To the Editor:
In “Judaism Without Limits” [July], Jack Wertheimer faults Conservative and Reform Jews in the U.S. for raising the issue of religious pluralism in Israel. Mr. Wertheimer attacks the “assumption” that “American Jews have much to teach their benighted Israeli cousins.” For Mr. Wertheimer, since American Judaism is itself “in crisis,” the chancellor of the Conservative movement’s Jewish Theological Seminary and the president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (Reform) and their colleagues are unqualified to offer Israel guidance on religious life.
As the immediate past president of the Rabbinical Assembly (Conservative), let me say that the Conservative and Reform movements are not unaware of problems regarding Jewish continuity. Yet the lesson learned from American Judaism is that synagogue affiliation does make a difference in preserving Jewish identity. Over 80 percent of America’s Jews join congregations at some point in their adult years, precisely because a range of Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist, and Reform options is available.
As an example, let us point to the challenge posed by intermarriage. Yes, over half the recent American Jewish weddings have been intermarriages. Yet as documented in a new study by the Wilstein Institute and the American Jewish Committee, these alarming numbers are inflated by the nearly 75-percent out-marriage rate among unaffiliated Jewry. In contrast, in major metropolitan areas seven out of ten sons and daughters of synagogue members marry other Jews, even in the fourth and fifth generations. Synagogue membership makes a difference.
Should we not share this lesson from the American Jewish experience with our Israeli brothers and sisters? Consider the following facts about Israeli Jews:
- Three-quarters of Jewish children receive only the most minimal Jewish religious education.
- Unaffiliated Israelis are involved in low rates of voluntarism and of philanthropic giving.
- Israeli youth identify Judaism with negative stereotypes associated with ultra-Orthodoxy: draft dodgers, militant settlers, and corrupt politicians.
- Some secular Israelis no longer feel the need for close ties with world Jewry, or for preserving the Jewish nature of the state.
- Influential Israeli intellectuals today regard the Jewish religion as an “enemy” to be fought with vigor.
- Nonreligious Israelis sense an “absence of values,” a spiritual crisis in their midst.
Seeing the positive results of synagogue membership in American Jewish life, we claim that the religious crisis in Israel would be lessened by increasing Israel’s appallingly low 17-percent rate of synagogue affiliation. To that end, Masorti (Conservative) and Reform rabbis and congregations are necessary. After all, when offered Orthodox Judaism or nothing, most Israelis distance themselves entirely from the Jewish religious heritage.
In other words, the malaise within Israeli Judaism would be altered by the presence of synagogues serving as community centers, by rabbis armed with both Jewish and general-studies degrees, by less judgmental religious youth groups and camps, and by the spread of schools providing supplemental education in Judaism to secular Israeli youth.
American Jews do have some things to teach our Israeli cousins.
[Rabbi] Alan Silverstein
Congregation Agudath Israel
Caldwell, Nero Jersey
_____________
To the Editor:
Jack Wertheimer allows the myth of rigidity in Jewish law (halakhah) to continue unchallenged. As any scholar acquainted with halakhic sources should know, conversions conducted by Conservative rabbis in Israel are valid according to halakhah. (Most conversions conducted by Reform rabbis there are also valid, but the Reform movement is not always careful to stick to the rules.)
We need to understand the laws of conversion to recognize the validity of these conversions. The definitive 16th-century legal code, Shulhan Arukh, states that conversion involves three rites, all of which should occur in front of three scholars who have the authority to act as judges: (1) informing the convert (male or female) of mitzvot (halakhic commandments); (2) circumcision (for a male); and (3) total immersion (for a male or female convert). The tradition also urges that when the rabbinic court of three explains the mitzvot “they neither overwhelm [the convert] with information nor go into great detail.” The Talmud notes that proselytes normally did not know the mitzvot in the way that a born Jew knew them.
In his article, Mr. Wertheimer states that, traditionally, conversion to Judaism was preceded by “a term of study leading to a commitment to Jewish religious observance and an identification with the Jewish people.” Actually, this term of study is a relatively modern phenomenon. During the talmudic era there were repeated instances of converts who misunderstood Jewish laws and customs or converted for the wrong reasons, yet the conversions were still recognized as valid.
Despite this historic flexibility, the Orthodox community now claims that every detail of the system of mitzvot must be accepted. Many Orthodox authorities quote a rabbinic statement: “A proselyte who states that he will accept all the Torah except for one matter is not to be accepted.” A contextual analysis of this quotation, however, shows that it applies to a proselyte who openly tells the court that he is going to pick and choose which parts of Judaism he will accept. But if the convert does not follow certain details merely because he does not know them, or because he follows a different rabbinic tradition, or because he follows the practices of the larger Jewish community, this is not deliberate rejection, and thus cannot be the basis for repudiating the validity of the conversion rite.
