Tired…

Tags

antisemitism, citizenship, hair covering

I am sorry that I have been absent for so long. I have plenty of ideas on what I want to write about, but I have no energy to actually do it. Maybe next year will be better!

My life is busy and overall enjoyable at the moment. I am not doing much in the area of religious observance other than cover my hair and read Jewish blogs. Which is sort of interesting from a psychology standpoint I guess. But I cannot tell you what it means, as I am not qualified in that area 😉

Relating to hair covering, by now I have been with a hair-covering to talk with customers, at formal events and at a conference. Mostly, there hasn’t been any specific reaction. Sometimes I have had positive comments, mostly that the colors are nice. And I got some more questions about why I cover. Sometimes with a longer talk afterwards, sometimes not. All of them out of real interest an non-threatening.

But three incidents have left me a bit confused and sad (not directly related to hair-covering, more general perceived foreignness). One was a colleague who asked if I was allowed to vote in the next national elections. He knows that I have grown up here and I think he has even seen my CV which states my nationality. But just because I wear a head-covering or just because I am Jewish I am not a citizen in his head? I didn’t want to pursue the issue further, so I didn’t ask why he thought that. Next time was a different colleague and we talked about vacations in the Middle East. And suddenly he turns to me and asks whether I have a European or an Israeli passport. Again, we have worked together for a while, he constantly makes fun of my dialect, so he should know that I have been born here. Here I asked why he would think that I was an Israeli national instead of a citizen of the country I live in and he just said "just because you have been there often". The two things happened in the space of two weeks or so, but I was more confused than anything else. The third incident was when we were walking along a road and there was a sign saying "synagogue" that pointed into one direction. In that direction was a T-shaped crossing and on the other side of the street, so directly where the sign appeared to be pointing to, was some big bank. Somebody said "well, that’s not the synagogue" and somebody replied "but it would fit!". This is text book anti-semitism! But I was way too perplexed to say or do anything.

What is the point of these stories? I don’t know, I just wanted to get them off my chest. I don’t think there is an increase in anti-semitism. If anything, I am more recognizable. I don’t think these people are bad. I think they may need to reflect on their preconceived notions a bit. But more and more I can relate to the sentiment that it is good Israel exists, because that way we have a place to go to if anything happens. Which I hope I will not need in my lifetime.

Advertisements

Being critical of Israel… or antisemitic?

Tags

antisemitism, criticizing Israel, double standards

Is it antisemitic to be critical of Israel’s politics?

No. Just as it is not anti-whatever to be critical of the politics of… France, Azerbaijan, Chile, Canada, Jordan or Thailand. The problem is – that’s not a thing. There is no movement against Canada’s politics. People who criticize Chile’s government don’t hasten to add "but I am not Latino-phobic". And nobody feels the need to share his/her opinion about Azerbaijan without ever having been there or knowing a person there. Thailand is not in the news every day. France’s president is not compared to Hitler. And nobody doubts Jordan’s right to exist. But all of this is common when the county in question is Israel. Which makes you think…

But no. Not every criticism of Israel is antisemitic.

So let’s look at some statements: "Israel is waging a war of extermination against the Palestinians" – "What Israel does to the Palestinians is just like what the Nazis did to the Jews" – "Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the country they live in" – "Israel’s politics is negatively influencing my view of Jews" [link to source]

That is not "criticism of Israel". That is antisemitic.

Quick Test, replace "Israel" with another country or ethnic group: "Saudi Arabia is waging a war of extermination against Yemen" – "What Sudan does to the Nuer is just like what the Nazis did to the Jews" – "Catholics are more loyal to the Vatican than to the country they live in" – "India’s politics is negatively influencing my view of Hindus". Doesn’t fly!

In my opinion, criticizing Israel is antisemitic if …

• … antisemitic stereotypes are used, e.g., rich Jews control the world.
• … comparisons with the holocaust, apartheid, colonialization, etc. are used routinely.
• … Israel’s right to exist questioned.
• … there is no distinctions made between Israelis and Jews.
• … the person in question has no special knowledge about the region.

