Redefining who can become a Jew

The Jewish American Paradox: Embracing Choice in a Changing World by Robert H. Mnookin; © 2018; Public Affairs, Hachette Book Group; ISBN 9781610-397513; 228 pages plus 80 pages of notes, acknowledgments and index; $28

By Donald H. Harrison

SAN DIEGO –Author Robert Mnookin, a Harvard Law professor, argues that Jewish peoplehood should have permeable boundaries. One should be able to escape Jewish identity, if one so wishes, or conversely be admitted within the Jewish “big tent” upon declaring oneself to be a Jew. Noting the difference between being recognized as a Jewish community member, in a general sense, and, more specifically, as an Orthodox or Reform Jew, Mnookin suggests it be understood that there will continue to be sub-groups within the Jewish community, each of which would be free to set its own boundaries.

I am not certain that this prescription is anything different than what is already happening in America today, if not on a de jure basis, then on a de facto basis.

Nevertheless, I think Mnookin makes a valuable contribution in suggesting the weaknesses of Judaism’s traditional definition of a Jew as someone who either is born to a Jewish mother or who undergoes religious conversion to Judaism.  Under this definition, he points out, seven of your eight great-grandparents could have been Jewish, but because your maternal great-grandmother wasn’t, neither are you.  Hardly seems fair.  While Reform Judaism’s decision to extend the definition of a Jew to include a person who has a Jewish father and is raised within a home in which Judaism is practiced, preferably including going to temple, widens the boundaries, Mnookin still is not satisfied.  Is it equitable that someone born to a Jewish mother is automatically a Jew, even if no Judaism is practiced in the home, but someone who is born to a Jewish father in the same circumstances, is ruled outside the fold?   Clearly in Mnookin’s estimate, the answer is “no.”

In Chapter 7 of the book, Mnookin says in addition to those who meet the established tests for Jewish identity (be they Reform or Orthodox or something in between), other categories of people who wish to be considered part of the Jewish community should also be accepted in the big tent. These include children of intermarriages; non-Jewish spouses helping to raise Jewish children; children who have at least one Jewish grandparent; people who have discovered and wish to reclaim their distant Jewish ancestry (think Conversos); and ethnic Jews who have embraced other religions, such as Christianity or Buddhism.

I have difficulty with only the last suggestion, that people who have converted “out” should remain “in” so long as they wish to identify as Jewish.  Mnookin offers this suggestion on the grounds that one may be ethnically Jewish, yet have veered away from the Jewish religion. This is not all that different from someone who is ethnically Jewish, yet is an atheist.  In the latter case, the atheist still is considered Jewish, but the person who converts out – the so called “apostate” — is not.  I sympathize, but, unfortunately, Mnookin ignores in his book the phenomenon of the “Jews for Jesus” and the “Messianic Jews,” the latter typically sponsored by a proselytizing Christian denomination, who try to sell the Jewish people on the idea that they need to embrace Jesus if they are to be “completed” Jews.  In my opinion, these sects are masquerading as Jews in a deceptive effort to win more Jews as Christian converts.  I cannot accept that we need to enfold such practitioners into our communal arms.

On the other hand, I have no problem with Jews who embrace some of the practices of Buddhism – the so called Jew-Bu’s – not only remaining in the fold, but contributing their ideas to the Jewish community.   To some extent, we have seen this phenomenon in the Jewish Renewal movement and in other branches where meditation, reflection, and yoga, are being incorporated into evolving ritual.

Mnookin identifies himself as a supporter of J Street, and as a person who is pro-Israel but increasingly wary about the course the Netanyahu government is taking toward Palestinians and towards non-Orthodox Judaism.  He asserts that the BDS campaign may be anti-Israel, but disagrees that it is anti-Semitic.  His arguments seem to ignore the increasingly virulent pro-BDS demonstrations on college campuses throughout the nation in which pro-Israel speakers have been disrupted and shouted down; efforts have been made to prevent Jewish students from serving on Student Councils unless they disavow Israel; swastikas have been painted on dorm rooms; and similar offences have become all too common in an assault against freedom of Jewish speech and thought. I’d recommend that the law professor spend some time reading material provided by StandWithUs, the group which has been countering such tactics on the campuses with lawsuits and political advocacy.

My prediction is that most people who read The Jewish American Paradox will find parts with which they heartily agree and other parts with which they take vigorous exception.  As Jews, we are likely to have our own opinions.  This is a time when considerably more than 50 percent of American Jews are marrying non-Jewish partners, prompting some to believe that whereas the non-Jewish world never could annihilate us with its hate, its love, on the other hand, may so diminish our numbers that American Judaism may someday vanish.  Mnookin does not subscribe to this point of view, and neither do I. The Jewish people have many values – among them,  love of education, belief in doing acts of kindness, adherence to the idea that we can personally better ourselves and our world – that are appealing to people of other faiths.  I know many intermarried couples who, accordingly, are raising their children as Jews.  I believe if the Jewish people consistently welcome intermarriage, our ranks will grow rather than diminish.

*
Harrison is editor of San Diego Jewish World.  He may be contacted via donald.harrison@sdjewishworld.com