Interesting Posts Elsewhere and Scheduling Note

I have been swamped at work and have not had time to post much lately. I expect this situation will continue for another month or so. I will try to get a post in here or there, but I do not expect to do too much posting until February.

In the meantime, here are a few very interesting posts from elsewhere.

Ben Z at Mah Rabu has a thorough and exhaustive post on the Conservative Movement and one-day versus two-day yom tovs. He links to his earlier two-part post on the Reform Movement and the same topic. The post is quite thoughtful.

Also, the Natan Slifkin, the "Zoo Rabbi," has written a defense of his opponents here. (Hat tip to Gil at Hirhurim).

(If you don't know about the controversy, check out the "Controversy" section at Slifkin's website here: http://www.zootorah.com/. This whole controversy arises out of a terrible collision between traditional Judaims and science. It is both fascinating and sad.)

Essentially, Slifkin argues in defense of his opponents that the charedi world has the right to reject a rationalistic approach to Judaism like his, and thus the ban against his works is justified in those communities. These communities promote other values well, and adopting a critical view of certain scientific beliefs of chazal would undermine that, even though rationality would support such a critical view.

Slifkin's argument raises a great issue at to whether truth is an instrumental value that should serve other values, or whether it is a separate value and such trade-offs are unwarranted. Unfortunately, I don't have time to analyze this now.

Read More...

Summary only...

Reflections on an Orthodox Bar-Mitzvah

I attended an Orthodox bar-mitzvah on Saturday. As expected (or at least as I expected), the bar-mitzvah boy did a spectacular job. Last week's parsha (vayetzei) is one of the longest is the Torah, and his leining was great. And his speech was smart, mature, and insightful.

Most bar-mitzvot I have attended have been Reform or Conservative, and I was struck in good way by the "tone" of the service. It was pretty serious as a service. Like any bar mitzvah service, there was some focus on the bar mitzvah boy: the rabbi talked about him, he gave a dvar Torah, etc. And it certainly was a happy occasion. He was happy, his family was proud (and rightfully so), and the day was his.

But the service did not revolve around him. It was not gushy or silly or showy. The focus during the davening was on the davening and the focus during the leining was on the leining. This was not a tribute ceremony or a show. This was shabbat morning service. The sense I got from the room was that this was important business for grown-ups. We do it every week, someone has to be the leader, the kid is now old enough and knowledgeable enough, and so he's in charge. Welcome to the big leagues, kid.

The result was a real rite of passage. The bar-mitzvah boy did an adult thing in an adult way and did it well. And since focus of everyone was on doing the adult thing, the experience was genuine.

In too many Reform or Conservative synagogues, the bar- or bat-mitzvah is run as a performance. The kid memorizes a small part of the parsha, says a few blessings, and the parents give a speech about how the kid is the best person in the world. The adults are not there to daven or learn Torah; they are there solely to fawn over the kid. While this is objectionable by itself, it also results in gutting the meaning of the ritual. The kid is not doing an adult thing since the adults in his or her life don't regularly do these things. The kid is performing a show, and the performance itself is the coming-of-age ritual.

This is not a blanket criticism of liberal Jewish bar- and bat-mitzvot. Many are closer to the Orthodox model, and many are genuine, meaningful, and haimish. But many are not. We Conservative and Reform Jews might not copy everything from our Orthodox friends, but we certainly could learn a bit about how to do a bar-mitzvah.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Documentary Hypothesis In Detail - Numbers

Here is a table showing all the verses in Numbers and which source they are from. Again, I have used two separate classifications: Richard E. Friedman's from The Bible With Sources Revealed (2003) and Samuel Driver's from Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (9th ed 1913). I have also marked the verses with an asterisk where they differ, and finally included some explanatory notes by Friedman and Driver.

Here's information about the table.

F - Friedman
D - Driver
Diff - Different. * if Friedman and Driver are difference; nothing if they are the same.

Sources:
J - J
E - E
RJE - Redactor of J and E
P - P
R - Redactor
O - Other

Here's the table.

Documentary Hypothesis
Chapter	Friedman	Driver	Difference?	Notes
Numbers
1:1 - 2:34	P	P
3:1	R	P	*
3:2 - 9:14	P	P
9:15-23	R	P	*
10:1-12	P	P
10:13	R	P	*
10:14 - 27	P	P
10:28	R	P	*
10:29 - 33	J	JE	*
10:34	J	P	*
10:35-36	J	JE	*
11:1-11	E	JE	*
12:1-15	E	E
13:1-16	P	P
13:17a	R	P	*
13:17b-20	J	JE	*
13:21	J	P	*
13:22-24	J	JE	*
13:25-26a	P	P		to "Paran"
13:26b	P	JE	*
13:27-31	J	JE	*
13:32a	P	P
13:32b	P	JE	*
13:33	J	JE	*
14:1-2	P	P
14:3	P	JE	*
14:4	J	JE	*
14:5-7	P	P
14:8-9	P	JE	*
14:10	P	P
14:11-25	J	JE	*
14:26-30	P	P
14:31-33	P	JE	*
14:34-38	P	P
14:39-45	J	JE	*
15:1-31	R	P	*
15:32-41	P	P
16:1a	P	P		to "son of Levi"
16:1b-2a	J	JE	*	to "in front of Moses"
16:2b-11	P	P
16:12-14	J	JE	*
16:15	P	JE	*
16:16-24a	P	P
16:24b	R	P	*	"Dathan and Abiram"
16:25-26	J	JE	*
16:27a	P	P
16:27b	R	P	*	"Dathan and Abiram"
16:27c-32a	J	JE	*	to "and their households"
16:32b	P	P
16:33-34	J	JE	*
16:35	P	P
17:1-27	P	P		Note: Jewish 17:1-15 are numbered in Christian bibles as 16:36-50. Jewish 17:16-28 are numbered in Christian Bibles as 17:1-13
18, 19	P	P
20:1a	R	P	*	to "in Kadesh"
20:1b	P	JE	*
20:2	P	P
20:3a	P	JE	*
20:3b-4	P	P
20:5	P	JE	*
20:6-13	P	P
20:14-21	J	JE	*
20:22	R	P	*
20:23-29	P	P
21:1-3	J	JE	*
21:4a	R	P	*	F: to "Edom"; D: to "Mt Hor"
21:4b-9	E	JE	*
21:10-11	R	P	*
21:12-35	J	JE	*
22:1	R	P	*
22:2	J	E	*
22:3-21	E	E		F: except for 4 "to the elders of Midian" (R), 5 "and he sent messengers" (J), 7 "and Midian's elders" (R), 15 "And Balak went on again" (J)
22:22-35a	E	J	*	F: except for 26 "to turn right or left" (J)
22:35b-41	E	E
23, 24	E	JE	*
25:1-5	J	JE	*
25:6-19	P	P
26:1-7	P	P
26:8-11	R	P	*
26:12-65	P	P
27	P	P
28,29	R	P	*
30:1	R	P	*
30:2-17	P	P
31	P	P
32:1	J	JE	*
32:2	P	P		D: part may be JE
32:3	J	JE	*
32:4	P	P		D: part may be JE
32:5	J	JE	*	F&D: except for "let this land be given to your servants for a possession" (P)
32:6	P	JE	*
32:7-12	J	JE	*	F & D: except for 12 "and Joshua son of Nun" (R); D: except for 11 "from 20 years old and upward" (P)
32:13-24	P	JE/P	*	D: mainlly JE with some P additions
32:25-27	J	JE	*
32:28-32	P	JE/P	*	D: mainlly JE with some P additions
32:33-42	J	JE	*
33:1a	O	P	*	F: list of travels that R used to organize the wilderness episodes chronologically
33:1-2	R	P	*
33:3-49	O	P	*
33:50-56	P	P
34, 35, 36	P	P

Read More...

Summary only...

Children and the Torah Service

I have been thinking about the problem of smaller children and the Torah service. The basic problem is that children can easily get bored and be disruptive at a Saturday morning service. There seems to be several ways of handling this problem, and I was wondering what other synagogues did.

1. Synagogues can let children attend, expect a certain amount of disruption, and simply try to minimize it or live with it.

2. Synagogues can provide some kind of age-appropriate activities for children: day care, singing, children's services, Saturday religious school, etc. Smaller children simply go to their activity, and the adults go to the service. This had the advantage (especially important in more liberal synagogues) of having younger children see adults go to services, even when there is no bar- or bat-mitzvah.

