PDA

View Full Version : Halachic Debate In UK


maven
10-19-2009, 08:34 AM
Who is a Jew? The great debate:

Remember the English Jewish school that was meaninglessly called 'racist' by the politically correct British establishment for allowing Muslim and Christian pupils but disallowing the Jewish children of converts?

The recent UK Court of Appeal ruling over school admissions which forced the school to accept Jewish children has brought the issue of Jewish identity into sharp relief. Four thinkers, from across the communal spectrum, tackle the issue in a round table discussion with Gerald Jacobs.

September 30, 2009
Naomi Gryn.
PARTICIPANTS

● Jeffrey Cohen, emeritus rabbi of Stanmore United Synagogue
● Jonathan Freedland, writer and journalist
● Naomi Gryn, filmmaker
● Howard Jacobson, novelist and broadcaster
● Chair: Gerald Jacobs, JC literary editor


Gerald Jacobs: Let me start things off by offering opposing definitions of Jewish identity. At one end of the spectrum, you are Jewish if you are born of a Jewish mother or converted by a respected Jewish authority. At the other end is Sigmund Freud’s definition of his own Jewish identity: “Since I don’t believe in any religion whatsoever, including Judaism, and since I despise all forms of nationalism, including Zionism, it may be asked what, then, is left of me that remains Jewish — to which I would reply, a very great deal and probably its very essence.” So, with those contrasting notions in mind, I am going to ask each of you to give your own short definition of Jewish identity.

Jonathan Freedland: I grapple with this question all the time, and did so in the book I wrote — Jacob’s Gift — about what I was giving my child, whether it was a burden or a blessing, because they are inseparable.

The Israeli novelist David Grossman plays this game of defining yourself with three things. He says: “Jewish first, male second and Israeli third.” It struck a chord with me because I am Jewish, male, British.

We are not just a religion. I wrote in the JC recently about the Woody Allen test — when you read in an interview that he says: “I am an atheist,” you don’t throw down the paper and say: “I could have sworn he was Jewish.” Equally, though, Jews are not just an ethnic group. While you can’t just convert and become black, you can become Jewish.

We don’t fit any of the usual boxes and that is why we have so many problems explaining ourselves to other people, as well as to ourselves. So you end up with a case like that of the JFS, where the judges are trying to put us in one box or another and they can’t because we are sui generis.

In the end it is a blessing and a gift, even with all the encumbrances, because it gives you this key to an extraordinary civilisation. That is the word I would end on. We are neither, narrowly, a race nor a religion. We are something like a people, a civilisation.

GJ: Jeffrey, before you give your personal view, can I ask you first: where does this matrilineal definition come from?

Jeffrey Cohen: In the talmudic period, 2,000 years ago at least, there was already discussion about how we interpret identity. Certainly when Pharisaic-rabbinic Judaism came on the scene, a few centuries before the common era, matrilineal descent was already well established.

The question of identity is difficult. Ben Gurion, the founder of the Jewish state, apparently wrote to 400 scholars and asked them: “Who is a Jew and what is a Jew?” I’m sure that he got 400 different answers.

Jewish identity is the crucible in which I was formed. It is one of my greatest sources of inspiration.

CONTINUED:
http://www.thejc.com/judaism/judaism-features/20463/who-a-jew-the-great-debate

Aliyah1995
10-20-2009, 12:03 AM
If it is a halachic debate, then there is really no debate. According to halacha, one is Jewish who is born of a Jewish mother or who converted to Judaism in line with halacha. If it is not a halachic debate, then that is a different story. Of course, one can ask what is considered a halachic conversion to Judaism, but if one is not born to a Jewish mother or converted to Judaism, then one cannot be considered Jewish "according to halacha". Sorry!!!!

maven
10-20-2009, 04:16 AM
If it is a halachic debate, then there is really no debate. According to halacha, one is Jewish who is born of a Jewish mother or who converted to Judaism in line with halacha. If it is not a halachic debate, then that is a different story. Of course, one can ask what is considered a halachic conversion to Judaism, but if one is not born to a Jewish mother or converted to Judaism, then one cannot be considered Jewish "according to halacha". Sorry!!!!Well it is a debate about halaka. Not by a group of Rabbis as is called for so often in the UK but by one Rabbi and some brilliants. According to a lot of scriptures a lot of things are given, however, examination of texts often reveals human intervention at a certain period in history deceided by Rabbis generally relating to the conditions or mores of the time and that may bear examination whether it should apply to today. I heard once a dispute between two rabbis. The argument ended up drawn between the one who stood by the written tradition and one who stood by the oral tradition, the written and the oral tradition often being different. It depends where you are standing. From some ultra-orthodox perspectives then the only real Jews are Chassids, the Orthodox are heretics anyway.
There are historical Jewish communities that pre-date or dispute the matrilineal tradition. Karaite Judaism, for example, traces Jewishness by patrilineal descent, which it says was the practice of ancient Israel
In Deuteronomy the text refers only to marriage specifically between Jews and Hittite, Girgashite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, Jebusite, 'seven nations' only, I see no passage in Deuteronomy saying marriage cannot take place with people outside those tribes.
Ezra, speaking as a priest, albeit as a high priest, and not as a result of a divine intervention said "Ye have broken faith, and have married foreign women, to increase the guilt of Israel." But Ezra was not G-d nor receiving messages from G-d, he was a mere priest making a ruling in the context of facts on the ground at that moment and at that time in history.
So yes, for the orthodox that which is unremovable from their side of the fence is unremovable, while for liberals what appeared unremovable was a mirage in the first place. One way or another due to the arising of different views between different sects the matter can never be settled.
Thankfully in the West, at least in Europe, the law curbs the worst excesses of the clerics of all religions as we saw in the recent high court ruling on London's orthodox JF school and the many rulings against Islamic traditions.
As far as I am concerned every Jew is precious, every new branch contributes to a bigger tree with deeper roots, so while being ultra-orthodox in many of my views such as my opposition to the refusal of authorities in Jerusalem to create an eruv in which shabbat is strictly maintained, yet I am liberal in such an instance as marriage.