Three days ago, a new study by The Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI) – of which I am a senior fellow – was released to the public. It is titled ” target=”_blank”>erroneous reporting). Responses such as: “Jews should be welcoming to mixed families and not reject them the way you do” (we don’t – I don’t know where this comes from).
Of course, the fact that we’ve received critical responses from both liberals and conservatives does not make our conclusions more valid. But it does tell us something – something that is also demonstrated throughout our report: to assume that one could establish a clear definition of proper Jewishness with which all Jews can agree would be unrealistic. Thus, when one pen pal suggested that we “work to renew commitment to the ‘old’ definitions, which are the only definitions with a proven track record,” my tendency is to be skeptical. I understand the sentiment, I might even agree that this could be great, but is it feasible? And what would be the price? (And by the way: the track record of the old definitions is also overstated. Jews assimilated in great numbers in the past, and not just in the present).
It is also puzzling to get a letter saying: “the true spirit of Judaism is one of acceptance. We need to stop judging people, and let them decide for themselves who they are.” It is puzzling because 1. Acceptance is not the “true spirit” of Judaism – a few pages of Talmud and Halacha could clarify that. 2. We are not judging people by saying they aren’t Jewish – many great people aren’t Jewish. 3. The meaning of having a group, or a people, requires some kind of boundaries, even if these boundaries are somewhat amorphous.
Today I am speaking ” target=”_blank”>Replace ‘Who is a Jew?’ with ‘Who is a Jew for What?’ – and my main argument in this article, based on the views of the hundreds of Jews that participated in the JPPI dialogue process on “the Jewish spectrum,” attempts to be pragmatic, rather than ideological. Since the question of who is a Jew cannot be solved, since a definition agreeable to all is unlikely to emerge soon, there are three possible choices for the Jews:
A. To fight over it.
B. To part ways, and become more than one people.
C. To accept reality and work around it.
Option A will get us nowhere. Fighting for something makes sense if one believes one can ultimately win the fight. I do not see a way for any Jewish faction to win this fight. The Orthodox will not convince Reform Jews to drop patrilineal decent. Seculars will not convince rabbis to accept the legitimacy of non-halachic conversion. Diaspora Jews can’t make Israel adopt criteria compatible with their Jewish existence – nor can Israel make Jewish communities around the world adopt criteria compatible with its instincts. Is fighting always bad? Of course not. Fighting in this case is essential. We can, and maybe must, continue the tug of war over the fine details of the Jewish grand deal. We must air our differences and try to win over the other side and hope to score a point here or there. That is, as long as we remember that this is not a winner-takes-all fight, as long as we accept that this is not a do-or-die fight.
Option B is what nobody wants. Jews are few in number, and splitting them into even smaller groups of Judaism type A and Judaism type B makes little sense. We are a people with a long tradition of debates and disagreements. At times, they made us split (Christianity), at times we managed to stay together (” target=”_blank”>Read the report – it is long, but not boring – and decide for yourself if our case seems solid.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.