3. Synagogues can provide "family services" that the whole family can attend. The advantage is that this allows the family to attend services together. But the disadvantage, as a friend of mine noted, it that there really is no such thing as "family services." There are only "children's services." Adults get very little out of them (other than watching their children), and children get the subtextual message that Judaism is geared for children. This is an especially bad problem if the only services the parents attend are "family services."

4. Synagogues can provide "family services" at times other than Saturday morning that are less lengthy. They can provide a family service Friday evening or a family havdalah service Saturday evening. Children are better able to sit through a shorter service. However, this still leaves the adults with a problem for Saturday morning services.

5. Synagogues can not allow children (or at least not tolerate occasional interruptions well) and not provide activities at the synagogue for the children. This leaves the parents with several options.

- One of the parents can watch the children at home, and the other can go to services. This tends to work in Orthodox or more traditional synagogues where families and synagogues have adopted more traditional gender roles. It also works in more liberal or moderate synagogues where one spouse (regardless of gender) is interested in attending services and the other is not. But this results in separating one spouse from the other spouse and kids.

- The parents can hire a babysitter. This is costly and results in separating the parents from the children.

- Both parents can simply stay home. This keeps the family together, but also keeps them out of the synagogue on Saturdays.

How does your synagogue handle this problem, what do you and others do, and how is it working?

Read More...

Summary only...

The Avot Prayer and Barack Obama's Speech

Barack Obama invoked a powerful image in his victory speech in Chicago. He mentioned 106-year-old Ann Nixon Cooper, who "was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons -- because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin." He then summarized the great progress that had occurred in her lifetime, and mentioned several historical events, culminating with the following: "And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change."

After tracing progress through the last century, Obama looked forward to the next. "So tonight, let us ask ourselves -- if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made? [¶] This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment."

Obama presented a powerful way of thinking about history and the importance of the present moment. He remembered the great achievements of the past, and looked forward --- with his own children specifically in mind --- to even better improvements in the future.

This is exactly how I think about the first prayer of the Amidah, the Avot.

After praising the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob for loving kindness, the last sentence (from the Conservative Siddur Sim Shalom) is "You remember the pious deeds of our ancestors and will send a redeemer to their children's children because of Your loving nature."

In other words, we start the prayer by recalling the Patriarchs of the distant past and their pious deeds. We then think forward from their time, noting how God will redeem "their children's children" (livnei v'neihem) because of his loving nature. The referent of "their" is of course the Patriarchs, and so their children's children include all of our ancestors, us, and our children.

During prayer, I do not find it helpful to think about God as an active supernatural force that magically changes the world while I sit passively on the sidelines. Instead, I primarily think of prayers like the Amidah as a reminder to me of specific aspects of godliness that I should be helping to bring into the world. With all this in mind, I tend to conflate the different parts of the Avot: acts of loving kindness, our ancestor's pious deeds, redemption, and a loving nature. After all, my children and future descendants will hopefully think of my acts as part of their ancestors' pious deeds. And so one key question that I think about when I say the Avot (or at least try to think about - it's too easy to get distracted) is what can I do to help "their children's children": my immediate family, my extended family, and others in my community.

And so --- like Barack Obama --- I look backward to the past, think of great deeds of loving kindness and pious ancestors, and then focus on what I can do along the same lines for the next generations. This places the present solidly between the past and the future, not only in time, but along a continuum of progress and good deeds. Not a bad way to start the day.

Read More...

Summary only...

Amusing Posts on the Flood

The attempts to reconcile science and a literal reading of the early chapters of Genesis (the creation stories, Noah's flood, Tower of Babel) are quite silly. When I was in my teens and early 20s, I was intrigued by this debate. But now in my 40s, I am now amazed that this debate even occurs, especially by otherwise intelligent and serious people.

I understand why young people might be interested in this problem. Just out of childhood, they face the conflict between a childish literal view of these stories and some newfound knowledge about science. They thrash about a bit trying to resolve this conflict, and derive some silly theories along the way: maybe if this verse is read that way, and there was only a small miracle here, and days don't mean literal days, and some of the animals on the ark were in some sort of suspended animation, and dinosaurs were more dense than mammals and sunk faster, and ....

What I don't understand is why serious grown-ups would take on this issue. Dr. Harvey Babich (who appears to be a serious grown up - a professor of biology at Stern College with some impressive credentials) wrote a silly piece along these line, entitled How Many Animals Were There On The Ark?. In short, he argues that perhaps Noah simply took a set of each "kind" of animal, rather than a set of each species. These "kinds" then rapidly diversified after the flood and --- dare I say --- evolved into all the species were see today. Voila! This solves the problem of how Noah fit so many animals into a too-small ark.

My reaction is simply to roll my eyes. There are lots of problems with this specific argument, and this general approach, none of which I particularly want to discuss. Some other bloggers have already taken a whack at those. See XGH (in his most recent incarnation): YU on the Mabul with Hagaos Hagodol and Frum Heretic: Dang, He Busted My Mabul Crapometer! My questions is why would a serious biologist write such a piece?

The only thing I can think of is a slippery-slope problem. If people believe the creation stories and the flood are not literally true, the argument goes, then maybe they will believe the revelation at Sinai is not literally true either. So we need to draw the line at the former.

The tactical problem is that this argument is likely to backfire. If people start to think that Orthodox Judaism believes that the world is 6,000 years old and that there was a global flood that killed everyone in the world except 8 people on a boat in 2300 BCE, they are more likely, not less likely, to conclude that the revelation at Sinai did not occur.

If anyone else has any thought on why otherwise serious people take these positions, leave a comment.

Read More...

Summary only...

How to Undermine Jewish Education

Many Conservative and Reform synagogues do an admirable job of Jewish education, but sometimes these synagogues and their members unintentionally undermine all their efforts by committing one of the most serious errors I know of in Jewish education: conveying the message that Judaism is only for children and that serious adults should not take it seriously.

Take the following overexaggerated description of this problem.

A set of parents have only a minimal level of Jewish knowledge or practice. They never go to services on shabbat or holidays other than (say) Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. They do not daven or study or have Jewish books in their home or think about or talk about Judaism. The message the parents implicitly and perhaps unintentionally convey to their children is that serious adults do not have any serious involvement with Judaism.

The parents decide that their child should know something about Judaism and "get bar-mitzvahed." So they join the local synagogue and enroll their childen in the after-school Hebrew school. The Hebrew curriculum consists of learning basic Hebrew words and pronunciation. The religious curriculum consists of simplistic descriptions of, and activities about, the Torah and the holidays. (Lots of songs and arts-and-crafts projects.) The kids never (or at most rarely) read original texts. The only Torah stories are the most myth-like: creation, garden of Eden, Noah's flood, the Red Sea, Mt. Sinai. The ethics consist of simplistic universal rules, albeit with a few Hebrew words thrown in (don't steal, be nice, give "tzedakah"). These lessons are conveyed with big smiles and a tone of talking down to small children.

There are many significant issues in the child's life that serious Judaism speaks to but that are avoided altogether: God, death, the holiness of life, sexuality (for the older kids), assimilation, how (and why) to be Jewish in a non-Jewish America, how to read a complex and ancient text.

The message implicitly conveyed by all of this is that Judaism is for children. It covers things that children might consider fun and interesting (arts-and-crafts, songs, simple stories, simple ethics) but nothing that adults would find meaningful or important.

Eventually, the child begins bar- or bat-mitzvah training, which consists in memorizing a bunch of Hebrew. The child may be required to attend a specified number of Saturday services. Again, this is not something that adults do in the normal course of things; it is something that children do to prepare for a bar- or bat-mitzvah.

Finally, the child has a bar-mitzvah. Adults never attend services or read from the Torah; the only people who do so are 13-year-olds celebrating a bar- or bat-mitzvah. (At some synagogues, there is no Saturday service if there no bar-mitzvah.) So the child completes his coming-of-age ritual, reads from the Torah, and then joins the ranks of adults who never have to go to services again.

Once the child internalizes this message of Judaism-for-children, that's pretty much it. The child is unlikely to want to participate in anything Jewish or learn anything about Judaism again. This is worse than an ignorance of Judaism. It is based on the (now) young adult's actual knowledge, based on years of experience, that Judaism has nothing important to say about life and in fact is childish and silly.

