree with most of them—again, with the principles, not with the arguments and applications). In other words, the conclusion is that even what Orthodox rabbis do in the synagogue is not Jewishness. The substantive differences, to the extent they exist at all, are not the important point.
Let’s go one step further. Think now about rabbis who convey messages opposite to hers—decidedly conservative and anti-liberal rabbis. Take, for example, the messages that occasionally leak from the Ali pre-military academy and from other Haredi and Hardal sources. These deal with the “Jewish” (i.e., conservative) institution of the family, modesty, assigning roles to women, abortion, homosexuality, evolution and philosophy, faith in God, and many other topics of “Jewish” thought. In fact what we have here is conservatism, not Jewishness. These talks too could be delivered in exactly the same way by pastors in churches—just as Buchdahl’s sermons. True, here it would be in different churches, less liberal (usually not in New York City or California, of course). If so, this is a debate about conservatism versus liberalism, not about Jewishness versus Christianity. Therefore, the liberal content is not the problem, since that same genre from the conservative direction is no more Jewish. There is something more fundamental.
In short, the whole business is confusing. On the one hand there is something here that’s hard to place under the title “Jewishness” (because it belongs equally to a parallel church). But on the other hand, this has nothing to do with her Reform identity or with the liberalism of her messages. I would say the same about synagogue sermons by conservative rabbis. There is something in the method and in the reasoning, beyond the content and the values, that stirred in me a sense of discomfort. After understanding this, I concluded that this matter relates to the “Jewishness” of her words—and equally to the “Jewishness” of the rabbis I mentioned earlier, of both hues, liberal and conservative. All this simply isn’t Jewishness. These are systems of values—liberal or conservative—but they have nothing to do with Jewishness. This does not mean such matters shouldn’t be discussed in synagogue. Certainly they should. Value questions have a place in synagogue. But still, this is not Jewishness.
This brings me back to the content of the “covenant” that Buchdahl sees as the foundation of Jewishness. It is apparently not the conservative covenant, since by all accounts liberals are also Jews, even if someone disagrees with their position. The same holds for conservatives, whom liberals will also admit are Jews. That is, Jewishness is not defined by either of these baskets of values. So what is? What is the content of that covenant that defines Jewishness?
It is important to say that the question is not posed only to Buchdahl and the Reform. The question also lies at the door of Orthodox Jews. One can define a person’s Jewishness on an ethnic basis and a person’s conversion on a halakhic basis. And still the question of what Jewishness is in its value sense remains open. Who, in their view, behaves as a Jew and who does not? What, exactly, is the convert who comes to us supposed to join, and what is he supposed to declare when he speaks of accepting Jewish commitment? Incidentally, I think even Buchdahl would not be satisfied with opposition to racism as the sole criterion of Jewishness, since there are not a few people—whom she too would not define as Jews—who oppose racism. Moreover, I allow myself to suppose that even she would admit there are not a few racists who nevertheless should be defined as Jews (and condemned). So what is the basic criterion—hers or anyone’s—for Jewishness? What is that “covenant” one must join to be considered a Jew?
[1] She was a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, a liberal American Jew who contributed greatly to equality for women and minorities. RBG was considered among the leaders of American liberalism, and she passed away a few weeks ago. It seems that for liberals this counts as a disaster on the scale of corona (see Buchdahl’s words below), though with all due respect to her impressive personality, she was already 87. It’s a bit reminiscent of the desperate supplications of Haredim for the recovery of a sick rabbi at the age of one hundred—as if, because of our sins, God did to us this terrible and unexpected disaster. Let it teach you that neither the world nor a person—secular or religious—can do without prophets and rebbes.
Incidentally, part of the matter is that her passing is stirring a political crisis in the U.S. right now. President Trump wants to appoint in her place a conservative justice, and liberals are of course very angry and raise bizarre, baseless claims about his lack of legitimacy to do so (see, for example, the first debate between Biden and Trump that took place tonight, where Biden mumbled his irrelevant arguments on this topic). Sound familiar? As I said: the way of the world is one.
[2] I wondered whether one must wait “the time it would take to do” on the night after Rosh Hashanah in order to listen to this recording. True, as is known, the rule of “the time it would take to do” applies only to a non-Jew and not to a Jew, but here, halakhically, we are apparently dealing with a non-Jewish woman.
[3] Sometimes body language is more important than the content of the question, of course. There can be situations in which such questions reflect racism. But in themselves they reflect clear statistical facts: the overwhelming majority of Blacks are not Jews, and the overwhelming majority of Jews are not Black. Therefore it is reasonable that people will think he came to take an interest and see the synagogue even though he is not Jewish. Is that not expected and natural?!
[4] Incidentally, this reminds me that during my time in the holy city of Bnei Brak, I had amusing experiences of this sort at every step. I dressed like a “Mizrahi” (national-religious) type, with a knitted kippah (and at first also sandals without socks and short pants). At weddings I was kindly asked whether I was from the bride’s kibbutz (it was a yeshiva of ba’alei teshuva). On a night trip to a bakery to bake matzot for Passover, they asked me if I was the bus driver. During the aliyah laTorah in the yeshiva where I studied, every beginner and married ba’al teshuva was called up as “the Rav So-and-so son of So-and-so” (like Rabbi Elazar ben Dordaya who acquired his world in a single hour—and not only that, they even called him “Rabbi”), but I, even when I was already one of the veteran and best students in the yeshiva (if I may), and everyone knew me well, was never privileged with the title “Rabbi” (until I switched to a black kippah, for entirely prosaic reasons, by the way). In the Friday night talks after the prayer people would sometimes speak about the national-religious as if they were not Jews and so forth, and no one was bothered that I was standing there with them. Not only does my appearance mark me as national-religious (rightly), but as such I am invisible and not counted. It’s like in films about America several decades ago, where people spoke about servants and Blacks in their presence as if they were air. You might suspect that I remember these situations because I was offended. Maybe at first a bit, but believe me—principally, not at all. Usually it amused me greatly, and these are only a tiny fraction of the situations there (most I don’t remember). I learned to enjoy this transparent status (and I enjoyed surprising them no less—but that is indeed the evil inclination). Especially since I understood there is some truth in such an attitude, for I really looked national-religious (and perhaps was a bit so). So what’s the problem? Such stereotypical treatment is expected and natural. But I can understand that there are people who might be hurt by it.
