Category Archives: Uncategorized

Christian “Bar Mitzvahs”: The Gift of the Jews?

Nice article in the NY Times magazine today about “Christian Bar Mitzvahs” (Yes, the correct plural would be benei mitzvah).   The writer (who is a Christian) is duly worried about encroachment on Jewish heritage, and she seemed genuinely surprised to find rabbis who take a more tolerant approach to the borrowing.  And there is part of me that wants to go along with the relaxed attitude.  One could point out that if this is life-cycle theft, then they have stolen an improbable one.   In our codes we find laws for circumcisions, weddings, divorces, and burials but there is no set of laws on how to conduct a bar mitzvah.  And what many people think is the special “bar mitzvah ceremony” is something we do every week.  Even the speeches.  There is stuff that we don’t do that shows up in bar mitzvahs, and these things usually have little to do with Judaism.   If non-Jews want to honor each other with the “traditional” puberty candle-lighting ceremony, in no sense whatsoever can they be said to be violating our sacred airspace.

As I said, I want to be relaxed.  But all in all, I can’t help but think that it would be better if people had a strong conception of their own belief systems rather than a diffuse understanding of several.  Christianity and Judaism each make strong claims about the nature of creation and humanity which are less impressive when they are bent into accommodation.  I recognize that syncretism happens and that sometimes it is for the good.  But it is not automatically good and whether it is good or bad depends on the environment.  I think that one of the lessons of the last half century is that religion is less useful when the particulars are boiled away. (Who would you want to have your back in a bar-fight, a Mormon missionary or a trans-denominational theology student?).  In an increasingly secular society, borderless religion is weak religion.

And part of my resistance to syncretism is personal.  Given 15 million Jews and 5 billion of everyone else, there is not going to be much of us after the mix-and-match.  The party that is going to be syncretized out of existence will be us.  Someone might say that this is the case which proves me wrong, if Christians are doing bar mitzvahs than it must be Jews who are beating the drum.  But I think that this apparent strength is illusory.

Even among Jews there is confusion whether bar mitzvah is a status or a procedure, or better, whether one has a bar mitzvah or becomes bar mitzvah.  The traditional understanding is that it is a status – benei mitzah is just another term for an adult which everyone becomes if they live long enough.  We celebrate a child becoming bar mitzvah to mark the increased responsibilities and prerogatives which come to all Jewish adults.  It’s an occasion worthy of celebration, but the occasion itself is peripheral:  one becomes a Jewish adult without the ceremony or the party.  This is not widely known in some Jewish circles, as evident in the popularization of “adult bar mitzvah” classes, where even people who are already bar mitzvah want to have a bar mitzvah. This is a reflection of how we elevate the fleeting occasion over durable status.

The transformation of bar mitzvah into an ecumenical puberty-onset initiation ceremony will only cement this tendency.  The entire attraction to Christians and others of the bar mitzvah is on the procedure end:  Non-Jews are not speaking of becoming bar mitzvah (that would make them Jews), they are speaking of having bar mitzvahs.  A rite of passage is by definition something one only does once, not once a week.  But, as I said above, for us every week is the expectation.  Learning and teaching Torah are things Jews are supposed to be doing all the time.  If we define bar mitzvah as trial by ordeal, as a one-off superhuman effort in the name of building character, we should not be surprised that the status that is supposed to be the cause of celebration is not embraced.  But when done right, the remarkable thing is just how unremarkable it is, being the inevitable result of socialization into a community which loves God and Torah.

So I do have trouble being projecting insouciance about the whole affair.  Maybe it won’t be so bad, maybe it will fizzle out.  Part of me hopes that if “bar mitzvah” ceremonies really catch on among non-Jews, it will lead to some introspection within our community about what is important and what isn’t.  That would be a gift back to the Jews.

Chag Sameach.