The Orthodox leadership in Israel and the Union of Orthodox Rabbis in America disregard the traditional flexibility of the mitzvah system, and instead demand acceptance of every commandment and of every rabbinic interpretation of such commandments, both before and after conversion. Their rigidity is ossifying Jewish tradition, turning mitzvot—the means of communicating with God with our whole being—into stumbling blocks which they place before potential converts.
[Rabbi] H.D. Uriel Smith
Lexington, Kentucky
_____________
To the Editor:
Jack Wertheimer presents, as always, a well-argued and trenchant case. As a BUJU (Buddhist Jew) myself, I think his comments on prostration to the Buddha as a form of avodah zarah, pagan worship, deserve serious consideration.
I was a little mystified by the end of the article, however. Having shown how utterly tangled is the whole situation on issues like conversion, he ends with a ringing call for clear, bright lines. Who would have the authority to draw such lines, and where could they possibly be drawn? Mr. Wertheimer does not give easy-to-read hints on these questions. Indeed, given the complexities he describes, it would seem only a miracle could provide the answers.
I found an element missing in Mr. Wertheimer’s account, as in much of the debate on these issues—a sense of what Judaism is for. He seems preoccupied with Judaism’s role in supplying the social solidarity necessary for survival in a harsh world. Of course here he is entirely right. The history of the Jewish people shows nothing more clearly than this. Yet to regard these imperatives as paramount would be doing an injustice to Judaism, whose controlling, most important goal is surely to provide its adherents with a sense of closeness to God.
Most of us know when we are closer than usual to God: when we feel overwhelmed by gratitude for existence and all that makes it possible, after recovering from a serious illness, for example, or witnessing the birth of a baby. Judaism exists to suffuse all life with this joy, which most people feel and continually long for. The effort of serious people to animate Judaism with this joyful quest should be applauded, both because it is a return to authentic Jewish roots and because it is the key to the positive vitality of the Jewish religion.
Sidney Keith
San Francisco, California
_____________
To the Editor:
Jack Wertheimer would do well to consider the question of whether Jews exist to serve Judaism or Judaism exists to serve the Jews. Only by deciding that Jews exist to serve Judaism can one conclude that change is inappropriate and that non-Orthodox versions of the religion are illegitimate.
I am convinced that Judaism as we have known it since the destruction of the Second Temple was intended to preserve an identifiably Jewish people until such time as it could reestablish the Jewish commonwealth.
The establishment of the state of Israel changed the objective circumstances underlying what being Jewish meant. Contrary to what Mr. Wertheimer implies, assimilation, intermarriage, and conversion to other faiths are not serious problems for secular Jews living in Israel. Instead, the principal threat to their identity as Jews has been the cynicism generated by the activities of the ultra-Orthodox (baredim) and of the Israeli rabbinate. For example, Orthodox leaders express dismay at the lack of Jewish observance outside their own circles, yet haredim attack Reform and Conservative Jews who attempt to pray at the Western Wall. The Israeli rabbinate wants control over conversions, for religious reasons it is claimed, but then there is a scandal over bribery. I would be interested to know whether Mr. Wertheimer believes a conversion obtained by bribing an Orthodox rabbi is more legitimate than a sincere one obtained through the Reform procedure.
For American Jews, what is needed after the establishment of Israel is a reexamination of the core belief of Judaism. What is it that makes it valuable? People for whom the ritual trappings are not enough will be dissatisfied by a religion that cannot answer this question. Because Judaism has traditionally discouraged conversion, it has had little need to engage in introspection. But if Judaism were more open to conversion, we would have to know why others should even consider becoming Jews.
By opening themselves to outsiders, Reform and Conservative Judaism may be taking the first halting steps toward getting to the heart of the Jewish problem in America. Seeking a solution, they might just find one, and thus demonstrate that they, rather than the Orthodox, are better able to clarify what Judaism requires.
Yale M. Zussman
Quincy, Massachusetts
_____________
To the Editor:
Jack Wertheimer asserts that by blurring the boundaries between Judaism and some form of non-Jewish religion, we are traveling the path not to pluralism but to “anarchy and self-extinction.”
“Fuzzy boundaries” are no threat to the survival of Judaism. After all, there have always been different Jewish sects, each claiming a monopoly on truth in the name of God and the Five Books of Moses, including the Essenes and the early followers of Jesus, whose descendants and proselytes would today never think of considering themselves Jews. Indeed, “fuzzy boundaries” may be one of the reasons Judaism has survived through many centuries of strife and persecution.
What will survive as Judaism in the future remains to be seen. Although I personally am far from Orthodox, I would maintain that the most observant strains have the best chance, not necessarily because what they believe is “right,” but because, when it comes to religion or a way of life, what ultimately counts is whether one’s descendants preserve the traditions and practice them.