[5] I have dealt with racism in several columns in the past. See, for example, Columns 10, 206, and the references there.
[6] She herself uses this phrase when she says: if it’s Jewish enough for them to kill him, it’s Jewish enough for us to save him. Note that suddenly she has no problem granting Jew-haters and persecutors the right to decide who is a Jew. Here she is willing to adopt the Nazis’ racial criterion (which was also common in the U.S. in the past, what was called the one drop rule) as a substitute for the State of Israel’s “racist” criterion.
Discussion
They most definitely are evidence, except that one can discuss whether this has a genetic basis. Those are two different questions.
I’ve now quickly read the article. Its opening already shows that the fellow is driven by ideological motives, and falls into the same fallacy as Buchdahl, who ties the scientific question to the evaluative one. In short, it has no bearing on our issue.
If I remember correctly, this point about “it could also be said in a church” was written by you in an article you once wrote for the “Shabbat” supplement about women’s Torah study. There you said that what distinguishes Judaism (and would not be heard in churches) is the Oral Torah, the Talmud, and halakhah, which is not done at a high level by women, and so you concluded that they lose prestige or standing. One may assume that this will be your conclusion now as well.
On a certain level this is the same claim as Leibowitz’s: that God according to Maimonides and according to the holy Ari are utterly different, and the only connection between them is that both operated within the same normative system of halakhah.
I sometimes wonder how true that claim is. And if a priest in a church were to discuss the debates of Abaye and Rava, would that make him a Jew? And if a secular Jew does not accept the system at all, would that make him not a Jew? (The second question is more complicated because of considerations of apostasy and the like, but one can certainly say that the answer is that he is still a Jew.)
Therefore I think there really need to be two tracks here: traditionalism and family, and acceptance of the normative system of halakhah.
In general, one can ask ourselves how ridiculous it is to say of that “rabbi” that she is a gentile when the number of views of her YouTube videos (a metric that has definitely become sacred) is higher than that of any other rabbi I know. Will there come a stage at which the words of an overwhelming majority of the Jewish people (apparently via the family track) influence the normative system even though they supposedly operate from outside it? That is a question not directly connected to the discussion, but it does nevertheless provoke thought about Orthodox-Reform relations.
Interestingly, Professor Netanyahu the historian also spoke about the racism of the Inquisition.
I don’t understand the question that concludes the article. After all, one of the greatest thinkers of our time already said: “There is nothing in Judaism except halakhah.”
It seems to me that the basic trap is the assumption of “gold under the floor tiles,” that is, the assumption that it “can’t be” that Torah is just not lighting a fire on Shabbat and not eating pork and sitting in a sukkah and taking a lulav; it “has” to have some deeper layer in which it solves the world’s questions in an original, unique, and better way than all other systems.
The moment a person accepts that assumption, the trap closes on him. He can be into tikkun olam and discover how Judaism anticipates all the messages of the New York Times Book Review section (that is more or less the example you gave); he can convince himself that Jewish law is a winning alternative to the failures of the legal system in the courts, that there is “Jewish statesmanship,” and so forth. In all the cases I have encountered up to now, the fakery cried out to heaven (for example, taking an ethnocentric and xenophobic religion like Judaism and turning it into a source for modern PC, or taking Jewish law with its laws of indirect causation, “one who confesses to a fine is exempt,” and the requirement of two witnesses, as something that can cope with present-day reality, and so on), usually accompanied by the usual effect of chimpanzees beating their chests really hard when they feel in an inferior position.
Once at some symposium dealing with Jewish law, I asked one of the rabbis sitting there to point me to one point that is both particular to Jewish law (not “pursue justice” or “do not oppress the poor” — principles that at least formally can also be found today in the constitution of Zimbabwe) and that he would actually want to implement. I got no answer, at least not on the spot.
It seems ridiculous to me that an outsider should determine norms, just as if I were to decide that a doctoral degree is determined by standards that seem sufficient to me; obviously any reasonable person would consider me a fool. There’s no problem with my calling everyone at the university I build “doctor,” but that will not change anything in the narrative that determines who is a doctor.
For some reason, when it comes to who is a Jew, every leper and every one with a discharge — or in this case an Asian menstruant — will express her position fluently and sweep up masses of admirers and donors, according to her testimony in the interview with Ettinger. She and all those like her can start a new cult/religion and define in it whatever they want. Using Judaism is already a matter of copyright. The Christians, for example, made the change…
The only way to determine who is a Jew was given to us in the tradition from Sinai, and a Jew, even if he has descended to the lowest depths, is still a Jew — just like, mutatis mutandis, a doctor who has gone bad; you cannot take the title of doctor away from him, because it is a fact. By the way, of course a crucial part of practical Judaism is observance of halakhah and God’s will, for without that we have thrown out the baby with the bathwater.
I’ll attach the famous “speech about rabbits” of Rabbi Shach of blessed memory; from the opposition that his simple speech aroused, one should learn more than anything else that it definitely touched a true and painful sensitive point for many.
https://youtu.be/GSi7MbP4Pp0
With all due respect to the magnificent and somewhat fussy halakhic structure that Hazal built — the basis of their structure, the floor tiles and the gold beneath them, really are in the Torah, and parts of that gold definitely still shine, even though their luster has faded because of their triviality. That is because they have become basic assumptions in the cultural world. (The prohibition on kindling fire is of course only the tip of the iceberg of a whole world of cessation from labor with all the tikkun olam that comes with it, the “so that [your servant] may rest,” etc., and the reminder “that you were a slave,” etc.) In other words, sorry, but Judaism really did anticipate that literature section, and indeed all the literature of the Judeo-Christian Western world. So there is, after all, a bit more to it than ethnocentrism and xenophobia; and even if it is not PC in its pure form and does not even come close, there is still a foundation (and gold beneath it), and there are annoying husks (yes, I will decide what is foundation and what is husks). In short, it is not certain that the chimpanzees are in quite such an inferior position. And if the constitution of Zimbabwe was shaped by Jewish morality, I have no problem with that. It is worth noting the source, though.