This scenario is obviously an over-exaggeration, but in some cases, it is not very much of an over-exaggeration. Contrast that scenario with life at an Orthodox synagogue. Adults regularly go to synagogue on shabbat and often for daily minyan; if not, they often daven at home. The adults observe Jewish rituals at home, study Judaism, are knowledgeable about Judaism, and discuss Judaism with their children. The children's Jewish education is serious; it consists in large part of reading from original sources. And the bar-mitzvah boy leads the service and reads from the Torah as part of his entry into the adult world of participating in services and reading from the Torah. Whatever the problems are with Orthodoxy (and I think there are many), one problem that does not exist is conveying the message that Judaism is for children. Instead, Orthodox Judaism conveys the message that Judaism is important and serious adults take it seriously.

Liberal and moderate Jews can avoid conveying the implicit message Judaism is for children by participating in it in a serious adult way as adults. The obvious particular ways are noted above (go to synagogue on at least some Saturdays, observe Jewish rituals, have Jewish books, discuss Jewish ideas).

But here are a few less obvious ideas for parents and synagogues.

1. Take Judaism seriously. Having children see that adults treat Judaism seriously may be the most important lesson they learn.

2. Develop a knowledgeable and (largely) self-sufficient laity. This does not just require adult education programs at synagogues and members who attend. More importantly, it requires a decentralized model of adult eduction. Rather than have the rabbi lecture on some topic, the synagogue should facilitate smaller discussion groups or study groups that work through some topic on their own. (They can always call in the rabbi for tough questions.)

3. Kids sports on Sunday? One of the biggest practical obstacles to attending services on Saturday for the non-shomer-shabbos crowd is kids sports programs with games on Saturdays. Perhaps one option is for many synagogues to work together and form sports leagues that play on Sunday (and that are not limited to Jews). Certainly Jews would be one of the larger constituencies, and church-going Christians (who are otherwise occupied on Sunday mornings) would be unlikely to participate. But there must be many non-Jews who for personal and idiosyncratic reason prefers games on Sunday.

Those are my initial thoughts. (I will be posting more in the future on Jewish education in general.) If anyone has any ideas about what would help convey the message that Judaism is not just for children, I would like to hear your thoughts.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Documentary Hypothesis In Detail - Leviticus

No need for a table here. The whole book is P, more or less.

Friedman and Driver (and many others) noted that Leviticus 17-26 is a "Holiness Code" (called H) which is quite similar to P in many respects but has some distinctive characteristics in both substance and language.

Friedman notes that Lev. 23:39-43 (an expansion of the laws of Sukkot and Shemini Atzeret) is a later addition by R; Driver agrees that this was a later insertion but from H.

Friedman notes that Lev. 26:39-44 are a later addition by R. Driver does not discuss this.

That's it; pretty simple.

Read More...

Summary only...

Shemini Atzeret, Simchat Torah, Death, Rebirth, and Poetry

The holidays of Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah have subtle and sometimes overlooked themes of death endings, followed by rebirth and new beginnings. And the Velveteen Rabbi has captured this theme nicely in a recent poem.

Death and endings run through these holidays. One common way of thinking about the four species of sukkot is as a body: a spine, heart, eyes, and mouth. But we don't wave the lulav and etrog on Shemini Atzeret: the body is at rest. We also have no special mitzvot or blessings for Shemini Atzeret, even though it is the eighth day of sukkot outside of Israel. The traditional term for a dead body, niftar, comes from the same root PTR in the word "patar", meaning exempt (from mitzvot). A dead person is someone exempt from mitzvot, and on Shemini Atzeret, we are exempt from the mitzvot of sukkot. And by Shemini Atzeret, the schach on the sukkah is turning brown (at least if you use palm fronds, not bamboo mats like I usually do); it is starting to look dead.

As we turn to Simchat Torah, we start off by reading the very end of the Torah, the death of Moses. We end the book, and the theme is death.

But another theme emerges: rebirth and new beginnings. The chazzan prays for rain on Shemini Atzeret, a sign of rebirth of plants. And of course once we finish the Torah and the death of Moses, we being it all over again, and read about God creating the world. A new beginning.

The Velveteen Rabbi writes poems about each parsha. Most are good; some are quite good. And this week, she penned Mobius (V'zot Ha-Brakha), about the last parsha of the Torah, Simchat Torah, and the annual repeating cycle. She picks up on some of these themes. She begins:

I want to write the Torah
on a mobius strip of parchment

The poem is short, clever, and worth the read.

These two holidays represent the culmination of the long process that began at the beginning of Elul. May we all become the better people we wish to be.

Read More...

Summary only...

Same-Sex Marriage, Jewish Law, and American Law

California (my state) will vote on Proposition 8 in November. This initiative, if passed, would overrule the California Supreme Court's recent ruling that denial of marriage to same-sex couples is unconstitutional.

There are many political points to be made on both sides of this issue, almost all of which I would like to ignore here. There are also many halachic points to be made (including the recent changes in the Conservative movement's position on homosexuality), almost all of which I would also like to ignore here. Instead, I would like to focus very narrowly on the issue of when Jews should support or oppose an American law of general applicability that is not in accordance with halacha (however defined).

In all 50 states, Jewish law and American law differ on the definition of marriage. Under Jewish law, a valid marriage requires a ketubah, kiddushin, the sheva brachot, etc. But of course American law has no such requirement. And under Jewish law, a divorce can occur only if the husband gives his wife a get. Again, there is no such requirement under American law. And no one seriously argues that American marriage law should be modified to bring it into conformity with Jewish law. Thus, we already support American law that allows both marriage and divorce (even among Jews) that would not be recognized under Jewish law.

So couples can be unmarried, married, or divorced under American law, unmarried, married, or divorced under Jewish law, and the two do not necessarily overlap. An Orthodox rabbi once told me that his son and future daughter-in-law were civilly married during her senior year in college so that she could could live in married-student housing (as opposed to a co-ed dorm), even though they did not consider themselves "Jewishly" married and did not act as a married couple. (They were married under Jewish law after she graduated.)

Should we support civil same-sex marriage, even though traditional halacha forbids it? I think we should.

Take another example. Jewish law strictly condemns l'shon hara, or true negative gossip where the listener does not have an important need to know the negative information. But such speech is solidly within the scope of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Most Jewish Americans (and certainly me) would oppose an American law that would allow fines or a tort suit for true negative gossip. (In fact, truth is a defense in defamation cases.) Thus, we are willing --- and in fact pleased --- that at least in this case, American law permits what halacha forbids. We rightly view such matters as matters of personal ethics, outside the scope of government enforcement.

Should this apply to same-sex marriage? For those of us at the more liberal end of Judaism, this is not much of an issue, since we either are not concerned about halacha or are willing to modify halacha to permit such relationships, and presumably such marriages. For those of us at the more conservative end of Judaism, this is an issue, since halacha does forbid such sexual activity and such marriages. But we do not base free speech law on l'shon hara, and we do not even base opposite-sex marriage law on the halachic definition of marriage. We should not oppose civil same-sex marriage merely because it differs from halacha.

There are two aspects of marriage that need to be considered here.

There are the legal rights bestowed upon married couples: the right to make medical decisions for the spouse in the absence of a medical power of attorney, the right to inherit intestate, the right to community property, the right to own property jointly in certain legal forms, etc. Most (but not all) of these can be granted by some type of contract or agreement. And almost all of them are available under civil union law. This aspect of marriage is not at issue in the same-sex marriage debate.

Instead, only the social approval or "holiness" aspect of marriage is at issue. There is no doubt that same-sex couples exist, live together, have children together (through adoption, sperm or egg donors, etc.), and need and to a large degree can have the bundle of legal rights that marriage bestows. The issue is what type of social approval does the government providing the label "marriage" for such couples signify? There are two theories here, and both weigh in favor of marriage.

At one extreme, the label can mean very little. It might simply be a shorthand designation for the bundle of legal rights that the government bestows on a married couple. (This is in fact my belief.) It conveys no imprimatur of approval. The government may issue a corporation a corporate charter, but there is no sense that the government (or the people collectively) approve of the products or services the corporation sells. The government may issue a driver's license, but there is no sense that the government approves of where the driver is driving. And merely because the government considers two people to be married does not mean that the government in any way approves of their relationship. This can be seen most clearly by the fact that we do not impose any sort of quality requirements on married couples. Spouses can be physically, sexually, and psychologically abusive, have no pleasant interactions, be intimate with others, and be downright horrible people, and they remain married nonetheless. In what sense does the government "approve" of their marriage? I do not think that a civil "marriage" does or should indicate anything more than the married people now have certain rights and duties towards each other and towards the world.