What do you think?

Why is studying Tora different from being a professor?

Tags

contributing to society, haredim, kollel, learning, professor

Every once in a while the discussion pops up in the blogosphere about whether the ideal for a Jew should be to sit and study Torah (like the haredim) or to work (like many other orthodox). It is unquestionable that we need some people to work otherwise there wouldn’t be any food, houses, internet and all that. But for example there are professors who devote their whole life to the study of some obscure microorganism, medieval poetry or the use of hemp in ancient Egypt. Why is this accepted in secular society and Torah study not. In what way are the two different?

In my mind, there are some clear differences. For one thing, it is not the norm for everybody in society to become a professor or even to aspire to be one. Only few people chose to pursue a PhD, a post-doc and even less people become professors. It is very hard to get a professorship. And if you have one, it is very hard to get funding for staff and projects especially in a field where the use in industry is not directly apparent, for example if you want to study medieval poetry. Only the best and the most ambitious make it. Also, even if these professors may be specialists in their very narrow field and their knowledge there may not be really useful for other stuff, they all had high-level general education before they got there. They have alternatives. People who are not suited for a professorship do not linger around somewhere in waiting for one, they get other jobs.

Second, professors interact with society and contribute to society. Yes, also obscure very narrow scientific fields contribution to society in some way, every piece of new knowledge adds one puzzle to the whole. Knowing about medieval poetry helps us to find out how people in that time thought. The contributions of professors are in some way measurable, they publish papers in peer-reviews conferences and journals, they receive grants for projects which themselves have some clearly defined goal and reports about whether that goal was reached. And they have an obligation to teach and supervise students.

So what about studying Torah? I am all for it! For those who are suited for it and chose it because they want to, not because it is the only way of life they know. And when they carry their learning back into the world, teach others, publish books, run ask-the-rabbi-websites, anything that contributes to society in any way. Then, there won’t really difference between the two.

—
Inspired by this post by Daas Torah on Torah Study & Working: Shulchan Aruch (156) vs Mishneh Berura and the comments by ‘Englishman’.

Spelling of Israeli street names

Tags

fun, Richard C Schneider, spelling, street names

If you are reading transliterated Hebrew words or foreign names transliterated to Hebrew the results are often incomprehensible, sometimes hilarious and pretty much always very inconsistent. The Times of Israel now has an article (Wanted: A legion of proofreaders) about errors in Israeli street names in all languages which features this picture where all three languages on the sign are misspelled:

If you understand German, watch this cute video made by the foreign correspondent for German television in Israel, Richard C Schneider, about the challenges of finding your way in Israel using English spellings:

His examples:

• Louis Paster on one side of the sign, the other side has the correct Louis Pasteur.
• Shalma, instead of the correct Salameh, שלמה (I guess referring to one of the people Wikipedia lists with this name).
• Hertzel, instead of the correct Herzl, founder of Zionism (!!).
• Qibbutz (on one sign), Kibuts (in the navigation app), Kibutz (on another sign) as variations for Kibbutz Galuyot, the gathering of the exiles.
• Bazel for of the Swiss town Basel.
• Shtriman (in the navigation app) for Streichman where he unsuccessfully tried Streichmann (German spelling), Shtreichmann (English spelling), Shtrajchmann, Shtreyjchmann, Shtrejchmann, and others.

Seriously, who makes these signs? How can you sometimes get it wrong and sometimes right?