And there is much to wonder at: if she is also a prayer leader — when does she find time to read books? Perhaps that is why her name is ‘book-poor’ 🙂
With many blessings, Shatz
With God’s help, 13 Tishrei 5781
And perhaps the fact that the female rabbi is also a prayer leader obliged her to read the words of the prayer service carefully, where Judaism’s universal missions are also emphasized. The aspiration that “all Your works stand in awe of You and all creatures bow before You, and they all become one fellowship to do Your will with a full heart… and every work shall know that You made it, and every creature understand that You created it, and all who have the breath of life in their nostrils shall say: The Lord, God of Israel, is King, and His kingship rules over all.”
We thank and praise God that He has not made us like the nations of the lands nor placed us like the families of the earth, that we have merited to be the “vanguard corps” of humanity, calling on the world to believe in God and live lives of truth, justice, and peace. But the recognition of our uniqueness stirs us to hope that this faith will become the inheritance of all humanity: “Let all the inhabitants of the world recognize and know that to You every knee shall bend… and let them all accept the yoke of Your kingship, and reign over them speedily forever and ever.”
We look forward to the day when: “All shall come to serve You and bless Your glorious name, and proclaim Your righteousness in the islands, and peoples who did not know You shall seek You… they shall abandon their idols and bury their graven images, and turn their shoulder to serve You, and fear You with the sun, seekers of Your face; they shall recognize the power of Your kingship, and those who have gone astray shall learn understanding and declare Your might… and they shall accept the yoke of Your kingship upon themselves, and exalt You in the congregation of the people, and those far away shall hear and come, and they shall place the crown of kingship upon You.”
Indeed, R. M. D. A. is also right that the way to presenting the universal mission first requires us to “cross the Jabbok crossing” — to leave exile and be built up and established in our land, and there to establish a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” that will serve as a model for all humanity. And in order for us to serve as an example to humanity — we must be exacting in our deeds and careful even with the “small flasks” of the minutiae of halakhah, which make our Creator present in all the paths of our lives.
With blessings, Shatz
Paragraph 4, line 1
… that the way to realizing the mission…
Shatz, you are conclusive proof that one can maintain both. .
Ridiculous*
It’s amazing that people take such a clown seriously. Well, I’m sure she also spoke about the racism of BLM — at their demonstrations they looked for Jewish stores to carry out a pogrom, and yet they accuse Trump, a committed lover of Jews.
There’s no point in discussing your guesses about what I’ll say later. Wait until I say it, and then we’ll discuss it.
The number of views as a criterion for a rabbi or for a Jew is indeed a criterion I hadn’t thought of until now. An interesting proposal, and perhaps worth bringing before the Knesset as a replacement for the current Law of Return, and as a replacement for ordination exams for the rabbinate.
Indeed interesting. I’m not familiar with it. On the face of it, I do not see a connection there to racism (perhaps there were racist expressions there, but that does not seem to me to be of the essence of the Inquisition’s activity. As I explained, the opposite is true).
This again anticipates the future discussion.
I agree with every word. See below.
The only question is who determines who is outside and who is inside, of course.
The expression “Asian menstruant” is ugly and racist on such a level that I considered deleting your entire message. So for now, take only a warning. By the way, that expression nicely illustrates the core of her claim.
And one more thing. She determines nothing at all; she is expressing an opinion. The right to express an opinion is granted to every person on every subject. You can agree or disagree, of course.
This again gets ahead of itself, and therefore I will only say that even if we were the source of all the good in the world, all these values cannot serve as a criterion for Judaism. In my estimation, she does not think so either.
Chayota — and in response to you, where I’ll somewhat take “Nadav’s side” in this story (with a reservation, or really a note from the end — you both made life easy for me in responding to this post, since you wrote the claims that are usually heard in this discussion and that I wanted to address): you say that Judaism brought a message to the world, one that today has been adopted as something trivial by certain parts of humanity — even by African tribes.
And that universal diamonds of gold are hidden in it.
It may be true, and many scholars have indeed noted various ethical, ideological, or religious innovations that Judaism has to offer (dealing with ordinary life instead of withdrawal and religious asceticism; “dialogue” or “containment” between a universal ethical dimension and the “divine command”; the belief that man has free choice; and belief in the possibility of repentance, unlike deterministic approaches, despair, or the impossibility of “atoning” for sins). At first glance I would have mocked all these claims — on the other hand, there is something to them. Some of the ideas I mentioned really were serious intellectual innovations, and very deep ones, in comparison with fossilized, shallow, and unintelligent religious conceptions. It may indeed be so. On the other hand, the claim that this is the essence of Judaism or that this is the condition that makes a person a good Jew is ridiculous from the outset — because not all Orthodox streams in Judaism would agree to it at all (the idea of free choice is already denied by R. Tzadok, who was an Orthodox Jew and a righteous man of the highest order. The idea of engaging with the ordinary world is not the portion of immense scholars and foundational saints from Bnei Brak, whose seriousness and Judaism no one doubts). Containment of two moral systems — universal human morality alongside divine command? Just hearing that evokes horror and paranoid cries about Reform infiltrating the study hall — so all these things
And certainly all the ideas of justice, or promoting moral values and anti-racism, or family values — are not a “Jewish value” and definitely not a basis for “Jewish identity” (the first things I mentioned are notable religious or intellectual innovations that perhaps were first discovered by clever Jews with beards, but that does not make them Jewish values any more than Maimonides’ medical innovations make healthy nutrition a Jewish value. And the other things I referred to are universal human values, some of which are themselves disputed within Judaism).
In short, the defining feature of halakhic Jewish identity — as accepted — is acceptance of the yoke of the commandments and the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven. And today also, rightly or wrongly, acceptance of certain principles of faith when a gentile comes to convert — as I understand it, those are the conditions for his acceptance, not whether he is racist, believes in free choice, loves people, or is committed to family values.