 

Leviticus: These and these are the words of the Living God

Every year when we roll around to Leviticus I’m tempted to read Jacob Milgrom’s magisterial Anchor Bible commentaries but I skeptical that I will ever have time to pull it off.  This year I found a one-volume summary by Milgrom (Leviticus:  A Continental Commentary) and I decided to download it to my Kindle.  I’m only through the introduction and already in sort of stunned amazement at the depth and power of the work.

An example that I would like to share is Milgrom’s assertion (and I haven’t heard anyone else make it as directly) that the theological diversity of the Rabbis flows from the literary form (in the Higher criticism sense [1]) of the Torah itself and particularly from the book of Leviticus.  We generally think of disputes in the Oral Law as arising either from a corruption of an original pristine tradition or being rooted in the exegetical process from which the Oral Torah is formed, but Milgrom posits that the diversity in the Oral law flows directly from the theological diversity of the Written Torah:

The text itself does not make a truth claim among the traditions, nor does it try to reconcile them blithely.  Instead, the text happily transmits the various, oftentimes conflicting traditions, to the reader.  None proclaimed exclusive access to the divine word.  None labeled the other “false” (as the prophets later labeled their rivals).  To explain their divergences, their students might have answered in words similar to those coined by a later generation of rabbis concerning the different schools of Rabbis Hillel and Shammai:  “Both are the words of the living God.”

Leviticus is a striking example as it consists of two major theological strands which divide the book into two corresponding parts.  The first part is the Priestly strand (chapters 1-18) which holds qedusha or “holiness” to be an attribute of the Mishkan, and the second is the Holiness Code (chapters 19-27) [2] which sees holiness as an possession of the entire people.  Milgrom uses Mary Douglas’ work _Leviticus as Literature_ to show that the contrast is not incidental, but rather that the strands are in chiastic correspondence.  The opposing theological perspectives are not happenstance, but are the structure around which Leviticus is built.  It is a monument of sorts to theological pluralism.

Which makes it all the more puzzling that liberal Jews have wished to throw Leviticus overboard.  Implicit in the branding of liberal Judaism as “Prophetic” Judaism is a turning away from the icky Priestly teaching towards the (allegedly) more wholesome and edifying message of the Prophets.  But as Milgrom points out it is the Prophets who marginalize theological dissent by labeling their rivals “false”.  The prophets of the Hebrew Bible were some of the most strident people who ever lived and who were responsible for institutions such as, well, the holy war, which would seemingly make them odd role models for liberal religious expression.  (Not to mention, though I will mention, that elevating the Prophets as moral exemplars over an allegedly corrupt priesthood and degenerate priestly tradition is as clear of an internalization of Christian thought that one could ask for) [3].  If we want to reassure the world of our liberal bone fides, we should proudly wave the flag of Priestly, and not “Prophetic” Judaism.

But it is Leviticus which we end up apologizing for.  Sometimes weakly.  I read a sermon for this past Shabbat which defended Leviticus in the manner that Schechter did and too many do still:  Leviticus is valuable because it contains “Love your neighbor as yourself” in its middle.  A nice thought to be sure, but the weakness in legitimating a Jewish book by pointing out that one of the great Christian commandments is contained within it should be palpable.  Rather we should focus on the powerful religious ideas that are unique to the Priestly Torah.  Gershon Cohen was fond of saying that it was the audacity of the Rabbis that the Torah and Prophets are contained in the same composition.  In only the beginning of what promises to be a great and moving exposition, Jacob Milgrom reminds that the great audacity of the Rabbis was a legacy of the Written Torah in general and its neglected core in particular.

 [1]  Just the usual disclaimer that to learn from Higher criticism is not to necessary agree with its assumptions.

[2]  There are issues of insertions and the question of whether the Holiness Code edited the Priestly strand or vice versa.  See Israel Knohl _The Sanctuary of Silence_.

[3]  Beyond all of this is the fact that rabbinic Judaism seems to take as axiomatic that prophecy is dead.  But pointing that out would be piling on.