At the other extreme, the label can mean a great deal. It could mean that the people as a whole, acting through the government, have determined that any marriage (no matter how horrible in fact) has some sort of collective social approval. I think this is wrong, but I certainly agree that it has this significance, at least to many people. But if that is the case, then we as a society should offer marriage as broadly as possible. Merely because an individual opposes a marriage of type X is not a sufficient reason for the government to prohibit marriages of type X. Instead, we as a society should be as inclusive as possible. We live in a pluralistic society. There are those that support same-sex marriage and those that oppose it. Our society is largely based on the premise that for people of widely diverse beliefs to function in the same society, we should permit the greatest amount of personal freedom possible. Where there is a lack of moral consensus, we should be as pro-choice as possible.

Of course, this does not mean that Jews (and others) who oppose same-sex marriage should abandon their religious beliefs. To the contrary: such Jews are not only free to maintain these beliefs, but are free to use them for all personal purposes, and in fact should do so. A shomer-mitzvot Jew would consider a civilly-married couple to be halachically unmarried if they did not abide by halacha in getting married. He or she would consider a halachically-married couple to be still halachically married if they obtained a civil divorce but the husband did not give a get. He or she would consider a person who speaks l'shon hara to be in violation of halacha (and in a pretty bad way), even if such speech is protected by the First Amendment. And he or she would consider a same-sex couple to be unmarried under halacha, even if they were considered married by the state they lived in.

In short, the rules of halacha and the rules of American states operate under completely separate domains. Simply because something is forbidden under halacha is no reason at all to think that it should be forbidden under American law.

* * *

Update: Eugene Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy linked to this post here, and there is an interesting discussion going on in the comments section.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Documentary Hypothesis In Detail - Exodus

Here is a table showing all the verses in Exodus and which source they are from. (The Genesis table is here; the rest is coming.) Again, I have used two separate classifications: Richard E. Friedman's from The Bible With Sources Revealed (2003) and Samuel Driver's from Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (9th ed 1913). I have also marked the verses with an asterisk where they differ, and finally included some explanatory notes by Friedman and Driver.

Like Genesis, the versions differ primarily in the classification of E and J. Friedman argues that the "bias" in favor of J over E might be justified in Genesis, but is not necessarily justified in Exodus. Accordingly, he classifies many more Exodus verses as E than Driver does, and in doing so seems to reduce the number of multiple-verse stories.

Here's information about the table.

F - Friedman
D - Driver
Diff - Different. * if Friedman and Driver are difference; nothing if they are the same.

Sources:
J - J
E - E
RJE - Redactor of J and E
P - P
R - Redactor
O - Other

Here's the table.

Chapter	Friedman	Driver	Difference?	Notes
Exodus
1:1-5	R	P	*
1:6	J	J
1:7	P	P
1:8-12	E	J	*
1:13-14	P	P
1:15-20a	E	E
1:20b	E	P	*
1:21	E	E
1:22	J	E	*
2:1-14	J	E	*
2:15-23a	J	J
2:23b	P	P
3:1	E	E
3:2-4a	J	J
3:4b	E	E
3:5	J	J
3:6	E	E
3:7-8	J	J
3:9-15	E	E
3:16-18	E	J	*	F: identification uncertain
3:19-22	J	E	*	F: identification uncertain
4:1-16	E	J	*
4:17-18	E	E
4:19-20a	J	J
4:20b-21a	E	E		Up to "in front of Pharoah"
4:21b	R	E	*
4:22-23	E	J	*
4:24-26	J	J
4:27-28	E	E
4:29-31	E	J	*
5:1-2	J	E	*
5:3	E	J	*
5:4	E	E
5:5-23	J	E	*
6:1	E	J	*
6:2-10	P	P
6:12-13	R	P	*
6:14-25	O	P	*	F: Book of Records
6:26-29	R	P	*
6:30	P	P
7:1-13	P	P
7:14-15a	E	J	*
7:15b	E	E
7:16	E	J	*
7:17	E	J&E	*	D: see notes
7:18	E	J	*
7:19-20a	P	P		F&D: to "had commanded"
7:20b	E	E		D: to "servants"
7:20c-21a	E	J	*	D: to "from the river"
7:21b	E	P	*
7:22	P	P
7:23-25	E	J	*
7:26-29	E	J	*	Note: D uses KJV numbering
8:1-3a	P	P
8:3b	E	P	*
8:4-11a	E	J	*	F&D: to "heart heavy"
8:11b	R	P	*
8:12-15	P	P
8:16-28	E	J	*
9:1-7	E	J	*
9:8-12	P	P
9:13-21	E	J	*
9:22-23a	E	E		D: to "earth" (or ground)
9:23b	E	J	*
9:24a	E	E
9:24b	E	J	*
9:25a	E	E
9:25b-34	E	J	*
9:35	R	R		(See footnote in D)
10:1-11	E	J	*
10:12-13a	E	E		D: to "Egypt"
10:13b	E	J	*
10:14a	E	E		D: to "Land of Egypt"
10:14b-15a	E	J	*	D: to "darkened"
10:15b	E	E		D: to "left"
10:15c-19	E	J	*
10:20	R	E	*
10:21-23	E	E
10:24-26	E	J	*
10:27	R	E	*
10:28-29	E	J	*
11:1-3	E	E
11:4-8	E	J	*
11:9-10	R		*
12:1-20	P	P
12:21-27	E	J	*
12:28	P	P
12:29	E	J	*
12:30	E		*
12:31-36	E	E
12:37a	R	P	*
12:37b-39	E	E
12:40-41	P	P
12:42a	P	E	*
12:42b-50	P	P
12:51	R	P	*
13:1-2	E	P	*
13:3-16	E	J	*
13:17-19	E	E
13:20	R	P	*
13:21-22	E	J	*
14:1-4	P	P
14:5a	J	J		F: to "had fled"
14:5b	E	J	*
14:6	J	J
14:7	E	J	*
14:8	P	P
14:9a	J	P	*	F: "and Egypt pursued them"
14:9b	P	P
14:10a	P	J	*	F: "And Pharaoh came close"
14:10b	J	J		F: to "very afraid"
14:10c	P	E	*
14:11-12	E	J	*
14:13-14	J	J
14:15-18	P	P
14:19a	E	E
14:19b	J	J
14:20a	E	J	*
14:20b	J	J
14:21a	P	P		F & D: to "over the sea"
14:21b	J	J		F & D: to "dry ground"
14:21c-23	P	P
14:24	J	J
14:25	E	J	*
14:26-27a	P	P		F & D: to "over the sea"
14:27b	J	J
14:28-29	P	P
14:30-31	J	J
15:1-18	J	E	*	F & D: Song was earleir source
15:19	R	J	*
15:20-21	E	E
15:22a	R	J	*
15:22b-25a	J	J
15:25b-26	E	J	*
15:27	R	J	*
16:1	R	P	*
16:2-3	P	P
16:4-5	J	J
16:6-24	P	P
16:25-30	P	J	*
16:31-35a	P	P
16:35b	J	P	*
16:36	P	P
17:1a	R	P	*
17:1b	R	J	*
17:2	E	J	*
17:3-6	E	E
17:7	E	J	*
17:8-16	E	E
18:1-27	E	E		F: except for "after her being sent off" in 18:2, which is RJE
19:1	P	P
19:2a	R	P	*
19:2b-3a	E	E
19:3b-9	E	J	*
19:10-11a	J	E	*
19:11b-13	J	J
19:14-16a	J	E	*	F: to "when it was morning"
19:16b-17	E	E
19:18	J	J
19:19	E	E
19:20-25	J	J		F: except for "you and Aaron with you" in 19:24, which is R
20:1	R	E	*
20:2-10	O	E	*
20:11	R	E	*
20:12-17	O	E	*
20:18-26	E	E
21:1-37	E	E
22:1-30	E	E
23:1-33	E	E
24:1-2	E	J	*
24:3-8	E	E
24:9-11	E	J	*
24:12-14	E	E
24:15a	E	P	*
24:15b-18a	P	P		F&D: to "cloud"
24:18b	R	E	*	and went up into the mountain"
24:18c	J	E	*
25:1-40	P	P
26:1-37	P	P
27:1-21	P	P
28:1-43	P	P
29:1-46	P	P
30:1-38	P	P
31:1-18a	P	P		D: to "testimony"
31:18b	P	E	*
32:1-8	E	E
32:9-14	E	J	*
32:15-24	E	E
32:25-34	E	J	*
33:1-4	E	J	*
33:5-11	E	E
33:12-23	E	J	*
34:1a	J	J		F&D: to "tablets of stone"
34:1b	RJE	RJE
34:2-28	J	J		F&D: except for v. 4 "like the first ones" (RJE)
34:29-35	P	P
35:1-35	P	P
36:1-38	P	P
37:1-29	P	P
38:1-31	P	P
39:1-43	P	P
40:1-38	P	P

Read More...