Reform Jewish identity — national, ethnic, religious(?) — those indeed are more flexible things that are disputed by the groups that hold those kinds of “Jewish identities.”
Who decides? Why is it clear who sets the rules for university degrees, but when it comes to Judaism it isn’t clear? There is a tradition, and it set the rules in a clear way that is not open to dispute. As long as one uses the Torah toolbox, the sides are of course legitimate; and even within that toolbox one has to know how to use it. But with tools outside the toolbox given to us by the rule-makers, one should not play — one should create a new game.
As for the expression that made you shudder, I didn’t understand what the problem is with expressing criticism in rhetorical language, as you yourself often do about great people better than her. It is perfectly obvious to every leper and every one with a discharge that when one says “leper and one with a discharge,” one does not mean the literal meaning tonight, but rather the slang implying that not every smart aleck can express his opinion on subjects outside his field. (I doubt you would be shocked if such wording were written about an Orthodox rabbi.)
By the way, racism does indeed exist among everyone, as you have already proven that even among Reform Jews it exists, and I have nothing against Asians, only that regarding their opinion about Judaism they are like every leper and every one with a discharge…
I always thought that a rabbi is measured by his ability to deal with the evil inclination to talk about politics (what the rabbi calls values).
There is an explicit mishnah that says that Jews are neither white nor black but rather boxwood-colored, that is, brown. Is this a description of the reality in their day, or a racial statement?
Interestingly, the identifying mark of Jewish identity is not in the realm of outlook, but in the realm of character traits: “bashful, merciful, and doers of kindness.” Perhaps that is why a Jew’s Jewishness is determined by the mother, who already at an early age instills Jewish gentleness of soul in her offspring. Even Eliezer did not test Rebecca’s suitability to be the mother of Abraham’s seed by her outlook, but by her good character traits.
With blessings, Shatz
And of course there is an added virtue to a female rabbi of South Korean origin, for they too recognize the value of the Talmud, and presumably her sermons are influenced by the Talmud as well 🙂
To Noam — greetings,
The blended appearance of the Jews, which is not extreme either toward whiteness or toward blackness, also expresses the role of the people of Israel to be the “connecting hyphen” of humanity, the heart among the limbs. On weekdays we are “Western,” energetic in the dynamism of practical life, and on Sabbaths and festivals we are “Eastern,” focused on the ascent of the soul.
With blessings, Shatz
Tam, in your view doesn’t she have the status of a resident alien or one of the righteous among the nations, on the halakhic level? After all, it is said that even a gentile who engages in Torah is like a High Priest (and I don’t think she deals with the halakhic parts forbidden to gentiles, but with the universal-ideational parts, which are precisely the point of the seven Noahide commandments, which she, I believe, keeps by force of the Holy One’s command to Moses (; )
Perhaps from that perspective — after all, there are statements saying that a gentile who keeps the seven Noahide commandments out of belief in Judaism is already not like all other gentiles (and she even accepted them upon herself in a “Reform” court — equivalent to a laymen’s court?). And he has a partial connection to the people of Israel, in the Ramban’s language — she is not someone who is completely “outside” (:.;
Regarding the “entry into the covenant” that Mrs. Buchdahl sees as the fundamental characteristic of Judaism — that is true, but the “covenant” is first and foremost the covenant with the Holy One, blessed be He, to believe in Him and keep His commandments. However, an important part of the covenant is also connection with the community, and therefore Maimonides rules that even one who committed no sin at all, but is not part of the community, does not rejoice in their joy nor grieve in their distress — he too is considered one who “separates himself from the ways of the community,” whose status is similar to heretics and sectarians. Indeed, the covenant is both with God and with the whole people of Israel.
With blessings, Shatz
See there in Maimonides and the commentators on the mishnah that there is no statement there about the color of Jews. The claim is that skin lesions are examined relative to the body color on which they appear. “German” in that mishnah does not mean an inhabitant of Germany but a Jew of light complexion.
By the way, I also did not understand your two options. Is it the reality in their day or a racial statement? Why are those two different options? It is a racial statement about the reality in their day.
Shatzl, I already wrote about that identifying mark in the second book of my trilogy. It is a (racist) sign that does not withstand any test, and no halakhic authority really uses it (and rightly so).
Ratz”i, you’ve convinced me — we must all indeed honor her!
Of course, and not only that. You are also obligated to save her from death if you see her dying, even according to the stringent views. And it is already written in Sefer Hasidim that one should treat a gentile who keeps the seven Noahide commandments like a Jew who keeps the commandments in all matters between man and his fellow.
With God’s help, 13 Tishrei 5781
To R. M. D. A. — greetings,
Maimonides writes that one in whom brazenness and cruelty are seen — one should examine the validity of his lineage. It seems this is not an absolute sign, for it is possible that the negative trait was acquired due to extreme environmental factors or various bizarre ideologies to which the person was exposed, and therefore this is not conclusive clarification but an indication requiring investigation.
And these are not racial traits. After all, even a righteous convert and his descendants develop the positive traits of bashful, merciful, and doers of kindness, because faith and fear of God and the guidance of the commandments lead to their internalization in a person, in the family, and in Jewish society. One who grew up in a society in which respect for Torah scholars and responsibility for the needy are at the center of its being — will not so quickly detach from those good traits even if he loses his faith.
And therefore Rav Kook also drew close even people who rebelled against the Torah, so long as he saw that they excelled in the good traits in which Israel excelled, and had qualities of altruism and dedication to the ideals they believed in. And as he explained, he was not prepared to draw everyone close, but only those whose good traits showed that they had healthy roots.
The good character traits are not only a sign of a solid Jewish educational foundation — they are also a reason for the capacity to accept the yoke of Torah. One who has brazenness and cruelty in him will despise the Jewish Torah, which demands humility and altruism from a person.
With blessings, Shatz
Paragraph 4, line 1
The good character traits are not only a sign…
I understand that you do not understand what sarcasm is, Mr. Ratz”i.
