abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (abeles) (08/29/84)
I've heard and read opinions on both sides of the "Who is a Jew?" issue
which I respect.
On one hand, some orthodox are concerned that the Jewish people are in danger
of being gradually destroyed by infiltration of de facto non-Jewish Jews
who believe themselves (and who may be believed by others) to be Jewish.
If we are to fulfill the prophecies and rebuild the Third Temple, it may be
important to preserve this degree of purity among Jews. It is probable,
considering the rampant assimilation today, that non-orthodox Jews will
disappear totally within not too many generations. We must not bend our
principles to accomodate them.
On the other hand, there are others who are shocked that their religious
leaders are (under the proposed law) totally disenfranchised, with the
additional possibility that within a very few generations non-orthodox
people will not even be considered jewish (with a small "j") by the right
wing sects of Judaism. Normally, they wouldn't care what the orthodox
think at all, but the orthodox have a stranglehold on the Israeli government.
It all boils down to the fact that to a Jew, all other Jews are either
"goyim" or "fanatics". To the orthodox, conservative and reform Jews
are almost as if not jewish in their customs and traditions. To non-orthodox
Jews, orthodox are reactionary in their traditions and customs and are
"missing the forest for the trees" in their adherence to the letter of the
law without regard for certain moral issues and without giving as much as
they are taking from society as a whole.
Perhaps this is the key. For I have also heard some rumblings from the
ultra-right-wing Jewish quarters: They wish to go one step further in
the "Who is a Jew Issue?" They feel that most orthodox rabbis are not
qualified to effect a conversion or perform a marriage. Furthermore, they
seek to have amended Israeli law to permit only their approved rabbis to
function as authorities for these purposes.
So guard your rear flank, those among you who want to amend the Israeli
Law to narrowly limit conversion (and marriage and divorce) powers to only
orthodox rabbis! For, your rabbis may not be considered "orthodox" enough
by those in power.
I cannot identify these right-wing groups at the present time for the readers
of this newsgroup. However, I would say that once the democratic (among
Jews) underpinnings of the present structure are destroyed, it is difficult
to predict where it will stop. Democracy is under fire in Israel today
on another front as well: we will have to face the question, sociologists
believe within the next 25-50 years, of whether to choose an apartheid-like
State or a democratic State as the Arab population grows to equal the Jewish
population of Israel. One wily leader of a small group, Meir Kahane, was
recently elected to the Knesset. He wants to actively encourage Arabs to
leave Israel right now. The means? Not democratic, to say the least.
I do not support the amending of Israeli Law to legislate who is a Jew in
any narrow way. I believe that religious law should be kept separate from
secular law: Separation of Halachah from Secular Law, I'd call it.
The difference is that Halachah we take upon ourselves, while Secular Law
is only a social contract, established to permit society to function.
In the recent New York State "get" law, an effort was made to have the
state (New York State) provide a fix for Halachah. To wit, the "agunah"
(woman who has been divorced under Halachah but whose husband will not
issue the required "get"--a certificate allowing her to remarry) is
kept dangling, unable to remarry following divorce. In one case I know,
the man was paid off to the tune of some hundreds of thousands of dollars
($100,000's) to give the "get", and this is not by any means uncommon. It
is like highway robbery legalized. An effort was made to have civil law
force a fix upon such husbands. But I ask the reader, where is the strength,
the validity, and the legitimacy of Halachah and therefore of Judaism, if
it must rely on Secular Law to get it out of problems which are inherent
within itself, and which it's authorities are powerless or unable to fix?
How can we respect the timelessness of Halachah as a way of life, if it
is agreed that it is unable to solve one of the greatest problems--that
of the "agunah"? No! Halachah must solve its own problems, and must be
kept separate from Secular Law.
If Halachah were to be institutionalized, consider that being "shomer mitzvot"
would no longer be a personal statement of "yirat shamaim" (fear or respect
of G-d). Of course to many who are born into (and caught up in) some orthodox
circles, being "shomer mitzvot" (keeping the Halachah) is at best a diluted
expression of "yirat shamaim" since in these particular circles a person
is ostracized for non-conformance, regardless of the reason. For such people
being "shomer mitzvot" amounts to a statement that they would like to keep
their friends and business connections and continue to live their lives in
relative peace. But if Halachah were institutionalized the spiritual statement
made by all those living according to Halachah would be tremendously diluted.
I wonder whether the desire to be more "machmir" (strict) in questions such
as "Who has the authority to perform marriages and conversions?" is stronger
among those individuals who feel more strongly dependent upon (and perhaps
trapped within) social circles of orthodox groups. I wonder this because
perhaps such people who are confined by social, family, and business
connections to Halachah project (I use the word in the psychological sense,
please note) their relationship to Halachah upon all other individuals who
are "shomer mitzvot". Thus they may feel that others are trapped within
Halachah, and that all Jews should likewise be trapped by the likes of them
into following Halachah. But coerced Halachah is no Halachah at all!
==============================================================================
POSTSCRIPT
I eagerly await the possibility of greater activity in net.religion.jewish
generated in some small way by my discussion above. But I reserve the right
not to answer any overzealous epikorsim-bangers who (like David Sherman did
recently) use any possible opportunity to proclaim to the net.world their
eternal and total holierness-than-the-other-guy! 'Nuff said.
==============================================================================
--J. Abeleshbb@houxt.UUCP (08/30/84)
I have one comment to make about Joe Abeles's article and it is
regarding the conclusion he drew from the circumstances
surrounding the 'get' law of N.Y. State. Joe suggested that there
is something truly wrong with a law (the 'Aguna' law, in this
case) that must depend upon the secular authorities to bring
about a reasonable outcome for the parties involved.
I suggest that the fault does not rest in the law, but the
circumstances in which we now find ourselves. We live in the
United States and abide by its laws. But not to the exclusion of
the Jewish Laws. Unfortunately, we do not have the judicial
authority that we enjoyed when the Sanhedrin (the Jewish
version of a 'Supreme Court' that existed during the time of the
Temple in Israel) was in control.
This is one of the tragedies of the exile following the
destruction of the Temple. The Jewish laws are forever, but our
ability to perform as a society has been significantly curtailed
due to our predicament in the Diaspora.
Why do you think we consider the destruction of the Temple to
have been such a tragedy and in every religious service make
some reference to our sorrow and our hopes for its speedy
rebuilding?
--
Harlan B. Braude
{most "backbone" sites}!houxt!hbbyiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (David) (09/06/84)
J Abeles:
Mazel tov on a fine article!
Yirmiyahu ("Yiri") Ben-David