Summary only...

Building a Sukkah - Some Practical Issues

My sukkah is a simple frame of bolted 2x4s, with plastic outdoor blinds for the walls. But after seven years and too many warped 2x4s (now with some extra holes), I decided to design and build a new sukkah this year. Two other families I know were interested in building their first sukkahs, and so I helped them with the design. We have cut and drilled our boards, and we are going to put all three up on Sunday.

Many people simply buy a sukkah kit. But I really enjoyed building my own from scratch, and I know that others do as well. I ran into several practical issues in designing and building both my last sukkah and this one, and I though I would blog about it in the hopes that it might be of some help to someone else who was actually constructing a sukkah from scratch. (Insert any joke about Jews and power tools here.) If you have any practical advice or questions, please add a comment.


1. Plans. This is critical. Draw the plans first and label everything. If you make changes on the fly, change the plans.

2. Size. You need to think about the maximum and minimum sizes for your sukkah. Not the halachic sizes, but the practical sizes. If you are going to put a table or tables in the sukkah, measure those first and add a few feet to each side (for chairs and people and things). That's the minimum size. And then figure out where it will go and how much space you have there. That's the maximum size.

3. Height. The fake-bamboo blinds for the walls are 6' tall. I cut my vertical 2x4s to 7'. That leaves about 1' of vertical space not filled by the blinds. But my horizontal 2x4s are each 1/2" from the ground or the top, so that uses an inch. A 2x4 is actually 1.5 x 3.5. So I use 1" in space at the very top and bottom and 7" in space for the two 2x4s, for a total of 8". That leaves 4" of extra space, or 2" at the top and bottom of the blinds, well within acceptable limits. BTW, I cut off all the strings on the blinds and simply tie them to the top and bottom 2x4s with twine.

4. L-straps. I connect each vertical and horizontal 2x4 with bolts and an "L strap" (available at Home Depot, Lowes, and other similar stores). These give it plenty of strength and prevent racking.

The bolts make it easy to disassemble and reassemble next year. Using screws or nails is a bad idea because after a few years the wood will get torn up.

Each 2x4 gets two holes. The corner of the L-strap goes through both 2x4s where they meet. The other hole in the vertical part of the L-strap gets bolted to the vertical 2x4, and the other hold in the horizontal part of the L-strap gets bolted to the horizontal 2x4. The L-strap goes between the two 2x4s (like a sandwich).

5. Bolt sizes. The L-strap I use (the smallest one available) takes a 3/8" diameter bolt. The length of each bolt is the length of the board or boards it goes through, plus 1". I need a total of 4 sizes (remember that a 2x4 is really 1.5" x 3.5").

- 2.5" - through the thin side of a single 2x4 - (1.5" + 1")

- 4" - through the thin side of two 2x4s - (1.5" + 1.5" + 1")

- 4.5" - through the wide side of a 2x4 - (3.5" + 1")

- 6" - through the wide side of a 2x4 and the thin side of a second 2x4 (1.5" + 3.5" + 1")

You simple need to draw the sukkah first and count the number of each type of bolt you need. Since the bolts are the same diameter, you can use the same nuts for all the bolts.

6. Washers. I use two 1.5" diameter washers per bolt.

7. Cutting the 2x4s. Make sure you are set on the size of the sukkah and then cut all your 2x4s first.

8. Labeling and orientation. The biggest problem in re-assembling the sukkah each year is remembering which board goes where and how it is oriented. In the past, I would somehow get one or two boards wrong each year, and that required some trimming or drilling an new hole. But this year, I have developed and idiot-proof system that will work even with me. (I am hoping to disprove the maxim that when you develop an idiot-proof system, someone will invent a better idiot.)

Everything is orientated to the front left corner of the sukkah.

The first thing to do is uniquely label each vertical board. I call the boards on the left side of my sukkah L1, L2, etc., and on the right side R1, R2, etc. (L1 and R1 are in the front). If the long side of your sukkah is the front, you can call the front vertical 2x4s F1, F2, etc. and the back ones B1, B2, etc. I write the number on each board with a thick black permanent felt pen.

I label each horizontal 2x4 with the number of the two vertical 2x4 that it runs between. So the board that goes from L1 to L2 is called L1-L2. Since there are two of these (one at the top, the other at the bottom), I also add an U (for "up") and a D (for "down") label. (You can't use B because it also stands for "back").

That uniquely identifies each 2x4. But it still has to be oriented correctly. To do this, I made a small mark on the top and left side of each board (neat the top left corner) and then slightly beveled those two edges. (I started with a router and a chamfer bit, but then realized it would be easier with a compound miter saw.) For an edge on the long side of the 2x4, I just beveled the last few inches to the corner.

If you don't have access to these tools, you could always cut a notch in these sides, mark them with a thick felt pen, or do anything else that will clearly identify this edge. The important point is to know where these edges are.

That should do it. When you put each 2x4 in, simply make sure that the beveled (or marked) edges are on the top and left sides. Now each board is in the right place and oriented correctly.

9. Pre-drilling and drilling. I pre-drilled 3 out of the 4 holes: the 2 holes on the vertical 2x4, and the one corner hold on the horizontal one. (I will drill the final hole during assembly - see below.)

To make this easier, I made six marking templates.

I used a thin piece of wood that was the width of a 2x4 and about 8" long. I drew a line across the template 1/2" from the bottom. (This is the extra space at the top and bottom.) I then drew another line 3.5" above that. This is where the horizontal board will go. I then marked the center of this and drilled a small hole, just big enough for a pencil to fit through.

I then put the L-strap in place and marked where the top hole will go and drilled that.

This template marks where the vertical 2x4 will be drilled. Once you make this, it is easy and fast to mark the holes on the vertical 2x4s. Simply put the template over the top or bottom of the 2x4, hold it in place, and make a pencil mark through the two holes. If you are going to be drilling a lot of holes, spending a few minutes making this template will speed things up a lot. (We were making three sukkahs this year.)

Vertical boards in the center of a sukkah wall can hold two horizontal boards (one from the left and one from the right). Simply flip the template over and measure and mark these 4 hole using the same method above on the other end of the template. Then you can use the other end to mark these vertical 2x4s.

Once everything is marked, drill the holes. The best bit for drilling a 3/8" hole in a 2x4 is a spade bit.

* * *

You need to make another template to drill through the long side of the 2x4. IMPORTANT: make sure these holes are about 1" above the holes on the other side. If they are at the same level, the bolts will bump into each other and it won't go through.

* * *

Finally, you need to make templates for the horizontal boards showing where the holes go.

* * *

If you really don't want to make the templates, you can mark everything with the L-straps as you go. That works, but it will take a little longer and not be as consistent.

10. Assembly. Once you have everything cut, marked, and drilled, you are ready to assemble. Pick a side. You should have four 2x4s (two vertical, two horizontal).

The first thing to do is make the whole thing square. If you can, lay everything down flat. Put the 2x4s in place (horizontals on the outside) add the L-strap, and add the two bolts for the vertical 2x4s. At this point, the L-strap should be solidly in place against the vertical 2x4s (since it is held in by two bolts), but the horizontal 2x4s are only held in place by 1 bolt. As a result, the whole contraption can "rack" and turn into a parallelogram. That's exactly what we want at this point.

The trick here is to get the whole thing square before drilling the final hole. And the way to do that is to measure the two diagonals (either from bolt to bolt, or from corner to corner, but be consistent). If they are equal, the thing is square. If not, simply move the two long corners closer to each other, remeasure, and re-adjust, until they are equal.