Books every Jew(-to-be) should have

Tags

bencher, birkat haMazon, books, chumash, hagada, machzor, siddur, tanakh

This is a list of books that in my opinion every convert (and every Jew) should have, besides of course books that explain Judaism:

• A TaNaCh, the Jewish bible. Best I think in both Hebrew and translation to your language, side-by-side or in two books. It is important to have a Jewish translation as any translation is also an interpretation. If there is commentary, obviously it should also be a Jewish commentary.
• A Siddur, the prayer book for normal days and small holidays. I have the pocket-size Hebrew-English Artscroll siddur, I like the size, the layout, the font and the instructions very much, but the commentary is very right-wing orthodox, so this might not be for everybody. And obviously ArtScroll has the traditional text, no matriarchs, no alternative female forms, no prayer for Israel. I also have a second Siddur with transliteration which I give to my guests so that they can follow the service without speaking Hebrew. Before you order a siddur, try out the ones they have at your synagogue and find one you like.
• Several copies of the Birkat haMazon, the prayer after meals. You can buy small booklets that also contain songs for Shabat, Kiddush, Havdalah and such stuff, but you can also just print the prayer out from the internet (in a way that looks somewhat nice). You should have one for every person who eats with you, so if you usually have eight people at Shabat dinner, I’d say you should have eight.
• A Machzor, the prayer book for the holidays. They usually have those in large numbers at the synagogue, so you don’t really need buy one right away, but it helps to have one to prepare for the holidays. You will need a machzor for Rosh haShana and a (different) machzor for Yom Kippur. Some Machzorim include both, some are for one holiday only, it doesn’t really matter. For the other holidays (Succot, Pesach, Shavuot, Purim, Chanuka) a normal Siddur should be enough, as the changes in liturgy are not as extensive. As you will only use your machzor once or twice a year, it is very important that the layout and the instructions are easy to undestand and intuitive.
• A Hagada for the seder on Pesach. In fact, probably you should have at least two, a simple one with only the text and translation to follow along during the seder, and another one (or more – over time!) with commentary to better understand the text and prepare. If you are invited for Pesach, they will usually have a Hagada for you, so you can get by without one. Conversely, if you invite people and don’t specifically tell them to bring a Hagada, they might expect you to provide one.

Aren’t we the people of the book(s)? 😉

Additional suggestions welcome in the comments!

Rabbis at interfaith weddings

Tags

community, conservative judaism, exclusion, hurt, interfaith, interfaith wedding

The topic of whether or not rabbis should officiate at interfaith weddings is in the news again. The argument that rabbis should officiate is basically that not doing so hurts people and it does not provide any positive effect (it does not prevent intermarriage):

Often they want a “Jewish wedding,” which is why they want the officiant to be a rabbi, preferably one with whom they have a relationship. That is why they are so hurt when we refuse.
[…]
It is delusional to think that a rabbi’s refusal to officiate will change any couple’s mind about whether to wed. Who would forgo a life with their beloved just because their beloved rabbi can’t be at their wedding ceremony?
(Seymour Rosenbloom: It’s time to allow Conservative rabbis to officiate at interfaith weddings)

The counterargument is mainly that there simply is not a Jewish wedding taking place (so no rabbi should officate) and the damage done is not that big if otherwise Jewish commitment is encouraged:

[…] the purpose of rabbinic officiation is not to take a chance on fostering Jewish commitment. It is to render a relationship sacred for two people who, even if nominally, are part of the Jewish people and its ongoing conversation in the world.
Finally, while the argument that couples being denied a rabbi’s officiation become hurt and alienated from Judaism has some merit in limited contexts, I think it it is overstated. In my twenty-six years of rabbinic experience, I find repeatedly that earlier sociological research is borne out: officiation matters far less to couples than the relationships which the rabbi builds with them through time.
(Dan Ornstein: Why Conservative Rabbis Most Certainly Should Not Do Intermarriage Ceremonies)

