Rabbi Eliyahu Stern: May 2006 Archives

I can go on for pages about how important a day-school education is toward ensuring the continuity of the Jewish people. Likewise, I could spend hours explaing how critical Jewish literacy is for Jewish life. There are no issues more dear to my heart than the importance of Jewish education and literacy.

But then I remember it's actual people we are talking about here, not some vague statistics or ideas thrown around Jewish organization board meetings and think-tank sessions.

As someone who went both to day schools and public schools, yeshivas and Berkeley--and a few other secular and religious institutions in between--I have lived the dilemma that so many parents face in figuring out what educational environment is best for their children.

The truth of the matter is that there have been changes in Jewish education over the past 15 years (since I was a high school freshman). But I still think one thing remains the same: the question each parent needs to ask. First and foremost, what is best for my child? Unfortunately, day schools do not have the infrastructure set up to understand and accommodate all children.

Day schools for the most part demand that children behave a certain way, dress a certain way and think a certain way, and that kind of environment is certainly not for everyone. Most day schools such as the silly, pretentious one I went to in Brookline Mass., (that has subsequently been brought to its knees) are good at offering an educational environment that can breed a few miniature rabbis, doctors, and lawyers--but what about artists, musicians, and plumbers? What about the average kid who just is not so into Judaism and Jewish study or the precocious child who occasionally inhales something other than cigarette smoke? They simply have no clue how to deal with difference.

The person who really gets this issue is the ever-perceptive Marvin Schick, president of New York's Rabbi Jacob Joseph Yeshiva. In commenting on how day schools deal with difference, he argued:

"Perhaps inevitably they operate at times in ways that counter the paramount precept of Torah education, chanoch l'naar al pi darcho--that each child should be taught in the manner that best ensures his advancement...Now, the attitude in too many of our schools is to reject applicants, as if this demonstrates that they are stronger Torah institutions. They also are quick to expel students who do not readily fit in. I have heard principals say that they never expel a student until they have found a substitute school, as if expulsion alone is not sufficient to destroy a child's confidence and emotional underpinnings. In my experience, the truth is usually otherwise and students are expelled even when there is no other school that will accept them...The "if in doubt throw it out" attitude that used to be applied to food products is now being applied to Jewish children. This attitude must be challenged. I know this entails a risk, but it is one that must be taken in the face of unfolding tragedies in Jewish homes. If but one child is saved because of this protest, the risk will be worthwhile."

Even though Schick might not admit it, there have been some postive signs coming from the emergence of interdenominational schools that understand the need for multiple models and frameworks for helping children grown and learn. The bottom line remains that day school education still has a long way to go.

The recent spat at the American Jewish Committee's conference in Washington is what happens when you get a lot of Jews in one room who really do not know that much about Jews or Judaism.

The debacle happened on the first night of the conference during a panel moderated by Ted Koppel featuring among others the New Republic's literary editor Leon Weiseltier and Israeli novelist A.B. Yehoshua. For years now, Yehoshua has been degrading Diaspora Jewish existence. Still, when he let loose on these shores what Israelis have been saying for years--that Diaspora Jewishness is meaningless--every Jewish person in the room acted as though he had proclaimed that Jesus was the true Messiah. Chief among those who were shocked was Koppel, who was flabbergasted. Not knowing what hit him, he let the discussion spin out of control.

Yehoshua's comments are nothing new. Everyone who knows anything about Jews, Judaism, and Israel knows that throughout history there have been those who have adopted Yehoshua's position and throughout history they have been disproven over and over again.

The bottom line always has been and remains that Israel and Diaspora Jewry need each other. The question of which environment produces "better Jews" can have a variety of different answers. Usually, I think it's Israel, where Jews put their life on the line for the Jewish people everyday. But then there are weeks like this past one, when I had to read about the ethical trade-off Israel made, claiming that security concerns warrant preventing Arab spouses from living in Israel with their partners. I wonder if breaking up families and separating child from parent, husband from wife is what A.B. Yehoshua means when he brags about Israeli Jewish identity being more meaningful.

As my friend Rabbi Uri Goldstein likes point out, Israel needed 2,000 years of living in the Diaspora to prepare itself for being in power. The Galut (Diaspora) taught Jews how to be an ethical people, how to treat gerim (foreigners) with decency and respect. Unfortunately, it seems that Israel still has a great deal to learn. While the greatest feat is, of course, combining the strength of Israel with the ethical sensitivity of the Diaspora, at this point that has not yet happened.

