A-Z OF JEWISH VALUES -

T FOR TRADITION

I want to thank those of you who gave me feedback last week for what I had to say about Shabbat. There is clearly a need to know where we stand on subjects such as this.

So I’m following up Shabbat with some general remarks on Tradition.

The first question is what is Tradition? The word means passing or handing on. Tradition is a kind of transmission. Our Hebrew word for it is Masorah – from which we get the name of the wing of Judaism called Masorati. Masorah the tradition – first and foremost applies to the text of the Torah. That is what essentially is called HaMesorah.

This is where it gets really interesting. It is not the text of the Sefer Torah that’s called Mesorah – it’s the text of the Chumash. The Sefer Torah text is called Mikrah – meaning that which is read.

How does Mesorah – what is handed down differ from Mikrah – what is read? What has a Chumash got that a Sefer Torah hasn’t got?

Vowels – for one thing. Punctuation for another. Singing notation marks. Chapters and Verses. Divisions into Sidrahs. Haftarot, readings from the Prophets based on common themes in the Sidrahs. Translation sometimes. Commentary. Notes on what to read for special occasions. In other words the Mesorah as found in the Chumash is the text of the Torah clothed in the garments of tradition.

But it’s more than that. Mesorah contains interpretation. Tradition contains interpretation.

The Torah text is without vowels. A word without vowels could be ambiguous, could be read in different ways depending which vowels you add. Likewise punctuation. Singing indicates which words you emphasize and so can also affect meaning.

Translation affects meaning enormously.

All the additions to the Hebrew text were originally added by a group of scholars who flourished from the 5^th to the 8^th centuries whom we call the Massoretes – literally the traditionalists. Their system of reading the Torah became standard and remains so to this day.

You can see from this that essentially tradition is about how you do things, but also how you are taught to understand things. And it always stems from a certain time and place in history. And there might well be variations on a theme. It is how we read our Judaism in our own situation against the background of what has been handed down to us.

And that varies. For one thing there is not complete agreement as to how to pronounce the Hebrew vowels! Or the letters come to that! There are varying traditions.

There are different systems of cantillation, Ashkenazi and Sephardi and variations within those. The manifold musical traditions within Judaism are richly diverse.

But what makes a given thing a tradition in Judaism is that it is that ultimately it stems from Torah. It doesn’t have to be of great antiquity or even old, but it is an offshoot of Torah. And that it is passed on.

All the laws of Judaism are rabbinical readings, interpretations of the Torah. I gave examples last week of the Shabbat laws against constructing and carrying which came the fact that the instructions for building the tabernacle were place side by side with the commandment to keep Shabbat, thus indicating to the rabbis a common context.

Reform Judaism is continuing this process. In most cases we base our decisions on precedent to be found in Talmud, the Responsa literature and the Codes of Jewish Law. But there are many instances of where we break new ground. Or where we say that certain practices need to change in order to meet the realities of Jewish life in our times.

I do not pretend that to do so is anything but a hugely bold step. On an official level it is not taken lightly. Not without considerable study and weighing up of pros and cons.

Let me give you a current example. A very crucial one. The tradition is that a child takes its Jewish identity from the mother. What’s the basis? It’s not in Torah. There are Biblical examples of what we call patrilineality. There were kings of Israel whose mothers were not Jewish. The basis for it was very practical: you could not always know who the father was. Especially in time of war or exile this became a problem so it was eventually decided that Jewish descent would be matrilineal.

How was it decided? It comes from the Talmud Tractate Kiddushin 68b. The ruling that Jewish identity is determined by the mother is found in the Mishnah in that part of the Talmud (Kid. 3:12) It states that the child of a gentile woman is ‘like her’ (i.e. follows her identity). The Talmud derives this from the passage in Devarim (Deut 7:3-4) which is about intermarriage with a Canaanite. It reads as follows:

"Do not intermarry with him , do not give your daughter to his son or take his daughter for your son, for he will turn your son from Me":

This is interpreted as follows: A child born to your daughter (fathered by a non-Jew) is called "your son", but a child born to your son (by a non-Jewish mother) is not called "your son", but "her son". The Talmud is assuming here that the "he" in Deut.7:4 is your gentile son-in-law, and that "your son" whom "he" will turn away from God is your grandson, born to him and to your daughter. The Torah calls that grandson "your son" because he is regarded as Jewish since he had a Jewish mother. In the other case, where a Jewish man marries a gentile woman, the Torah doesn't speak about the woman's influence on her children (i.e., it doesn't say "for she will turn your son from me"), because her children are non-Jewish to begin with since their mother is non-Jewish.

Of course we have to bear in mind that in the time the Talmud passage was written, most non-Jews were idolators. Today they aren’t and it might therefore be argued that it is time the rule was changed.

As you probably know the American Reform Movement have sanctioned patrilineality. The British Liberal Movement recognize the child of one parent, whichever one, as Jewish only if brought up and educated Jewish.

The discussion that’s going on at present is about baby blessings. We have no problem about having a baby blessing for the child of a Jewish mother, non-Jewish father. That child is Jewish, so no problem. The case has recently been raised of where someone is asking for it in a case where it is the other way round. Jewish father, non-Jewish mother. They are not asking for it to take place in shul, but at home.

And my colleagues are divided. Some say to allow it would be colluding with a situation where the child could become quite confused if say the parents decided to give the child 2 religious educations. Others say that it would at least keep the door open for a Jewish commitment. Close the door and that would be lost.

Some say it is just a variation on the mixed marriage blessing theme. If we wouldn’t perform a mixed marriage (and we don’t, why do this?)

The discussion is still going on. I know which side I am on. I’m on the side of not giving ambiguous signals. I would encourage, nay urge, unequivocal commitment to shul and Jewish education for the child, with our requirement that the mother undergoes a course of Jewish study even if she does not convert at the end of it. Remember that ‘mesorah’, tradition, whilst it is about what you receive is meaningless unless it is also about what you pass on. So the emphasis has to be put on creating a Jewish home creating a Jewish home more than on having a one-off Jewish ritual. To do otherwise would be to put the cart before the horse. But you may disagree.

In any case the interesting thing is that baby blessing the way we do it only began in the 20^th century. It is a new tradition.

Discuss it, argue over it. This is a hot subject. It’s the theme of this year’s Reform Movement Conference entitled ‘Count Us All In’ – the subject is inclusivity. We’re an endangered species us Jews. How far do we go in trying to save ourselves? What do you think?