Once it is square, carefully mark the wood through the hole in the L-strap. Move the L-strap out of the way (don't try to drill through the hole!), drill the holes, move the L-strap back in place, and bolt it all together. You now have a side.

Repeat the process for the other sides. The frame is up.

That's the hard part. It's clear sailing from here. Add the walls, some lights, decorations, and the schach, and your sukkah is up!

* * *

Update: I have added pictures and some additional suggestions here.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Few Interesting Posts Elsewhere

The three of us have been co-blogging at Sefer-HaBloggadah on Sundays. We're working our way through the interesting midrashim and aggadot in Sefer Ha-Bloggadah in a 2-year program. So far, we have the following posts:

Bruce on Plants and Trees With Attitude! Both trees and the earth disobey God during creation, and God is happy with one, unhappy with the other, and how this all pertains to theories of halachic interpretation.

Diane on To what lengths we will go to confirm what we already think? The midrash tries to slam Eve, and Diane turns the tables and slams the midrash.

Steve on Moderation in All Things, Including Moderation. In the midrash, Satan helps Noah plant his vineyard, and implicitly argues for moderation in drinking. Steve argues for moderation in this moderation.

Bruce on As Numerous as the Stars: Quantity, Quality, and the Quality of Quantity. God tells Abraham to look at the stars and promises Abraham that his descendants will be as numerous as these stars. The midrash elaborates on this story and messes it up. To untangle the midrash, Bruce takes a tour of the stars. Literally.

Speaking of Sefer Ha-Bloggadah, BZ, the resident blogmeister there, has two interesting posts on his own blog Mah Rabu. The first is on orthodox vs. Orthodox, or how the word "orthodox" is confusingly misused. The second dissects the Reform position on one-day yom tovs. (With a second post promised, as well as one on the Conservative position.)

All are worth reading.

Read More...

Summary only...

Moderate, Liberal, and Secular Jews Should Celebrate Sukkot

Sukkot is a holiday that should appeal to moderate, liberal, and secular Jews. But for some reason, very few non-Orthodox Jews celebrate this holiday. I am not sure why. My argument here --- addressed specifically to Jews who do not celebrate sukkot --- is that you should celebrate Sukkot as well.

The "religious" content is Sukkot is certainly appealing. It is known as Z'man Simchateinu, the time of our joy, and it is actually a Torah-mitzvah to "rejoice" during sukkot. (Deut. 16:14.) It is a reminder of the Exodus from Egypt (like Passover and Shabbat) (Exod. 23:42-43.) And it is one of the the three major "pilgrimage" holidays in the Torah.

The "rituals" of sukkot are pretty pleasant as well. Building a sukkah is fun, and its a great activity to do with kids. Kids love decorating a sukkah. And once it is built, one should invite guests to the sukkah and enjoy a good meal. Many people built patios and covered desks in their backyard; there is not a huge difference between that and a sukkah (other than the sukkah's temporary nature).

The "meaning" of sukkot is also appealing, especially in America. For one week each year, we leave the comfort of our nice houses, go sit in a shack, and enjoy the company of family and friends. One obvious lesson is that we can have a wonderful time with our family and friends, even without the material comforts or our house. One of the most important aspects of Judaism is its counter-cultural messages. Sukkot's anti-materialism is an important antidote to the strong (and sometimes overwhelming) materialism of America. There are of course many ways to think about Sukkot, but this is one of the most important ones for me.

So I challenge any Jew who does not regularly build a sukkah to do so this year, or at least to come up with a good reason for not doing so. (Good luck with that one.) There are zillions of easy-to-assemble sukkah kits available in Judaica store or online (google it). Or design and build your own. (I use 2x4s bolted together (for easy assembly, disassembly, and reusability) with metal L-braces (for strength), along with plastic pull-down blinds for the walls, and bamboo blinds or branches or palm fronds for the skach. Everything is easily available at a local home center.)

I have found Aish HaTorah's Sukkot webpages to be quite helpful.

Sukkot is 2 weeks after Rosh Hashanah and 4 days after Yom Kippur. So its a pretty good idea to start planning now.

Read More...

Summary only...

Parapets on the Roof

In last week's parsha Ki Teitze, the Torah set forth a simply safety law. "When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, so that you will not bring bloodguilt on your house if anyone falls from it." (Deut 22:8.) The general principal is obvious to everyone, and certainly to any lawyer: take reasonable precautions to prevent foreseeable harm.

Why don't people literally do this? That is, why don't Jews put a small parapet around their roof to fulfill the literal wording of this mitvah? I've never seen one, at least for these purposes.

Under the literal wording of the rule, the obligation applies only to a person building a new house, not occupying an existing house. But certainly the general principal applies.

Read More...

Summary only...

Preparing for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur - Practical Issues

How do you prepare for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur? Obviously, the holidays are what we make of them. And they are a great opportunity for self improvement and to right some lingering wrongs. But all this takes some preparation.

At one extreme, people can simply do nothing to prepare for the holidays. They get to synagogue, find themselves a little bored, and get very little out of the holidays.

At the other extreme, people can approach the holidays at a very high level of generality: repenting for mistakes, seeking forgiveness, starting a new year. The obvious problem is that these lofty ideals are too lofty to do much practical good. One needs to be specific: repent for specific mistakes and seek forgiveness from specific people. Start a new year by doing specific things in a different way.

Here are a few things that I have done and that others have suggested to me. Feel free to offer additional ideas in the comments.

Realistic Resolutions. In some years, I have thought about one or two general things I would like to do better the following year. It might involve personal traits, relationships with others, or plans for specific goals. I then try to think of specific and concrete ways of accomplishing these things. I try to limit myself to things that I probably can do. Reaching a little is OK; reaching too much is likely to produce failure.

I then check in with myself at the (secular) New Year and at Passover (or roughly a third and a half of the way through the year) and try to make mid-year corrections. Am I on track? If so, great. If not, why not?

Similarly, I think about one or two general things that I have done well the past year, perhaps with some difficulty, and think about how I can keep on track. These are sometimes last year's goals.

Meetings. A friend noted that he tries to set up meetings with anyone he has an ongoing problem with and tries to resolve the problem one way or the other.

Going Through the Prayerbook Ahead of Time. Another friend noted that one of her friends goes through the prayerbook before the holidays. Specifically, she focuses on the V'dui and Al Chait, thinks about sins or mistakes that she has made that fall into these categories, and actually takes notes in a personal siddur. (Note: if you do this, its probably a good idea to keep it is a secret locked place.) This process helps her use the structure and content of the prayers to help her become a better person. And obviously the prayers have more meaning to her in synagogue once she has "personalized" them ahead of time.

Any other thoughts?

* * *

UPDATE: a link with a few more suggestions. Aish HaTorah's website has an article on this topic called Three Steps to Genuine Change. (It really discusses three separate methods to implementing positive character changes rather than three separate sequential steps.) Aish is particularly good at these types of practical character issues.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Limits of Reform Judaism and Non-Halachic Halacha

The Union for Reform Judaism has an interesting ongoing essay series called "Eilu V'eilu." Two knowledgeable people (generally rabbis, sometimes others) post on a particular issue, respond to each other's points, and respond to reader's e-mails. The archives are here.

In the most recent series (Volume 30 - with 4 weekly posts and 1 supplemental post), Cantor Dana Anesi and Rabbi Samuel M. Stahl address the the limits of Reform Judaism in general, and more specifically the following question:

Some people say that Reform Jews can believe just about anything and do just about anything, as long as they still call themselves Jews. Others disagree. They insist that there are indeed identifiable boundaries in Reform Judaism. Is there anything I have to believe or do in order to call myself a Reform Jew?

The question is a great one. Reform Judaism claims to be a non-halachic movement, and its primary and perhaps overriding value is individual autonomy. There is much to commend as to this approach, but one drawback is that it lacks a structured and deterministic ideology that can supply definitive answers. It cannot say that people who believe or do X are not Reform Jews. One the other hand, such limits are necessary. Certainly a Jew, or Jewish congregation, that believed and practiced the negation of all the mitzvot would fall outside the scope of Reform Judaism. But how does one determine these limits?