While I am not really in the situation, I can relate to feeling hurt by such decisions. For the moment, I have more or less given up on conversion, but I still go to services and community events. Most of the time whether or not I am officially Jewish does not make a difference. But among the things that hurt me in my situation is that none of the milestones of my life will be shared with the community. It’s not only about who officiates at a wedding. It is about sharing the joy of getting married. It is about getting someone to circumcize a baby boy, celebrating the birth of a baby girl, having a Bar/Bat Mitzva, saying Kaddish for a parent or sibling, getting a Jewish burial. If I am not Jewish, my children are not Jewish, so no Jewish ceremonies for them. I can mumble along Kaddish with someone else, but not say it alone. No one from the community will know if I died, there will be no announcement in the community and I will have to find a place in some non-religious graveyard [although being really sure that you will not be buried in the Jewish cemetary may be better than being denied to be buried there on account of someone not recognizing your conversion].

What I am saying is that we humans need communities. And an important part of a community is sharing your life’s milestones, whether joyous or sad. To realize that the community does not allow you to do that – it hurts. True, a long-term relationship with an otherwise supportive rabbi might mitigate that (I don’t know, I don’t have a supportive rabbi around). True, I understand the reasoning and I do think halacha is important. It is not my place to say that rabbis should do this or that. But you can argue, rationalize and discuss as much as you like – it still hurts.

Why it is a bad idea to go on a job fair on Shabat

Tags

job fair, jobs

You are looking for a job and there’s a job fair in your area with very interesting companies. Unfortunately it is on Saturday. Should you go?

Let’s say you manage to not break any actual commandments. You walk there, you don’t carry anything, you don’t sign your name and so on. Which in itself is a challenge, because giving and receiving business cards without carrying is … difficult. But let’s say you manange that. Imagine you managed to get an interview at one of the companies. In the interview you mention that you need to take Shabat and the Jewish holidays off. Your interviewer remembers that you met at this job fair on Shabat. How serious are they going to take your request? You can explain the technicalities all you want, I doubt this is a good starting point.

Media bias !?

Tags

angry, media bias, politics, stabbings, tagesschau, terror

Two quotes from the same article about stabbings in Israel:

Ein mit einem Messer bewaffneter Mann hat im Großraum Tel Aviv wild um sich gestochen. Dabei wurde ein Tourist aus den USA getötet, neun weitere Menschen wurden verletzt. Nach Angaben von Sanitätern erlitten vier von ihnen schwere Verletzungen. Die Attacke fand in der Nähe eines bei Touristen beliebten Strands statt.

Bei dem Angreifer handelte es sich laut dem Bürgermeister von Tel Aviv zufolge um einen Palästinenser. Er sei von der Polizei erschossen worden.

[Translation: A man with a knife stabbed wildly around him in the Tel Aviv area. A tourist from the US was killed in this incident, nine other people were wounded. According to the paramedics, four are in serious condition. The attack took place close to a beach that is popular with tourists.

According to the mayor of Tel Aviv, the attacker was a Palestinian. He was shot and killed by the police.]

The order of events: A man got stabbed and died, others were wounded – the attacker was killed.

Now the order of sentences: A man got stabbed and died, others were wounded (4 sentences) – paragraph break – the attacker got killed (2 sentences).

Zuvor waren bei Anschlägen in Jerusalem und bei Tel Aviv drei palästinensische Attentäter getötet und mehrere Israelis verletzt worden. In Jerusalem habe ein Palästinenser auf Polizisten geschossen und zwei von ihnen schwer verletzt, gab die Polizei bekannt. Andere Beamte hätten ihn dann während der Verfolgung erschossen. Wenige Stunden zuvor war eine Palästinenserin erschossen worden, nachdem sie in Jerusalems Altstadt einen israelischen Grenzpolizisten mit einem Messer angegriffen hatte.

[Translation: Before that, three Palestinian attackers were killed and several Israelis wounded in strikes in Jerusalem and near Tel Aviv. In Jerusalem a Palestinian shot at policemen and seriously wounded two of them, said the police. Other officers shot him during the pursuit. Few hours later a Palestinian woman was shot dead, after she attacked an Israeli border guard with a knife in the old city of Jerusaelem.]