The fact that some of us choose not to observe all the Jewish laws and rituals does not mean that we are not Jews. But if we do not care enough to educate ourselves, and more importantly hope to make Judaism an integral part of our lives, we cannot expect our brand of Judaism to survive.
Illana D. Leiser
Elmira, New York
_____________
To the Editor:
Jack Wertheimer’s “Judaism Without Limits” reinforces the inherent wisdom of the ancient rabbinic dictum, “Make a fence around the Torah,” a principle of Jewish law in which “fortifications” are strategically placed around specific commandments to make them more demanding and more stringent In this way, their continued observance is assured.
In contrast to this approach, modern religious innovators have often gone in the reverse direction, guided, seemingly, by the principle that the less there is to be observed, the more will be observed. In an effort to foster Sabbath observance, for example, more and more prohibited forms of work have been declared permissible. Similarly, the intermarriage problem is being wished away by reclassifying those who were traditionally never considered Jews as full-fledged members of the Jewish people. The problem is resolved by magically transforming Gentiles into Jews.
I suspect that the effort to preserve the sanctity and uniqueness of the Jewish people will meet with the same success as the effort to preserve the sanctity and uniqueness of the Sabbath.
Norman A. Bloom
North Miami Beach, Florida
_____________
Jack Wertheimer writes:
One would never guess from Rabbi Alan Silver-stein’s letter, which deals almost exclusively with the weaknesses he perceives in Israeli Judaism, that my article was about the anarchy of Jewish religious life in America. It may well be that Israeli society would benefit by adopting some programs that work in the American Jewish setting. I, for one, would welcome the implementation of each point enumerated in Rabbi Silverstein’s penultimate paragraph. It is debatable, however, whether Israeli society is ready to accept them. Nor is it likely that American Jews will get much attention in Israel if they remain tone-deaf to the differences between the two countries.
For example, there are many good purposes to be served by participation in synagogue life in Israel, but inoculation against intermarriage is not one of them; the rate of intermarriage, even among the most secular Israelis, is infinitesimal. Voluntarism and philanthropic giving, to take two other items on Rabbi Silverstein’s bill of particulars, have distinct meanings in the American setting that may be expressed very differently by Israelis. And to speak of synagogue “affiliation” in Israel makes little sense in the context of a society where most synagogues are constructed and maintained by the government.
Rabbi Silverstein’s silence about the actual theme of my article is disappointing. I did not write it because I believe that a “miracle” (Sidney Keith’s word) is needed to rescue us from the crisis we find ourselves in as a result of the unfettered pluralism of American Judaism. Rather, I believe we can work toward a consensus to reverse the “anything-goes” approach, and I know many rabbis in each of the major movements who share my dismay at the present state of affairs.
Rabbi H.D. Uriel Smith presents a one-sided critique of Orthodox leaders. I share his understanding of rabbinic Judaism as a flexible legal system, but am baffled by his indifference to those sectors of the Jewish community that reject or ignore the conversion procedure in its entirety. Where Rabbi Smith laments the stumbling blocks some rabbis place before potential converts, I worry more about the confusion sown among born Jews by rabbis who pay scant attention to “the rules” in so many areas of Jewish life.
I am gratified to learn that Sidney Keith, a self-professed BUJU, feels that my comments about the pagan aspects of Buddhist worship “deserve serious consideration.” Unfortunately, the rest of his letter suggests that he himself has yet to give serious consideration to Judaism. According to him, Judaism’s “most important, controlling goal is to provide . . . a sense of closeness to God.” Even if one were to grant the truth of this proposition (as I do not), it is still the case that Judaism seeks to achieve such fulfillment by prescribing a very specific path that is a different thing from the “joyful quest” Mr. Keith advocates. Indeed, if Jews were to give priority to the feelings he values, they would succeed only in losing more people to other religions.
Yale M. Zussman regards traditional Judaism as a kind of formaldehyde that preserved the Jewish people in exile but is no longer necessary now that the Jews have their own state. This view is consistent with a long line of Zionist thinking that is currently being challenged by secular Israelis themselves, some of whom feel that traditional Judaism may have something to say to them. I have no idea why Mr. Zussman imagines me to be a defender of every act performed by an Orthodox Jew, no matter how unethical, or why he regards me as opposed to all steps taken by Conservative and Reform Judaism. But I reject his contention that Judaism “had little need to engage in introspection” in the past, and I regard my article as a goad to further introspection about matters Mr. Zussman apparently does not wish to consider.
Illana D. Leiser invokes 1st-century Judaism to justify the anarchy of American Jewish religious life nearly two millennia later. I often encounter Jews who draw this historical analogy, but have never grasped why it makes them feel better. How can the schisms among Jews living in their own land so long ago serve as a guide for American Jews today? But I certainly do agree with her concluding sentence. And I agree as well with Norman A. Bloom that there is a delusory quality to some of our current strategies for coping with the very serious problems facing the American Jewish community.
_____________