| Tsav 5762, Leviticus 6:1-8:36
Shabbat Shalom-
In light of recent Israeli events which do not make most American headlines,
I thought I would use a verse in this week’s portion as a springboard to a
relevant issue. To see one of the press releases of the Masorti/Conservative
movement see the following links:
Conversion and Democracy, a
Masorti statement
A Supreme Court Decision, now being circumvented
“As the sin-offering as the guilt-offering, one method-teaching for them.” (Lev 7:7)
The verse in its context teaches us that both these types of offerings much
be offered in the same way, the same Torah (method). The verse, though
not readily relevant, echoes other calls for unity in ritual practice then and
now. To what extent must our practice be uniform for us to be a united
people? Are we to be a melting pot or a salad bowl, of plurality or
conformity? Our portion calls for us to offer our offerings in a
uniform manner, any deviation from which might suffer one’s offering to not be
accepted (7:19), to consider oneself sinner (7:19), or even excision from the
people (7:20-21).
It is clear from not only Rabbinic but even Biblical sources that this unity
of worship was the ideal rather than the reality. For every call to unity
of worship there was a condemnation of deviant forms. For every majority
opinion quoted there is necessarily a minority. And yet, the Israeli religious
system insists on condoning only the official form of Judaism recognized by the
official state rabbis or any party with enough political power. Are they
justified by calls for unity of practice or are the liberal movements justified by their
calls for unity as a ubiquitous democratic right?
It is true that as a religious community under God, our public practice is
under more scrutiny than our private, i.e. my decisions on where I eat out do
not affect others whereas my kashrut practices at home do affect my
guests. However, that is no justification for constantly searching for the
strictest opinion that satisfies all by accommodating the strict and causing the
lenient to conform. Why conform when we can compromise? Why must we
constantly build on the letter of the law and ignore the spirit? Why must
we rely on our emotions and ignore the letter?* The questions get at the
very center of the debate at what it means to be a Jew today.
As far as I’m concerned, since forcing people into a certain practice will
limit the meaningfulness of their practice and generally alienate them for the
coercer, the current practice of requiring marriages and conversions in Israel
to be ministered by Orthodox rabbis in order to be registered is a disgrace to a
state that calls itself democratic. Not all dilemmas in the state today
are external. A state that denies basic religious freedom is not a democracy
even if we add to ‘democratic state’ the adjective, ‘Jewish’.
So, when the text calls for the two offerings to be offered under the same
Torah-method, I do not understand the text to require all people to bring them
uniformly in practice. I must understand the text to say that whichever
offering we bring, in whatever way we approach our relationship with our people,
what makes our approach Jewish is not our technique, but our dealing with the
method and language of our people. To deny another person the right to his
worldview is equivalent to claiming a hold on the truth– something I am not so
arrogant to do.
“Have we not one Father to us all? Has not one God wrought us?
Wherefore do we betray a man his fellow, profaning the covenant of our
fathers?” Betrayed has Judah and abomination has been done in Israel
and in Jerusalem, for Judah profaned what is holy to YHWH, what he loves,
and espoused a daughter of a foreign god. YHWH should cut off the man that
does this– his children (?), whether from the tents of Jacob, or from the
presenter of a gift to YHWH of Hosts.” (Malachi 2:10-12, based on NJPS
1985)
Have a caring week!
*These are somewhat technical generalizations relating to the conversion
“Who is a Jew” debate I shall not go into here.
|