Instead of going to all the trouble of dried-up sarcasm, go and correct your childish conception. You can make use of the explanations that nice people here are volunteering to you.
I understand that you do not understand that my response was entirely humorous from the outset.
Friends, with so much humor and sarcasm here, everyone is getting lost. There is a real problem identifying sarcasm online (when there is no body language). One should be careful to insert hints that these are sarcastic remarks (I say this to myself as well). And in general, it is enough to insert one sarcastic hint, and certainly not to grind through an entire thread over whether this is sarcastic or not, and how sarcastic, and who understood and who didn’t. Move on.
Why, in this response of yours, did you not make sure to insert a hint?
Regarding “it could also be said in a church” — when I worked in the US I shared an office with a fundamentalist Christian who filled the office with religious posters.
When I returned to Israel I noticed that many of the texts used by professional outreach people, such as the Hidabroot site or the Breslov people, are plagiarized from Christian literature (for example the story of Footprints in the Sand).
The obsession of the “Kav” yeshivot as well with the homosexual issue and conversion therapy is taken straight from fundamentalist Christian literature.
Among the Shas people, many of their foolish ideas were stolen from the Muslim Brotherhood, whereas among the Lithuanians they preferred to plunder the treasures of Aryan culture…
Madmen of the world, unite!!
Buchdahl herself claimed in an interview with Ettinger that all Jewish melodies are stolen.
“So as a cantor I learned that almost everything considered Jewish music was borrowed or stolen, from ‘Hatikvah’ to tunes for Grace after Meals and almost every melody we think of as traditionally Jewish.”
And perhaps that is also why they are good, in keeping with “stolen waters are sweet”…
And Christians and Muslims took many of their ideas from the Bible and from the aggadot of Hazal. And as people who champion “openness,” we have no problem adopting ideas and images from others so long as the things fit with the faith and values of Judaism.
With the blessing of a “happy Feast of Ingathering,” Shatz
In the story Footprints in the Sand there is an absolute anthropomorphization of God that is very common in Christianity (after all, there God takes shape in Mary’s womb); it grates on me somewhat to read such a story, but a typical outreach rabbi could have been a Christian missionary without changing anything in his principles, or worked as a salesman for binary options or something.
Let the reader read and judge —
http://aniyehudi.co.il/stories-and-parable/%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%91%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%97%D7%95%D7%9C/
As written in Hosea: “Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk, I took them on My arms,” and similarly it is written in the Torah: “I bore you on eagles’ wings.”
With blessings, Shatz
“I bore you on eagles’ wings” is not an anthropomorphized God carrying the people, but rather the eagles.
More in the sense of “I commanded the eagles to carry you” (metaphorically, of course, since even an airplane can be an eagle metaphorically…)
The footprints of God in the sand, by contrast, somewhat clash with the Thirteen Principles (He has no bodily form and no body…)
But it really warms the heart to see hardalniks discovering the light in Christianity.
“Jonah, who in the end is saved, rethinks and comes to understand what his role is (and stops running from it).” — It was not Jonah who thought about his role, but God, who changed the content of the prophecy.
According to the Gemara, a Jew is one who denies idolatry. In the past that really could define a Jew in contrast to all the gentiles, and that was the most basic Jewish value. Today one can no longer say that everyone who denies idolatry is called a Jew. And perhaps that is part of the motive that led the sages of Israel from Saadia Gaon onward to formulate principles of faith. And in honor of Sukkot, let us recall that according to Maimonides there are five kinds of heretics who, even if they are biologically Jewish, are a “species” unto themselves.
In a somewhat strange way, it seems to me that when speaking about “Jewish values,” the more correct yardstick is the seven Noahide commandments. These are commandments that, regardless of Mount Sinai and the connection with the Creator of the world, according to Judaism every person is obligated to keep them (in a certain sense — according to Judaism one should do them by reason alone). The most important of them is the prohibition of idolatry. If a person holds a system that supports murder, idolatry, theft (and probably the other things as well), one cannot say that he has Jewish values. There is also quite a clear overlap here with the Ten Commandments. What is “under the floor tiles” of these commandments is the ethical basis of Judaism, upon which rests the connection with the Creator and the command to keep all the details of the halakhot.
And by the way, part of the “family values” of conservative rabbis refers to one of those prohibitions among the seven Noahide commandments. Yes indeed, when a rabbi from Eli speaks against polyamory or against other forbidden sexual relations, he is not speaking in the name of Mormon Church values but in the name of Jewish values, and in my opinion rightly so.
The strange conclusion is that if it is a value, it obligates universally, even if the source is Jewish, and therefore it is good that gentiles adopt that value, and for that we prayed on Rosh Hashanah (“Uvekhen”).
From this it follows that precisely what is unique to Judaism is not the values, but the commandments — the halakhic system — which is what a gentile must accept when coming to join the Jewish people. The values hidden beneath the commandments are hidden (the reasons for the commandments), and here is the place for every Jew to expound as he wishes. A correct or incorrect interpretation of the reasons for the commandments is not part of the basis of Judaism, and it is hard to say that one who does not adopt it does not hold Jewish values.
I think there is a bit of conflation here between what defines the Jew and what characterizes him (something like matter and form). I do not think conservative Orthodoxy claims that conservatism defines Judaism, but rather that one who conducts himself according to the matter of Judaism — meaning halakhah, and perhaps the values that derive directly from it — will be conservative, and one who is not conservative, it is likely that his values do not derive from halakhah.
Perhaps Buchdahl’s error is closer to what Shnerb wrote: since she has no desire to ground herself in halakhah as the core of Judaism, she tries to find another definition that also derives from the sources and accords with her liberal understanding. But one cannot characterize something by form. One needs real matter.
You’ve put your finger here on several important points that will come up in the subsequent columns.
Apparently this discussion is getting some traction this week
https://103fm.maariv.co.il/programs/media.aspx?ZrqvnVq=IDLKDL&c41t4nzVQ=FJF
An argument held this week in which media personality Ben Caspit cannot answer the question, “In what way is he Jewish?”