The order of events: Two men were wounded – the attacker was killed – a man was attacked with a knife – the attacker was killed.

Now the order of sentences: Three attackers were killed – two men were wounded – attacker 1 was killed – attacker 2 was killed – a man was attacked with a knife.

Rule for journalists covering terror attacks: First talk about what happened to the victim, then about the attacker. Spend more time describing the attack, the place, the victim than describing the attacker.

Important exception: If the attack happens in Israel and the victims are Israelis, first state that the attacker was killed, then maybe add half a sentence about what happened.

You can also just name all on equal footing, after all, "there was an incident, now X people are dead" is the essential message:

Bei einer Attacke auf israelische Sicherheitskräfte sind eine Polizistin und drei palästinensische Angreifer getötet worden.
(article from February 3rd 2015)

[Translation: In an attack on Israeli security, one police woman and three Palestinian attackers have been killed.]

If you really need to name the victim first, at least add a sentence about all Palestinian dead afterwards, the number is higher so people will say that these few Israeli dead are not important:

Seit Oktober wurden 27 Israelis und ein US-Amerikaner getötet. Die israelischen Sicherheitskräfte töteten mehr als 140 Palästinenser, 102 von ihnen waren nach offiziellen Angaben Terroristen.
(article from February 5th 2015)

[Translation: Since October 27 Israelis and one US American have been killed. The Israeli security killed more than 140 Palestinians, 102 of them were terrorists according to the official statements.]

Sorry, I’m just a little angry. Am I crazy?

Christians and the Kuzari

Tags

christianity, Kuzari, perplexed, tradition

I was very much surprised when in a discussion with a Catholic guy about the history of the church, he suddenly told me this (paraphrasing, I don’t remember the exact words):

It is so amazing that the church has existed for such a long time and there is this continuous tradition right from the start. Jesus named Saint Peter as his true follower who then in turn instructed others, right until the priests from today! We are standing in an unbroken chain that goes right back to Jesus.

I was perplexed, as I had only ever heard this argument from tradition as a "proof" of the truth of a religion from Jews (the so-called Kuzari argument I’ve previously written about). There are some differences – he is talking only about the priests not about everybody, he is not claiming that they lived exactly by the same rules then as we do today – but the gist of the argument is the same. I was so surprised he’d pull this argument of all things, that I didn’t know what to answer. What do you think? Somehow "We have the same argument, but ours goes back longer" doesn’t seem adequate.

Scrabble with Eliezer ben Yehudah

Tags

comic, Eliezer ben Yehudah, fun, Hebrew, scrabble

This is old, but I just discovered it today and find it sooo funny! And I’m so proud I understood it without translation!!! The thing you need to know to find it funny is that Eliezer Ben Yehuda is often called "the father of Modern Hebrew", he’s the one who revived Hebrew and invented loads of words for things that didn’t exist in Biblical times. So here is the comic:

If you don’t speak Hebrew, this is Chaviva‘s translation (reading from right to left, of course):

Title: It was really not fun to play Scrabble with Eliezer ben Yehudah.
Top right: “Your turn, Eliezer.”
Top left: “Please, handkerchief, 44 points.”
Bottom right: “What? That isn’t a word!”
Bottom left: “Now it is.”

🙂 🙂 🙂

Non-anti-semitic comments [yeah, sure!]

Tags

antisemitism, comments, media, politics, sad, tagesschau

Some "pearls" from the comments on an article in the German news that’s called Jews in Germany: We aren’t safe here anymore. There’s worse stuff in there that I didn’t want to post (also about Israel, refugees, homosexuals and others). The following is the original snippet in the block quote and below my tentative translation (help appreciated – leave a comment) and sometimes my [sarcastic comment] in the square brackets.

Das führt dazu, dass viele Menschen “antisemitisch” scheinen, obwohl sie eigentlich “antiisraelisch” sind.