Cantor Anesi and Rabbi Stahl offer some insights, and both draw on an interesting Reform Responsum dealing with whether a humanistic Jewish congregation that omits all references to God should be admitted to the UAHC. I'll discuss the Responsum first, the arguments of Cantor Anesi and Rabbi Stahl's arguments, and then a few thoughts or why Reform Judaism is not really a non-halachic movement.


Reform Responsum 5751.4

Reform Responsum 5751.4 dealt with the issue of whether a humanistic Jewish congregation could be admitted to the UAHC. Rabbi Gunther Plaut wrote the responsum excluding the congregation. The congregation had adopted its own liturgy that deliberately omitted all mention of God and well as the Kiddush, Kaddish, Barekhu, Shema, Ve'ahavta, Amidah and Aleinu. Rabbi Plaut noted that although Reform Judaism has always been "an open-ended and variegated movement," it has always grounded itself in a belief in God at least in some form, as reflected in the 1885 Pittsburgh Platform, the 1935 Columbus platform, and the 1976 Centenary Perspective. (I just have to note that the 1885 Pittsburgh Platform most ofter refers to an undefined "God-idea" rather than "God".) Thus, "[t]he Congregation has cut itself loose from the three platforms that define Reform Judaism for their times."

Rabbi Plaut then asks the next logical question: even though it is outside "the realm of historical Reform Judaism," "should we not open the gates wide enough to admit even such concepts into our fold? Are not diversity and inclusiveness a hallmark of Reform? To this we would reply: yesh gevul., there are limits. Reform Judaism cannot be everything, or it will be nothing."

In this dicussion, Rabbi Plaut makes two important distinctions. Individuals can have doubts or disbelief and still belong to a Reform congregation. And congregations can have doubts and still be a Reform congregation. But when a congregation explicitly and affirmatively removes God from the liturgy, it is crossing this limit.

This responsum was not unanimous, and Prof. Eugene Mihaly issued a dissent arguing that the congregation should be admitted. The dissent and the response are summarized at the bottom of the responsum.

Cantor Anesi

Cantor Anesi starts by discussing this responsum, notes that the more recent 1999 Pittsburgh Platform reinforced the centrality of God, Torah, and Israel to Reform Judaism, and added social justice as an important concept. Her conclusion:

And so, this is Reform Judaism: one eye on the tradition; the other on the contemporary needs of our members: lay people and clergy alike, as together we create an evolving consensus as to where our boundaries lie.

Rabbi Stahl

Rabbi Stahl focuses on custom, or minhag, as providing guidance in setting these boundaries. He cites Rabbi Solomon B. Freehof, who argued that minhag, which "emerged creatively, anonymously and spontaneously through­out world Jewry," can help define these boundaries.

It is through minhag that we can discover our boundaries as Reform Jews today. Minhag is what serious and learned Reform Jews at a particular time and place con­sider necessary for us to be responsible partners in our covenant with God. It is through our minhagim that we can discern what is obligatory and what is optional.

He then makes a clever move. Boundaries to the left, he notes, "are thus shaped as classical, traditional halachah (Jewish law) continues to encounter modernity." But Reform Judaism's commitment to certain modern principals, such as egalitarianism, also set a boundary on the right.

"Can we, in good conscience, support a plan that will not allow a woman to sit on a beit din (Jewish law court) or to act as a witness at a conversion? If we are truly committed to egalitarianism, can we really sacrifice this principle as a matter of conscience, even to advance the interests of K’lal Yisrael (community of Israel)?"

Rabbi Stahl does not actual advocate kicking a congregation out of the UAHC if it adopted more traditional gender roles, such as excluding women from a bet din or (perhaps more likely, although still quite unlikely) having a mechitzah. But the point remains; there are some limits on the right as well.

Further Thoughts - Reform Judaism's Non-Halachic Halacha

Both authors are almost completely in agreement. They both focus on specific criteria (God, Torah, and Israel), on traditional beliefs and practices, and on the current consensus of Reform Jews about how far is too far. And they both avoid (as they must) a specific list of disqualifying criteria.

What they have described, simply put, is halacha. A more moderate or liberal form of halacha, no doubt, but halacha nonetheless. They have described an organized process or rulemaking, based on some combination of first principles and public policy concerns. In fact, Cantor Anasi quotes the Talmud in her analysis of this situation:

"This is not new; in the Talmud (Bavli, Eruvin 14b), we read: “Said Raba son of R.Hanan to Abaye: What is the law? ‘Go,’ the other told him, ‘and see what is the usage of the people.’""

This is a more moderate or liberal view of the law, as reflected in modern times by Solomon Schechter's claim that the locus of authority of Judaism resides in "Catholic Israel" (that is, the Jewish people considered as a whole, or k'lal Yisrael).

In the Supplement to this series, Ben Dreyfus (who, coincidentally, is the blog-meister at Sefer Ha-Bloggadah, where Steve, Diane, and are part of a large team blogging on aggadah) asked a perceptive question:

Rabbi Stahl writes that "egalitarianism often conflicts with halachah", and that "we cannot compromise those values of human equality that we Reform Jews have come to regard as sacrosanct, even when they contradict halachic demands." As a Reform Jew, why do you accept an Orthodox understanding of halachah as the authoritative one? Why not say that our Reform understanding of halachah must incorporate egalitarianism, and that values of human equality *are* halachic demands for us?

Exactly.

If Reform Judaism took its supposed non-halachic status seriously, it would be incapable of making even the most minor prescriptive or normative statements. At most, it would simply offer a list of things that Reform Jews might want to consider as they go about making their own autonomous decisions. But Reform Judaism does not do this, and does not claim to do this.

In short, the method by which Reform Judaism makes recommendations or advocates positions, all under the label of "not halacha" is similar to the method by which Conservative Judaism makes recommendations or advocates positions, under the label of "halacha". I think the Conservative label is more accurate and appropriate.

Read More...

Summary only...

Will Your Grandchildren Be Reform?

Some Orthodox advocates view Reform and Conservative Judaism as dying denominations. In a article with the provocative title "Will Your Grandchildren Be Jews?" the two authors contrast Orthodox Judaism's relatively high birthrates and relatively low intermarriage rates with lower Reform and Conservative birthrates and higher intermarriage rates. Their conclusion: after a few generations, Reform and Conservative Jews will practically disappear, and everyone will be Orthodox. Their recommendation to Reform and Conservative Jews: become Orthodox, or at least sent your children to Orthodox Jewish day schools.

An intriguing idea. However, the "WYGBJ" model is inconsistent with the actual observed data over the past 38 years. The reason for this inconsistency is that the model ignores the high Orthodox inter-denominational switching rate, despite this data being published in the same studies that it cites. Nonetheless, the two factors this model is based on (intermarriage and birthrates) are obviously important but require more complex analysis than WYGBJ provides.


If the WYGBJ model were correct, we should have already started seeing this effect in massive numbers. But in fact we do not.

According to the WYGBJ model, 100 Chassidic and Yeshiva Orthodox Jews will grow to 324 such Jews in one generation. 100 Centrist Orthodox Jews should grow to 163 such Jews in a generation. In contrast, 100 Conservative Jews will shrink to 66 Conservative Jews after a generation, and 100 Reform Jews will shrink to only 46 Reform Jews. Thus, in a single generation, the ratio of Chassidic and Yeshiva Orthodox Jews to Reform Jews will increase approximately 7 times (324/46 is about 7), and the ratio of Centrist Orthodox to Reform Jews will increase about 3.5 times. (Technically, a slight adjustment has to be made for changes in total population, but this adjustment does not significantly change the ratios.) Orthodox populations should be soaring.

But that's not what the data show. In 1971, 1990, and 2000-2001, demographers published a National Jewish Population Study (NJPS). (There was no study in 1980.) The data on religious denominations reveals some interesting trends. I'll present the data first and then analyze how it pertains to issue at hand. (Accessing the 1971 and 1990 data requires free registration.)

The 1971 NJPS (Jewish Identity Report) shows the following percentage for the Head of Household:
Orthodox Jews: 11.4%
Conservative Jews: 40.4%
Reform Jews: 30.0%
Just Jewish and Other: 15.0%

The 1971 report estimated there were 5.4 million Jews total.

If (as is likely) Orthodox families had more children than non-Orthodox Jewish families, the percentage of Orthodox Jews (as opposed to just Orthodox Jewish heads of household) would have been higher in 1970.