Even though he is one hundred percent certain that he is Jewish
He claims that this whole matter of kindness runs in his genes
I’d be glad if you added a section of “TL;DR recommended books/films”; I don’t always 🙂 have the energy to read what you write, but your recommendations for viewing and reading do seem interesting to me.
I wonder what the lady’s opinion is about priestly and Levitical lineages. Will she also claim that crown?
Who goes up for the priestly blessing in Buchdahl’s synagogue??
And in this connection, perhaps the words of Mrs. Zeresh might also be of interest: “if he is of the seed of the Jews…” — what exactly did she mean?
The Inquisition was an internal Christian investigative institution that acted against Christians suspected of heresy. After the expulsion of the Jews from the Iberian Peninsula, throughout the 16th–17th centuries the Inquisition acted not against openly Jewish people (for they had already been expelled in the expulsions from Spain and Portugal) but against the “Marranos,” those New Christians descended from forced Jewish converts who had converted willingly or by force. Ostensibly, after they had lived as Christians in every respect, what caused the persecutions, tortures, and execution ceremonies (auto-da-fé) that befell them in a disproportionate way relative to the “old Christians”? From this several scholars argued (see Haim Beinart, Yosef Kaplan, and others) that this was racism and not only persecution of the Jewish religion.
On the face of it, this sounds like nonsense. They simply suspected them — and with some justice — that their conversion was not genuine. That’s all.
It turns out there are those who think otherwise… at least according to the following bizarre item: the rabbinical court judges determined that the woman was Jewish based on her outward appearance… https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.israelhayom.co.il/interactive/amp/article/283205
The blood-purity laws in Spain were not connected to suspicion of Christian heresy or crypto-Judaism, but only to origin. From the church’s point of view, origin was supposed to be irrelevant, but from the state’s point of view Jewish ancestry blocked a person from government positions and the like.
By the way, the blood-purity laws later took revenge on the Spaniards, when a person’s lineage was considered more important than his quality. From this also came the insistence on Spanish honor, which so distorted Spain.
Not everything an Orthodox rabbi says — and that a priest could also say in a church — thereby becomes “non-Jewish.”
(That only means that Christianity agrees with Judaism on that issue.)
This argument keeps coming up again and again, and I’ve already explained it more than once. The touchstone for Judaism cannot be something like that.
What feels strange to me here is that it’s as if the highest value is not being racist, because racism is the most horrible thing in the world. That is, not “between man and his fellow” in its classical sense, but a focus on race and whether it is racist or not,
The gravest sin is to relate to someone in a stereotypical way because of the appearance of his race. Oh no, oh no, how terrible.
If, when you see a black person, you do not relate to him as to a Jew (because in practice that is almost always the case), then it means you hold that black is different, and if you hold that black is different then you are a Nazi.
Truthfully, as the son of American ba’alei teshuvah, it saddens me that a large part of my family is in those communities (in the best case, or not the best case).
A Judaism that has lost all content.
Aryeh, the two questions that come to me on reading your words are:
1. The question of what “here” means — with Buchdahl or with me. I did not write anywhere here my opinion about racism. What I wrote is that in my opinion Judaism is not defined on a racial basis. That is said not because of my attitude toward racism but because factually it is not true.
2. The second question is whether, in your opinion, racism is good? There is no doubt that an a priori attitude toward a person according to his origin (in matters where origin is irrelevant) is bad. I have dealt on this site more than once with criticism of racism, but also with the hasty uses made of it by those who oppose it.
Here I can only add criticism of the hastiness of critics like you, whose fuse blows and who do not bother to think or clarify their claims, and are even prepared to support racism if that allows them to come out against liberals. How is that different from the anti-racist obsession?
Speaking of anti-racist stupidity among us. Hot off the press: https://news.walla.co.il/break/3390853
For a broad discussion, see Professor Yirmiyahu Yovel’s book on the conversos; see there and you’ll be satisfied.
Should a rabbi say only Jewish things in a synagogue?
God commands morality, both in our reason and in the Torah (“and you shall do what is right and good”); should a rabbi not speak about morality?
Judaism, even according to the rabbi’s method, is a kind of monotheistic religiosity (monotheistic religion — genus; Judaism — species). Should a rabbi not speak as a religious man?
I agree that a rabbi should not speak about politics for two reasons —
A. Politics belongs to the world of action, whereas Torah belongs to the world of spirit, which is ostensibly higher than the world of action.
B. The moment a rabbi becomes politically identified with a party, he loses the ability to criticize that same party from a halakhic/religious/moral standpoint.
And additionally, from a practical standpoint — not all listeners agree with a rabbi politically (even in a homogeneous community), and he may lose them regarding the important things of serving God and morality if he descends too far into politics.
And still, morality, religion, and certainly interpretation of Scripture are not politics, so why is it forbidden for rabbis?
Who said it is forbidden? I have written more than once that I have no criticism of that, and that this can and should be done. I am dealing with the definition of Judaism and not with what should or ought to be done in the synagogue.
Yes, I understood your move, and all the same, from the article’s heading “What exactly bothered me?” it seems that your problem is evaluative and not only analytical. It bothers you that instead of talking about the laws of frying pans she deals with value questions.
From my experience with rabbis, they devote separate time to general discussions and separate time to technical discussions, and do not see a contradiction between the different subjects. From Moses our teacher in the book of Deuteronomy onward (which, if anything, defines there what Judaism is) and until today, rabbis are occupied with value-preaching, with discussions of providence, and of course with halakhic discussions down to the finest details.
It amazes me anew every time to see your groveling and admiration for all kinds of Reform women rabbis and all sorts of fringe creatures whose connection to Judaism is zero (at best they are half-Jews). You analyze their words with holy awe, are impressed by what they say, and discuss every piece of their nonsense with great seriousness — all this alongside revolting arrogant condescension toward all kinds of rabbis of the first order, from Haredi rabbis to yeshivah heads, through Sephardi rabbis and ending with the rabbis of the “Kav” yeshivot. There your patience is zero. Instead of weighing their words and examining them, you open your mouth and smear them, without entertaining the possibility that maybe there are people a little greater than you and who understand more than you. But maybe you really should open yourself a community in the image of that crazy woman, because you will not find a person who has a trace of fear of Heaven who would attribute to her the slightest seriousness or Judaism. Disgusting.