This leads to many people seeming to be “antisemites”, when actually they are “anti-Israeli”.

[Yeah, these are two really different things, “anti-Israeli” is just as common as, say, “anti-Spanish” or “anti-Kongolese”, it really doesn’t matter that the one state you’re against is – by pure chance – the Jewish state.]

Die wirklichen Brandstifter sitzen in der israelischen Regierung, diese handeln nicht rechtstaatlich und bringen dadurch die Juden in aller Welt in Gefahr!

The real arsonists are sitting in the Israeli government, they are not acting in accordance with the laws [of a democratic / moral / ? state] and by that endanger Jews all over the world!

[It’s the Jew’s fault! Blame the Jew!]

Wenn sich Juden hier nicht sicher fühlen, können die es ja mal in Israel probieren. Es gibt viele aufstrebende Regionen, in denen die Religion im Vordergrund steht. Ich spreche jedem, der sich einer religiösen Organisation unterwirft die Intelligenz ab.

If Jews do not feel safe here, they could try out Israel. There are many emergent regions where religion is paramount. I deny everyone the intelligence who’s submitting to a religious organization.

Aber wenn meine Landsleute in meinem Heimatland eine schwer nachvollziehbare Politik gegen andere Volksgruppen führt, dann muss ich damit leben, das auch ich für diese Politik kritisiert werde!

But if my fellow countrymen in my home country lead elusive politics against other ethnic groups, then I have to live with the fact that I will be criticized for these politics.

[All Jews are Israeli, obviously. And it’s the their fault (see above)! Anyway, keep it real, the only thing that’s done is that there’s slight criticism of some political decisions, no harm done!]

“Schande über Deutschland! In Bremen konnte bei einer pro-palästinensischen Demonstration ein Jugendlicher minutenlang ‘Israel – Hurensohn’ von der Bühne”
Ja warum auch nicht, was hat das mit Antisemitismus zu tuen?

“Shame on Germany! In Bremen a youth was able to shout ‘Israel – son of a bitch’ for minutes during a pro-Palestinian demonstration”
Yes, why not, what does that have to do with antisemitism?

[Well, obviously, nothing????]

..das Deutschland wieder massiv fremdenfeindlich wird auch weitere Gruppen, Religionsangehörige etc. durch die Bewegungen der jüdisch-christlichen Pegita & Co & weitere gruselige Anhängsel bedroht werden… Nie wieder Faschismus in Deutschland! Die Parole hat schon ihre Berechtigung…

..that Germany is getting massively xenophobic again also other groups, members of religion etc. are threatened by the movement of the Jewish-Christian Pegita [he means Pegida, the right-wing xenophobic Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West] and other creepy appendages… No more fascism in Germany! This watchword is warranted!

[The original sentence sounds as weird as the translation. Well, of course Jews are behind whatever is bad, Pegida in this case. Damn, how did he find out!?]

Man ist nirgendwo mehr auf der Welt sicher. Aber Juden und jüdische Einrichtungen gehören in Deutschland zu denen, welche am besten geschützt sind.

No-one is safe anymore, nowhere in the world. But Jews and Jewish institutions are among those in Germany that are best protected.

[Mommy, the Jew gets special treatment!]

Das die Juden natürlich sofort mit jammern war klar . Das machen die aus Prinzip immer .

It was obvious that the Jews have to whine . They always do it as a matter of principle .

Erstaunlich ist nur wie schnell die Politiker bei den jüdischen Mitbürgern reagiert, die eigenen alten Leute interessieren niemand.

Surprising is only how quickly the politicians react when the Jewish fellow citizens [complain], nobody is interested in our own old people.

[Jews are not "our own", obviously]

I could go on, but I’ll stop here. To be fair, some of the antisemitic stereotypes have been identified and criticized by other commenters later in the thread. Also, comment sections, even moderated ones frequented by educated people, are full of crazy and insulting stuff people won’t say in real life. And stupid people are way over-represented. This selection of quotes should not be taken as a representative sample of German opinions about Jews. This relation is much more complicated.