The 1990 NJPS Study Highlights, Part 2 (Table 25, Current Jewish Denominational Preference of Households) showed the following percentages:
Orthodox: 6.8%
Conservative: 40.4%
Reform: 41.4%
Other: 11.4%

This study used various definitions of who is a Jew, but found a core Jewish population of 5.5 million, with more people of Jewish ancestry who now practice other religions.

The 2000-2001 NJPS breaks down the more recent data in a slightly different but more informative way. American Jewish Religious Denominations, Table 2, contains the following data:

Jewish Adults (18 or older)
Orthodox 10%
Conservative 27%
Reform 35%
Reconstructionist 2%
Just Jewish 26%

Jewish Children (17 or younger)
Orthodox 23%
Conservative 24%
Reform 35%
Reconstructionist 3%
Just Jewish 21%

Total Jews
Orthodox 13%
Conservative 26%
Reform 34%
Reconstructionist 2%
Just Jewish 25%

The 2000-2001 NJPS estimated a total population of 5.2 million Jews.

Although the definition of Jews varied in these three studies, and thus the percentages in different reports are not strictly comparable, they are nonetheless close enough for these purposes. In the years 1971, 1990, and 2000-2001, the adult Orthodox population percentage went from 11.4% to 6.8% to 10%. It was relatively constant. The adult Conservative population percentage went from 40.4% to 40.4% to 27%. (The two 40.4%s are a coincidence, not a typo.) It remained relatively constant through 1990, but declined after that. The adult Reform population percentage went from 30.0% to 41.4% to 35%. It increased.

There is no sign here of a dramatic increase in Orthodox population nor of a dramatic decrease in Reform population. (The decrease in the Conservative population is the result of some odd demographics, and I may blog on this separately.)

But the 2000-2001 NJPS does show a marked increase in the percentage of Orthodox children. While only 10% of Jewish adults are Orthodox, 23% of Jewish children are Orthodox. This suggests that we are on the verge of an Orthodox "breakout". As soon as these children reach adulthood, there will be a lot more Orthodox Jews.

However, there is a problem with this conclusion. Orthodox Jews also had a significantly higher birthrate than non-Orthodox Jews in 1970 and 1990 (and all years in between). Why didn't those children raise the percentage of Orthodox adults in the 1990 and 2000-2001 NJPS?

The answer is also contained in the study. Orthodox Judaism has a very high attrition rate, as the following table (Table 4 from the 2000-2001 NJPS American Jewish Religious Denominations Report shows:

	Denomination Raised
	Orthodox	Conservative	Reform	Just Jewish
	%	%	%	%
Current Denomination
Orthodox	42	3	2	3
Conservative	29	56	7	11
Reform	17	28	78	17
Just Jewish	12	13	14	70
Total	100	100	101	101

Of all children raised Orthodox, only 42% have remained Orthodox as adults. 29% become Conservative adults, 17% become Reform adults, and 12% become "Just Jewish". In contrast, 56% of children raised Conservative become Conservative adults, and 78% of children raised Reform become Reform adults. Thus, Reform Judaism is more successful than Conservative Judaism in keeping children within the denomination, and Conservative Judaism is more successful at this than Orthodoxy.

Of the children who switch denominations when they become an adult, most become more liberal. Only 2% or 3% of non-Orthodox children become Orthodox as adults, while 17% of Orthodox children and 28% of Conservative children become Reform adults.

A short paper reviewed the 2000-2001 data and concluded there has been a shift away from Orthodoxy. "Viewing Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism and a fourth “non-specific” group as categories that range from the most traditional to the least traditional respectively, . . . [¶] We found that 62% stay within the same group, 29% move away from tradition, and 9% move to a more traditional denomination."

This is not new information. A similar table (Table 24) appeared in the 1990 NJPS. The authors note,

"Table 24 shows that nearly 90 percent of those now Orthodox were raised as such, thus indicating any movement toward Orthodoxy is relatively small. In contrast to the Orthodox, the Conservative and Reform drew heavily from one or both of the major denominations; one-third of the Conservatives were raised as Orthodox and one-quarter of the Reform as Conseratives with an additional 12 percent having been raised Orthodox."

However, the WYGBJ model simply ignores this critical demographic statistic.

Thus, the basic demographic facts are clear. Orthodox Jews have a lower intermarriage rate and a higher birthrate than more liberal or moderate Jews, but a much higher denominational-switching rate. Of all Jewish adults who were raised Orthodox, fewer than half are now Orthodox. No other Jewish denomination has such a high switching rate.

What do we make of all this? I see several points that are worth noting.

1. The Orthodox Attrition Rate. I am not a demographer, but I would expect the Orthodox switching rate to increase. There are many reasons why people leave Orthodoxy, but one reason (as illustrated by many commentators on this blog) is skepticism about Orthodox factual claims. Many Orthodox communities limit access to critical or non-Orthodox information or argument, especially for young people. (This might be good or bad, but my point here is simply to note the fact, not debate its merits.) This lack of access to information prevents some young Orthodox Jews from learning about more critical and skeptical points of view, and this in turn makes it less likely that they will choose to leave Orthodoxy.

But the internet has changed that.

In the 1980s, when I first started investigating many of the Orthodox claims (as a non-Orthodox Jew), I had a very difficult time obtaining information. I was in college at the time and fortunately had access to UCLA's extensive libraries. But even that was less than ideal. Finding the information I was looking for was quite time consuming, and virtually no one else that I knew was interested in these somewhat obscure topics. However, this situation is quite different today. A quick google search on any of these controversial topics (the documentary hypothesis, the Kuzari argument, Bible codes, evolution and creationism, Biblical archeology) yields a wealth of information, arguments pro and con, and a large community of people who are interested in these topics.

My point here is not to debate the merits of these critical arguments, but simply to note that some people find them persuasive and switch from Orthodoxy to non-Orthodoxy. And with greater access to this information and these arguments, more Orthodox Jews are likely to find this information, and some of these are then likely to switch.

Of course, Orthodoxy may respond in several ways, and these responses may decrease the attrition rate. Determining the net effect may be much more complex.

2. Birthrates. Despite overlooking the inter-denominational switching rate, the basic point that the WYGBJ chart made is still largely (but not completely) valid. Jews having fewer children will certainly result in fewer Jews in the next generation. Jews who care about this should certainly take this fact into account, at least in some way, when considering how many children to have.

3. Intermarriage. Intermarriage is much more complicated. I am going to ignore the halachic issue of who is a Jew and focus solely on demographics. I know several intermarried couples, some of whom strongly identify as Jews, raise their children as Jews, and have solidly Jewish families. Others do not and are essentially secular. And the same is true for in-married Jewish couples as well.

The overriding factor in whether parents practice Judaism and raise their children as Jews is whether the parents find Judaism important and meaningful. Thus, intermarriage may frequently be the result of a lack of interest in Judaism, not an exogenously determined cause of assimilation. The "solution" to intermarriage may be to focus first on how to make Judaism important and meaningful to Jews. Jews who find Judaism important either do not intermarry or do so and raise their children Jewish.

There are numerous other issues here, and I will leave them for a future post.

4. The Math The WYGBJ math is simply wrong. Including inter-denominational switching shows that the process is a complicated web, not a simple linear progression. It cannot be modeled by a simple chart showing Orthodoxy increasing exponentially and Reform and Conservative Judaism falling into oblivion. Technically, it would have to be modeled with Markov chains. (The basic matrix is provided above, but it needs to be flipped.)

The problem with such a model here is the same as the problem with all models that try to predict well into the future. All these rates (birth rates, intermarriage rates, inter-denominational switching rates) are likely to change over time.

One can do the arithmetic without too much trouble. (For the interested reader, simply take the 4x4 matrix above, flip it along its diagonal, multiply it by 1x4 vectors representing the intermarriage rate and birth rate, and then raise that matrix to the nth power. This will give you the matrix predicting population distributions in generation n. When you multiply a 1x4 initial population vector by that matrix, it will give you the estimated population in generation n.)

However, the result is virtually meaningless. These rates are likely to increase or decrease, perhaps substantially, and such extrapolations multiple generations into the future are simply not reliable.

5. Recommendations: We're All Interconnected The data show that we are all much more interconnected than we might think. I think all branches of Judaism would benefit from strengthening all other branches of Judaism. I will have a separate post on the details and implications of this.

Read More...

Summary only...