Fringe creatures?
Open your mouth and smear them?
Crazy woman?
Indeed disgusting, right after Yom Kippur.
“Fringe creatures” indeed — there is not one serious Jewish figure who would relate to such creatures as anything significant; only you, the greatest genius of all (who also hides behind nicknames like a little child), discuss their nonsense with reverent seriousness. Alongside that is your disgusting hobby of presenting all rabbis from all shades of the spectrum without exception as ignorant racist pagans and barbarians. There is something rotten in you at a level of rot I have not found in any human being, certainly not one presenting himself as an Orthodox rabbi. Simply shameful and disgraceful.
Oh, and speaking of Yom Kippur, it is better to repent and not give a platform to a gentile woman masquerading as a Jew, whose whole aim is to disgrace traditional Judaism, and not to prettify yourself as though speaking against her is the problem. Remove the beam from between your eyes.
To the one who doesn’t hide behind nicknames like a little child: I didn’t understand what you want apart from saying that the things don’t please you because, in your opinion, they don’t quite match what the kindergarten teacher and later the teachers stuffed down your throat. You should try again, and maybe you’ll manage to make a viable argument. With excited wishes for success, Big Child.
Children, what’s gotten into you? Please treat one another with respect.
It seems that Rabbi Michi presents Buchdahl’s words courteously in order to empty them of content later on. (Or at least of part of the content.)
There is a very interesting rhetoric in the rabbi’s words, and perhaps it is worth being patient.
(And who knows whether that is not what was lacking in Yehoshua ben Perachiah’s conduct toward Jesus — if indeed he was his teacher.)
So it seems to me.
A good day to all the dear children,
The kindergarten teacher.
To the kindergarten teacher — greetings,
And after you nicely presented the method of the “owner of the kindergarten” — to present courteously the position that he is going to reject by his arguments — we should bless him that this strength of his may also be “for Torah,” also when he discusses the words of the greatest sages, whose words too he should present with courtesy and respect before proceeding to argue against them.
With blessings, one who comes to the kindergarten
With God’s help, 25 Tishrei 5781
The negation of racism, which Mrs. Buchdahl emphasized, follows from the principle of free choice, which occupies a central place in Judaism. After all, even a gentile can convert and come to occupy a leading place. David and Solomon, and after them the King Messiah, are descended from Ruth the Moabite, and from Rahab the harlot came seven prophets.
Even the greatest sages who enlightened the eyes of Israel came from converts, and even from descendants of great enemies of Israel: Shemaiah and Avtalyon were descendants of Sennacherib; Rabbi Akiva — from descendants of Sisera; his disciple Rabbi Meir — from descendants of Nero Caesar; and Rav Shmuel bar Shilat, the great educator — from the descendants of Haman (according to R. Aharon Heyman’s version in Sanhedrin 97).
The positive or negative heritage of one’s parents influences a person’s traits, but each person can labor and harness his inborn traits to a positive channel, and nothing stands in the way of the will.
With blessings, Shatz
Shatzl, as usual you choose sources that suit you. What about the signs of Jewishness? What about the leniencies in conversion for those of Jewish paternal descent? What about the conceptions that there is something innate and inbuilt in a Jew as opposed to a gentile? You can say that you do not agree, and then my hands will be strengthened with you. But to declare this as though it were a simple and agreed-upon conclusion is a joke. Most Jews I know are racist to the highest standard (in the sense that they believe there are inherent differences between Jew and gentile, even apart from observance of the commandments).
To R. M. D. A. — greetings,
“Racism” in its negative sense claims that if you are of an inferior race, you are stuck there with no possibility of exit. In Judaism it is clear to all that even a gentile descended from the very worst enemies of Israel, and even the great oppressor himself, like Nebuzaradan, can convert and be included among “Beloved are Israel, for they were called children of the Omnipresent.”
There is always an opening to rise upward. By contrast, there is no “escape hatch” downward. Once you have entered the covenant — you are there. If you wish to realize your mission — all the better. If you do not wish to — the Holy One, blessed be He, has already promised through the prophet Ezekiel: “As I live, says the Lord God, surely with a mighty hand… I will reign over you.” One ascends in holiness and does not descend.
With blessings, Shatz
Paragraph 1, line 4
… Israel, who were called children…
The words of Rav Kook, which I mentioned in paragraph 3, are found in Igrot HaRe’ayah, letter 555,
In that letter Rav Kook responds to the Ridbaz’s astonishment at his leniency regarding the “sale permit” and his welcoming attitude toward the pioneers despite their rebellion against religion. The letter can be read on the Da’at website (under the heading “The debate with the Ridbaz (555)”).
With blessings, Shatz
And just as everyone among the inhabitants of the world can rise in level and become an integral part of the “kingdom of priests” — so too within the people of Israel, even though the role of “They shall teach Your judgments to Jacob and Your Torah to Israel” was given to the tribe of Levi, any “one whose spirit moves him” can devote himself to Torah study and become one of the teachers of Torah to the people, to the point that “a mamzer who is a Torah scholar takes precedence over a High Priest who is an ignoramus.”
There is no “glass ceiling” that prevents one who truly desires it from becoming a great Torah scholar who enlightens the eyes of Israel. “The crown of Torah lies waiting,” and whoever wishes may come and merit it.
With blessings, Shatz
With God’s help, eve of the holy Sabbath, “And the children struggled within her,” 5781
Since this week we have dealt with the Parisian female rabbi Delphine Horvilleur, who also spoke about the essence of Jewish identity (“Rabbi Delphine Horvilleur: ‘There is a geological connection among us Jews, with fractures’”) — it occurred to me to compare her words a bit with those of the American female rabbi Angela Buchdahl; perhaps there will be in this a kind of study in the midrashim of the female rabbis 🙂
Rabbi Horvilleur sees fracture as an important element in Jewish identity: “We Jews are not connected to one another because of genetics or because of history. Each of us has a different history. There is a geological connection among us, with fractures, and this concept of fracture is very important in Jewish identity.