So why did I write this post? I just needed to react to this comment threat in some way. This is my way to reflect on it (this is another).

Musings about fear

Tags

antisemitism, comedian harmonists, danger, fear, tagesschau

Some time ago there was an article in the news where a journalist wrote about how a man told her that Jews should all go to the gas chambers. When she replied that she is Jewish and asked if in that case he wanted to kill her too, he answered yes – to her face, without any hesitation. It sparked some discussion about Jews in Germany and antisemitism.

I am very fortunate in that I have never experienced something on that level. Most of my time I spend among very highly educated people who are polite and cultured enough not to say anything like that. I have never been insulted or attacked on the street, also because I am not identifyably Jewish in some way, i pass as "normal". I feel safe. I’ve never even thought about antisemitism as something that I personally need to watch out for in my daily life.

There is a scene in the movie "Comedian harmonists" where Harry has to talk to someone from the Nazi agency for musicians because they won’t let the ensemble perform with the Jewish members. There is no violence, no threats other than not letting them perform, but there is an atmosphere of fear that feels very real. Maybe because it is such an ordinary scene. No concentration camps, no pogrom, no war, just something from everyday life. The clerk is even rather nice. But deep down, there is this disgust, this hatred. So casual, so accepted, so normal.

Deep down, there is something, still today, in your normal, friendly neighbour. And it manifests in small comments that people won’t even perceive as antisemitism. Some of them I have heard: "He seems nice, even though he is a Jew" – "These Jews always look out for one another" – "Well, they are smart" – "But criticizing Israel should be allowed" – and so on. And yes, it is antisemitism, even if I won’t loose any sleep about it.

One of the question a conversion candidate is asked is about antisemitism: "Why would you want to put yourself into danger, when you have the choice?" I never worried, I never felt in danger. But recently I realised that all the small comments that I have brushed off as nothing really amount to something. Something that is hidden, but that may very well come out one day. And that I am not only putting myself in danger, but also others. My husband, my (imaginary, future) children, maybe even parents or friends. And that does make me a bit afraid. Am I paranoid? Or is this worrying a normal side-effect of getting old?

Converts in the interreligious dialogue

Tags

conversion, converts, interreligious dialogue

This past year I have attended a few interreligious events. Previously I have avoided them, because I never knew how to position myself as a would-be-convert. I have found that I find myself very clearly on the Jewish side of things, despite a Christian childhood. So I have been asking myself wether it is a good idea for converts from one religion to another to get involved in interreligious dialogue between the two religions.

On the "pro" side, converts are the ones who have experience with both religions. Chances are they have spent considerable time studying both. Their old religion because they were searching for answers when they wanted to stay. Their new religion because they needed to know what they get into. But not only academic study, they have lived both religions and they know the approaches, the unspoken assumptions and the mindset of both religions.

On the other hand, converts leave their old religion for a reason. They may have emotional baggage towards that religion. Or they may be tempted to justify their choice and aggressively attack the other religion and their (percieved) inconsistencies and errors. Conversely, they may be subject of attack by their old coreligionists as traitors or lost souls that need to be brought back into the fold. A slight danger may even be that the convert realizes he wants to go back to his own religion (though I doubt that’d happen often with sincere converts). But even assuming there are no problems in that area, converts may not have sufficiently internalized their new religion (maybe unknowingly). This may lead to misrepresenting the new religion or not realizing existing differences, because the convert himself has not yet fully understood all his new religion’s concepts.

What do you think? Should converts get involved in interreligious dialogue?

