A Reply to Ed Case's Review of The Jew Within

By Arnold M. Eisen

Read Ed Case's review: An Intermarried Perspective on the Jew Within

Steven M. Cohen and I want to thank Edmund Case for bringing our new book, The Jew Within, to the attention of the readers of InterfaithFamily.com. His summary of our findings and conclusions is careful and almost always accurate. He is also correct in his perception that Steve and I harbor "hostility toward intermarriage"--if by that shorthand phrase he means that we believe, as we do, that Jewish communal institutions should not encourage intermarriage, and that --while according a full welcome to all the members of interfaith families--those institutions should work toward the conversion of the non-Jewish spouse and children. That hostility, however, does not extend in the least to the members of interfaith families. Case's comment that we "snidely characterize" the views of some of the individuals we interviewed, or that we "disdainfully suggest" something concerning one interviewee in particular, a woman who happens to be one of the individuals in the book from whom I learned the most, is thus way off the mark. I write this reply because I believe more is at stake here than imputation to us by Case of an attitude of disdain toward intermarried couples that we absolutely do not hold. I am afraid the matter speaks to the way the entire issue gets discussed all too often in the Jewish community.

Simply put, we have enormous respect for the people we interviewed, and were repeatedly impressed by their articulate and thoughtful comments. We do not always agree with them, as we do not always agree with one another, with our spouses, or with our friends. We at times criticize their attitudes or behaviors, again as we at times criticize those close to us. And--having the benefit of hearing tapes of remarks that those we interviewed heard only once, when they made the remarks, and reading transcripts of their comments over and over again--we see some things in our interviewees which they may not have realized about themselves. To say that person X does not recognize factor Y at work in his or her life, or that person A does not hold commitment B, is not to show these people any lack of respect --unless Case believes that to hold our position on intermarriage is automatically to disdain and disrespect all those who are intermarried, a contention which we totally reject.

The basis for our position is well stated by Case himself, namely that "all the social scientific data shows that the chances of living Jewishly and raising children as Jews are much lessened in an intermarriage." Of course, as Case observes, this does not mean that the latter never happens. All of us probably have personal experience of intermarried couples who are "living Jewishly" and "raising children as Jews." We have no "disbelief" on this matter. Quite the opposite. But one does not want to base communal policy on what a minority manages to achieve against the odds, and against the inherited norms of the Jewish tradition, which have served the Jewish people well for two millennia. More important, one wants to improve those odds, to revitalize that tradition, by working to increase the percentage of intermarried families who do live substantially Jewish lives and raise Jewish children. We can accomplish this in part, as Case suggests, by welcoming intermarried families, providing special programming as needed, offering experiences of learning and of ritual, of prayer and of fellowship, which are so deep and beautiful and satisfying that both adult partners want more of this for themselves, and want desperately to pass it on to their children. But we also accomplish this end by encouraging conversion.

I believe that we can say simultaneously to both spouses in intermarried families: we are glad you are both here with us, we hope you will help us build our communities and enrich our tradition; we think Judaism has important things to say to Jews and non-Jews alike, and we know we have much to learn from you as from all the members of our community, Jews and non-Jews alike. But we also hope that you can understand our desire that Jewish homes now as in the past inculcate one religious tradition and not two; that Jewish spouses now as in the past go deeply into life over the years side by side with a person committed to doing so in the same tradition; that Jewish children have the advantage of two Jewish role models, if two parents are present, rather than one; that we not have to sacrifice the wonderfully "particular" in our tradition to the no less profound "universal."

This is not to pass judgment on the value of individual lives, or families, or marriages. Regrettably, Jews sometimes do that, and Jews married to non-Jews, insulted more than once, often hear such criticism even when it is not intended. Our interviewees told us with virtual unanimity that the thing they like least about Jews and Judaism is being told by other Jews that they are not real Jews, or good Jews. We share their concern. We pass no such judgment on individual marriages or lives. Our intent is to support a particular policy on the part of Jewish communal institutions-- not to make the intermarried among our sample or our communities into "objects of criticism," as Case charges. Indeed, as the study makes clear, Jews who are married to Jews also likely married without thinking very deeply about what sort of Jewish home they wanted to provide for one another and their children. They too must negotiate over Jewish issues as they arise, discovering as they go that they cared about things of which they were not aware. They must choose as they go between personal inclinations and communal obligations (or between personal obligations and communal inclinations!), or between differing inclinations and differing senses of obligation. We are not living in a time or place where the "Jewish" in a self lines up neatly on one side of a line, and the "American" or "modern" or "feminine" on the other. The "good" is also not all on one side; the "Jewish" is open to multiple interpretations. Our selves are multiple, and often fragmented. Our choices are complicated, our loyalties manifold.

All the more reason that we discuss these difficult matters with one another honestly and seriously, the better to build the strong communities, and provide the profound experiences of tradition, which alone will attract Jews (and their non-Jewish partners) to Judaism. We hope The Jew Within will help its readers to do so, perhaps because they will read what "Gil" or "Tony" or "Molly" has to say about God, or about the choice between public school and Jewish school, or about the meaning of Israel or the Holocaust or Passover, and will say "That's what I think, too," or "I never thought about it that way before" or "this is outrageous." Steve and I had all of those reactions at various point, and many fruitful discussions and debates as a result. We wish the same for our readers.