In the same way that when entering into a relationship through marriage, we break the glass; when entering the order of the Passover Seder, we break the matzah in two; and when building a house, we preserve some sort of break in the wall (apparently she means the ‘square cubit by square cubit — in memory of the Temple’).
We have learned to live with the fractures, and that includes the fractures in our identities, which enable us to feel that we care about the “other,” because we are not full of one defined identity.”
It seems to me that there is here a postmodern tone that sees fracture in identity as an ideal matter that constitutes identity. And I already noted in the discussion about Rabbi Melamed’s meeting with her that defining Jewish identity by fracture could bring hundreds of millions of gentiles into this “identity.” For all of us are torn and broken.
By contrast, Rabbi Buchdahl sees the fracture as a “birth-crisis.” In her opinion there is no value in fracture in itself, but only as something that arouses vigorous action in order to repair it. In this she is closer to the “path of faith,” but whereas for us the fracture is in the middle of the road between the “plain blast before it,” the memory of the glorious past of the giving of the Torah, and the “plain blast after it,” the memory of “the shofar of the Messiah,” which will bring the repair of the world and the ingathering of the exiles — for her the purpose is the vision of liberty, equality, and universality.
This is not Rebecca’s way. Unlike the Parisian female rabbi — she is alarmed by the struggling of the children. And unlike the American female rabbi — Rebecca expects the realization of a vision of leadership for the world.
With blessings, Shatz
An interesting fact shared by both the Parisian female rabbi’s talk and that of her New York colleague is that both focus on social solidarity — one on Jewish solidarity and the other on international solidarity — but where is the search for closeness to God?
This lack stands out in comparison with the figure of the Reform rabbi Dr. Moshe Hayim Weiler, who in his day was among the first and few in the Reform movement to join the Zionist movement as an energetic activist. In the 1930s he established the Reform community in South Africa, which was Zionist from the outset, but together with his Zionist activity he was also active on behalf of black people and established a school for black children.
But as an enthusiastic Zionist, he did not suffice with raising money and political support for the settlement in the Land; rather, he sent his sons to study in the Land, and after about 25 years of leading the Reform community in South Africa, he “retired at his peak” and immigrated to Israel in order to live here as an “ordinary person.”
Two of his sons, Major Adam and Major Gideon Weiler, fell in Israel’s wars, and even so he did not break in spirit and encouraged his other sons as well to serve in the army. (In his honor there appeared the jubilee volume Gevurot HaRamah, Jerusalem 5747, containing studies in Jewish studies.)
Although he did not strictly observe halakhah and practical commandments in full — his faith in God was strong, despite everything he had gone through, and he writes:
“I will allow myself to reveal a little of the stirrings of my innermost heart. One of my sons asked me: ‘Where do I get the strength to go on believing?’ He holds that perhaps after my son Adam was killed, I could still go on believing; but after the fall of my second son, Gideon, the question was posed in all its sharpness.
My answer, from where my faith derives, comes דווקא from Job, the symbol of the terrible suffering in our literature. Despite all the suffering — Job did not turn from Iyov into oyev [from Job into enemy].
It is interesting that Job’s fear of God appears at the beginning of the book, when it speaks of the period of his happiness and great wealth. Only after his terrible suffering did worship out of love come.
A person is tested in his faith not when everything goes well — but in his conduct in the most difficult times. The foundation both of fear and of love is the knowledge of God’s closeness, from which a person cannot escape.”
(His words are cited in the source anthology Gedolah Emunah: Faith, Trust, and Strengthening, on the website of the Ministry of Education’s Department for Jewish Culture.)
It seems that the “Reform Jews of old” knew how to learn from the Bible faith and a sense of closeness to God.
With blessings, Meir Zuta Wurkeheimer
In the comment “The attitude toward fracture…,” paragraph 6, line 6
… the repair of the world, the restoration of the kingdom, the rebuilding of the Temple, and the ingathering of the exiles…
By the way,
it seems hard to deny the genetic connection among Jews of all the diasporas. See the Jewish bone marrow registry developed with the help of Ezer Mizion. As far as I know, Jews all over the world succeed in finding more suitable donors there than in any other registry.
Even the land of the chosen people is located in the region connecting the continents, an area that served as a commercial crossroads between north and south, east and west. Its climate too is temperate — neither the cold of northern Europe nor the heat of the deserts and equatorial region. A moderate and balanced climate, fitting for the place of the Divine Presence.
With blessings, Shatz
Let us return to the historical covenant and to the situation that existed when the covenant was made.
We have peoples who worship national gods in the belief that he will influence for them only good.
The Lord reveals Himself at Mount Sinai and makes a covenant with a nation that undertakes to worship only Him, bow only to Him, sacrifice only in His honor, and pour libations only on an altar dedicated to Him.
Beyond that He demands observance of certain commandments, refraining from certain forbidden acts. And that is all. Whoever keeps this covenant is a Jew, with no connection whatsoever to his scale of values. And whoever does not keep this covenant — that is, worships another god; does not believe in God at all and/or does not worship Him; does not keep the commandments, transgresses the prohibitions — should not be considered a Jew.
(Those born to Jews, even if they violate the covenant, the rest of the members of the covenant relate to them as Jews with all that implies — mainly regarding punishments, if they have the ability. And those not born to Jews can join the said covenant, or can choose not to.)
What is so complicated?
You are getting ahead of things. I agree with your claim, and have also written it more than once. But it is far from trivial, and therefore these columns are meant to justify it. According to this, Jewish identity has no meaning beyond halakhic obligation. Most of the world (including most of Orthodoxy) does not agree with that.
On the fictitiousness of the concept of “race,” see the important article by Adam Hochman that was recently translated and published in the online journal ‘Alaxon’. And no, R. Michi, matters of phenotype are not evidence for the reality of races.