Sure, on some level I agree with those such as Hillel Halkin who have come to Yehoshua's defense and argued that Israel is the Jewish ideal. Of course, living in Israel is an ideal, but sometimes its just that--an ideal. Reality as it now stands is that Israel is involved in a very messy political situation. American Jews, in contrast, have the ability to economically, socially, politically, and yes, even spiritually prosper and grow in ways never before imagined.

As for A.B. Yehoshua: On behalf of Diaspora Jews, I will make him a deal. When you Israelis get your house in order, we will all come on over. Until then, a little humility would not hurt.

“Keeping up with the Steins,” the new movie set to hit theaters shortly, is one of those cultural events that remind you just how different your Judaism is from your grandparents' Judaism. The story revolves around a family preparing for the Bar Mitzvah of their son. But this is not your Zaydee’s shindig. A Bar Mitzvah in this wealthy Jewishly populated Los Angeles suburb is something that involves booking rock stars, luxury boat cruises, and million-dollar-a-night venues.

Judaism embraces materiality. There is no mitzvah in being an ascetic. While the rabbis tell us “he who is wealthy is he who is satisfied with what he has,” Protestant moderation is not seen as an ultimate value. I don’t think that the Jewish tradition is opposed to nice Hanukkah gifts, being hospitable, and, yes, even dressed-up parties with good food and entertainment. But there is something about the image of 50 Cent and half-clad women on a yacht with 700 of your closest friends “dancing” around a 13-year-old that just…how do I say this….doesn’t sound Jewish?

Look, the Steins and the rest of the characters in this movie are easy targets for anyone who has a shred of moral and ethical decency. Do we really want the gun-slinging rapper 50 Cent doing the horah with our children at the Playboy mansion? of course not.

So what does this movie have to teach us and what does it tell us about who and what we as Jews have become?

What’s new here is not Jews outdoing other Jews. Rather, it’s that Americans want to be like Jews. The movie is not for Jews but about Jews and for Americans wanting to mimic Jews.

The movie resonates because people are all too aware of the real-life prototypes for its characters and situations. The paradigm for wealth is no longer an old stuffy, reserved silver Cadillac Protestant man. It’s the latte-sipping, iPod-buying, Hummer-driving, sweatsuit-wearing, hedge-fund-managing Jewish type.

Jews now compete with other Jews for wealth and social status. They do so not because of any inner ethnic ties but because this is who moved up the corporate, social, and intellectual ladder with them. American Jews have gotten to the point where it’s the most uncoincidental coincidence that many of their well-to-do neighbors are also Jews.

Perhaps no issue is more misunderstood within the context of halakhah, Jewish law, than gay marriage. On the one hand, those such as my friend and teacher Rabbi David Ellenson, President of Hebrew Union College, has radically argued that “a tradition that demands ‘You shall do that which is upright and good’ can surely be construed in such a way that the ethos of Jewish tradition can be said to trump a single statement in Leviticus 18:22 that condemns homosexual behavior as an ‘abomination.’ ”

On the other hand, those such as Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, who has brought back a great deal of sanity and sobriety to the much-maligned Orthodox Union, has contested Ellenson’s claims and argued: “The position of Judaism on marriage is equally clear. Judaism recognizes marriage as a fundamental human institution, and affirms marriage only between a man and woman.”

Each of these rabbis has the issue only half right. Weinreb is wrong, because Jewish law “recognizes” the marriage of Joe and Marry as much as it recognizes the matrimony of Jon and Sam. That is, it does not “recognize” either union in any way. Ellenson is wrong because to ask an Orthodox Jew to halakhically sanction gay marriage is simply put not fair or reasonable. You can’t just gloss over the word "abomination."

But what both sides fail to realize is that halakha only recognizes one type of union, kiddushin, or betrothal, in which a Jewish man and women are joined in front of two halakhically observant individuals. It includes the blessing over wine; the birkat erusin, the betrothal blessing; the drinking of wine by the bride and groom; and the giving of a ring by the groom to the bride as he recites "Harei at mekudeshet li b'taba'at zo k'dat Moshe v'Yisrael," ("With this ring you are now betrothed to me by the faith of Moses and Israel”).

Any other form of union is meaningless in the eyes of halakhah.

Let me be clear: “kiddushin” does not equal “marriage.” One is the domain of halakha and can be enacted only by Jews; the other is a technical term granted to something sanctioned by the state that provides a certain economic and political status to specific individuals.

Halakhah has very little to say about state marriage and the civil rights and economic privileges that go along with such a status. One need not halakhically permit gay kiddsuhin to feel that in the name of ethical and economic equality it is important that gay couples be granted civil union or marriage status. Likewise, one could argue that for non-halakhic reasons, gay marriage should be banned. But whatever side you take, do everyone a favor and leave halakhah out of what is already a far too complicated issue.