This isn’t a solution

Tags

egalitarian prayer, kotel, women of the wall

There is much talk about creating an egalitarian prayer space at the Kotel (Western wall) and how this is a victory for the Women of the Wall. But even putting aside the issue of the location and what counts as the Kotel, this really isn’t what the whole thing was about. Yes, some of the women of the wall may want egalitarian prayer. But this is not why the group was started. The group was started because women wanted to pray at the Kotel together. Without men, not in a mixed group, just women. But unlike what countless women do there every day, they wanted to have a prayer service there, led by women. So creating a place for egalitarian prayer is not a solution [it may be a good thing for other reasons, but it doesn’t help the women of the wall]. It may even lead to no more women’s prayer services at all in the women’s section – after all, people will say, this newfangled stuff should be done at the egalitarian section. Where a women-only prayer doesn’t belong, because this is a mixed section and people will (rightly so) protest a gender-segregated service. So for women’s prayer services at the Kotel it may even be a step back from where we are now.

So – no, creating an egalitarian section at the Kotel is not a solution to the women of the wall "problem". The only solution there is to allow all-women prayer services at the Kotel.

(Redefining Rebbetzin blogged about this already in 2013: Leaping forward or left in the dust).

Do we read the same bible?

Tags

bible, christians, interpretations, interreligious dialogue, jewish-christian dialogue, TaNaCH

I’ve been at an interreligious discussion between Christians and Jews on the topic of whether we (Christians and Jews) read the same bible, and I’d like to present some of the discussion points here. Probably most people would say that of course we don’t. The Christians have the New Testament (NT) which Jews don’t have. But the discussion focussed on the texts both Jews and Christians read, the books of the Jewish Tanach or the Christian Old Testament (OT). The two representatives did not claim to speak for their religion as a whole, rather they gave personal statements which they said were rooted in their representative traditions.

The Christian representative (CR) noted that the OT is an integral part of the Christian sacred texts and is regularly read in church. He first presented the classical Christian approach to a text from the OT. According to this approach, the main point of these texts is pointing towards Jesus and the NT. OT texts describe G-d and they contain prophesies that were fulfilled by Jesus. The laws of the OT are perceived as a negative contrast to the unversalist love of the NT. "Israel" is re-interpreted as referring to the church. But this classical approach seems to have gone out of style at the end of last century, when interreligious dialogue became a thing. Christians "discovered" that they read the same texts as Jews, they recognized that Jews have different legitimate readings of the same texts and they started to be interested in their interpretations.

The Jewish representative (JR) started with the (obvious) statement that Jesus is irrelevant for Judaism. She said she reads the Tanach as the record of the history of her ancestors with G-d. She sees herself as part of a community, a family, descendants of the people who experienced these events. Which makes it not only some ancient history, but her history. Also, she sees the texts as describing an utopia, a "constitution", laws to form a good society. So it is important to learn and keep the laws as G-d’s guidelines for mankind. The texts have to be interpreted and this interpretation is also based on history, centuries of great rabbis who passed on their insights. There are always multiple interpretations of one and the same text, but not all interpretations are valid.

In the following discussion, CR remarked that Christians also see themselves as part of the chain of tradition reaching from Abraham to Mose to David to Jesus and to today. JR countered that most of today’s Christians have pagan origins and cannot claim any family connections to Jesus or any of the other figures, while Jews see themselves as the direct descendants of the forefathers. JR mentioned that for Christians the people/nation of Israel and the land of Israel is largely irrelevant, while it is still central in Judaism. CR and JR agreed that some Christian interpretations can also be valid Jewish interpretations, especially if they are old, before the split of the two sister religions. Following this was a lot of slightly off-topic discussion on whether Christians are included in the same covenant with G-d as Jews, the Christian covenant has replaced the Jewish one (official position of the church for a long time, but not anymore) or whether each religion has its own covenant and what the implications of each option are.

So do we read the same texts? The same words maybe (even that is doubtful because translations are always interpretations, but that is a topic for another day). But with different approaches for their interpretation, different backgrounds, different assumptions and also different goals. Which does not mean we cannot learn from each other, but it is important to recognize the differences in the starting points.