Reflecting on Judaism

Dear Rabbi,
 Thank you for visiting us and for the stimulating discussion we had. I have been mulling it over ever since because I have several great-nephews and great-nieces marrying out over a two year period. What can be done to stem the flow? We both agreed that, on the whole, without the rabbinic law as set out in the Talmud and developed since, there might well be no Jewish people in existence today. But can we be sure that what was good for the past two thousand years is still good for today? Who knows how many Jews voluntarily dropped out over the centuries because of rabbinic law, for example some Karaites, apart from those who apostatised because of oppression and/or fear for their lives, but Judaism lived on with reduced numbers?
 
Certainly our current numbers do not compare, by far, to the other two offspring religions even taking into account the Holocaust and Pogroms. Today, we are shown in the papers the hundreds of kids attending yeshiva but we don’t clearly see the many thousands who are dropping out. We both know of the theory that drop-outs don’t matter because so long as there is a small nucleus of ‘Chassidim’ to carry on the tradition all will be well. Neither you nor I subscribe to this theory. We both want a strong, virile and growing Judaism. In my opinion we are losing the battle for our youngsters' souls. Why?
 
Can it be bad religious teaching? The yeshiva high schools in Israel are only a little more successful in producing observant Jews than we are in England. I know this from my own experience and that of other retired English Jews living in Natanya, many of whom have grandchildren who have attended or are attending such schools, and are disappointed with the results. When I asked one youngster why he was no longer observant he replied that the rabbis were teaching a lot of nonsense. When I suggested that he should have taken up the matter with his rabbi and asked questions he replied that had he done so he would have been expelled from the school and called an ‘Appicorace’. Are such rabbis incapable of dealing with searching questions or do they lack the courage to say what they really think because of peer pressure?
 
Once a person accepts that there is a God, and many do, and once it is accepted that something happened at Sinai which gave the world a new concept of ethics and morals which revolutionised the world’s accepted behaviour, it should not be difficult to be proud of, and loyal to, one’s inheritance and wish to continue one’s attachment to it.  Look how the Masons are proud and loyal to their tradition even knowing that it is based on fable.  Interestingly, two of my marrying-out great nieces wanted wedding presents of a Jewish nature so that they could explain the symbolisms to their children in due course.
 
I believe that many of the rabbinic rulings served their purpose very well in order to ensure Jewish continuity but might these rulings not be counter productive today? Why are they so reluctant to rethink? Take the recent example of ladies slacks. Slacks were introduced into the UK in 1928. I can understand why the rabbis originally said they were not ladies garments and therefore not suitable for the synagogue. The problem is that they are still saying the same thing some 80 years later when it is now difficult to find a wide selection of skirts because ninety percent of women wear slacks. When young girls attend synagogue many want to wear their best clothes, often slack suits, but these are frequently frowned upon and the girls discouraged and so don’t attend at all.
 
The Torah commands us that we should not add or subtract from it. This command is of equal importance to the other commands given. It should therefore follow, that if Moses were to return today he should easily recognise his teachings but we know that he wouldn’t. Even the Midrash recognises the fact that his teachings have changed beyond his recognition. He couldn’t even recognise the teachings of Rabbi Akiva, and that was some two thousand years ago; how much more so today.
 
Many of the rabbi’s rulings were necessary because of the ‘urgency of the times’ and during the Second Temple period and after the destruction of the Temple, times were, indeed, urgent. But when the urgency passed were they not supposed to revert to the status quo? Can they not say that the ‘urgency of the times’ is over particularly when, perhaps, the rulings may be doing more harm than good?
 
I will not discuss the commercialisation of kashrus which is pushing up prices or the forbidding, by the Authorities, of produce and behaviour which was perfectly acceptable, religiously, even when I was young. In my young days we were taught not to eat ‘treifa food’; today every innocuous item of food must have a kashrut label. More and more young people are seeing through this, to my mind, unfortunate development and are reacting against it. You, yourself, told me that some congregations are continually seeking new prohibitions and their rabbis oblige. Our religion is a rational, logical and humane one but we are not putting it over to the majority of our youngsters. I know that I may be arguing simplistically but we have a problem that requires fresh thinking. Who will produce this fresh thinking?
 
Some weeks ago a well known rabbi wrote an article for the J.C. admitting that some rabbis are being far too strict in their rulings and suggesting that other rabbis have the courage to speak up. I wrote to him and asked why he did not mention which rulings he considered to be too strict and also asked whether there are not a number of similarly minded rabbis who, collectively, could publicly voice their concern at this development on the basis that their unity would be their strength.
 
Part of the problem may be that many of our synagogues have become almost exclusively ‘Battei Tefillah’ catering mostly for the ‘already committed’. We should also use them as ‘Battei Knesset’, a communal meeting place, catering for both committed Jews, particularly young Jews, and also those who want to remain within the Jewish fold even though they are non observant. We must institute programmes to attract these non-observant Jews into the active community. Such non-observant members were/are the backbone of the Building Funds of many Synagogues but they are now being side-lined and neglected by some communities.
 
Before the emancipation almost 100% of Jews in Europe were observant, sincerely or otherwise, for if they were not observant they left the fold. Today the observant Jew represents, perhaps, just 10% of Jewry. How come? Is our religion so unattractive? If so, we should try to find out why.
 
The Jewish Chronicle, of the 5/9/03, carried an article explaining the thinking of orthodox Professor Rabbi Daniel Sperber, former head of the Bar-Ilan University’s Talmud Department. The article was headed ‘Custom is not always right’. He writes that today few rabbis feel sufficiently independent to suggest innovations to the Oral Law. For example, and inter alia, he holds the view that there is no strong reason why women should not be called up to the Torah or to read from it in front of men.        
 
I am aware that the above thoughts might produce a strong reaction. But at least it shows that I am concerned with the problem and think about it. Let those who disagree put forward their own suggestions and we can discuss them. From past experience there will be no takers. 
 
Yours very sincerely,
September 2003