To the Editor of
:
Deborah Roth's letter (Nov. 5), stating that the Orthodox interpretation of Jewish law is definitive of who is a Jew and denying the political implications of the Orthodox position, illustrates two of the problems behind the tensions in the community.
First, her argument begs the question, assuming by assertion of opinion the very issue that is in dispute. That the Orthodox have relevant interpretations of Jewish law is not in question, but that they have exclusive authenticity is. The law is not necessarily what the Orthodox establishment interprets it to be.
More importantly, Ms. Roth's position is divorced from historical knowledge. For millennia it has been characteristic of Jewish thought and action to be existential and ambiguous rather than idealistic and definitive. From the earliest days, a major difference between "Jew and Greek" has been drawn along that boundary. In this century, it has been the efforts of secular, even atheistic, Jews that have made major contributions to the maintenance of the Jewish State.
There have been times and circumstances when the Orthodox orientation has saved Judaism and the Jewish people, but that does not establish a permanent entitlement to authority; there have been other times and circumstances when the rebel and dissenter has saved the Jews. It is important that the Orthodox and the liberal both survive and thrive – along with a continuing secular tradition. Were each to leave each other space to follow his or her convictions while respecting one another as complementary parts of a whole people, the Jews might well be "a light unto the nations." I fear, however, that were the Orthodox to achieve their – essentially political – goals as authorities over others' lives and beliefs, were they to sit in judgment over fellow Jews, they would validate Arnold Toynbee's anti-Semitic canard of Judaism as a "fossilized civilization" and jeopardize the continuation of a distinguished history.
SANDER RUBIN
2032 Gauguin Place
Davis, CA 95616-0542
(530) 753-7263