What worries me in the current moment is that loud voices, some who have previously opened the tent to all, now spread the word of their political tribe loudly and as if they speak for all Jews. We are just as vulnerable to division as the general population in 2025. I wish for us to stand together in our diversity. This post is brilliant conversation starter. Thanks for your work.
I love this line: "I wish for us to stand together in our diversity."
And yes—completely agree that there’s real danger in the "as a Jew" phenomenon. When people feel the need to justify themselves with that phrase, they often aren’t representative of a broad segment of the Jewish community, even as they present themselves that way. It’s a tricky balance—wanting to honor the authenticity of every Jew while also pushing back against token Jews being treated as spokespersons for the whole. Thanks, Ann!
And there are Kahanists in power in Israeli government and guess what? They should NOT be included there or anywhere.
So I'm not sure the question is who should be included as a Jew. I'm not sure whether it is an important question. She thinks she's a Jew? She's a Jew.
The argument that needs to be made with vigor is not about WHO or what group is allowed in the tent, but a question of what does it mean to be Jew? These arguments are the pillars of every Torah reading.
The remnant who left Egypt were in a terrible rush.
They were most likely not able to think about the Jews who chose or were forced to stay behind. My guess is Jewish remnants through history have always been made up of all kinds of Jews, some more committed than others. My peasant grandmother, having lost her mother to death during childbirth, missed the Titanic, having gotten lost with her blended family in the forest escaping the pogroms in Trochenbrod. She was Jewish and a survivor of terrible times but, escaping, making latkas and speaking yiddish was no formal commitment to being Jewish. It did nothing to assure her inheritors they would lead meaningful Jewish lives.
In difficult times, it's less important to ask who will be a Jew in the future, but what will Judaism stand for? You are compelling when you write the tent may be too wide. Should we include everyone?
I don't think the tent is too wide. Do we really have a say who is in it? Even if we dont think they represent us?
The problem is we have been more concerned about the tent, than about what the tent stands for. It's an imbalance we can never afford that causes generations going forward to lose much of what is important that will literally get lost in translation.
Thank you for this opportunity to be engaged in such a fascinating conversation.
hmm.. I'm not so much talking about who is a Jew. I am more interested in what you said: figuring out what the tent stands for. But the argument I'm making is that any tent that stands for something will by nature not make everyone feel at home..
I'm going to keep thinking about this line: "In difficult times, it's less important to ask who will be a Jew in the future"
I guess what I'm saying as a bit of a challenge is that a wide tent doesn't need walls. It needs to make better use of the poles it already has. I know that is an important part of what you are saying too.
In my mind, there is no such thing as a tent that is too wide. Besides, having a wide tent has little to do with watered down Judaism. Watered down Judaism that stands for nothing means compromising Jewish principles and values for the sake of accommodating people. I do not see that as a definition of widening the tent. It's about leadership, parents, teachers and others prioritizing whims or desires of people as more important than asking the question required of us every moment since Sinai: that is, what is it that God wants of us? That's the original mission statement and Jews throughout time have spectacularly differing responses to that. In Beshallach, the Jews hadn't even asked that question yet. We were only at the beginning of what it meant to be free. If giving a wide tent walls means to you standing for something and accepting that some might not feel at home as a result, to me feeling at home is beside the point. Who is in charge of the rules for the walls? I certainly don't want my Judaism defined by Jewish Voice for Peace or perhaps any group for that matter. All I know is it is not about what Jewish voice gets to determine what a Jewish "Home" is. It is about me, using my voice to stand for something when necessary, listening to the Voice that called to me from Sinai above all the other voices.
Honoring another Jew's authenticity is also beside the point. That doesn't mean I won't argue and point out that I disagree with the very foundation of what they proclaim is Jewish. It's much like the way many Christians feel today about the evangelicals who have kidnapped their own sense of a Christianity which is deeply humanitarian and integrated. Many Christians claim not to feel at home now in Christianity, not realizing the urgency of reclaiming it. They are thinking more about the thieves now than the importance of their faith. But the evangelicals have no more right to determine what is the home of Christianity than they do. They only have the right to feel at home in their Christianity and that can be stolen only if they allow it.
I'm not sure how clear all this sounds and I also hope you can trust I express these ideas out of a sincere passion for Judaism and being so enthralled by your ideas. As others said, this particular commentary is full of conversation starters and I appreciate the opportunity to keep processing and clarifying.
We really mostly agree but perhaps it's your metaphor of walls which triggered my need to tease this out. So this is really a small point but perhaps important. As you say it is vital to clarify Jewish values and to stand our ground especially when other Jews with very unsettling voices speak out. Sometimes it is tough to discern if their speech is taken as Jews or for Jews. But they are still Jews no matter how reprehensible we both may think they are. In your mind, in my mind they don't speak for what it means to be Jewish, but they are Jewish. Even Kahanists feel at home in Israel even if I would like them to feel at home nowhere. But my feeling about that is not the point. The point is we have no control over how other Jews speak out as Jews or for Jews or live as Jews. But we know education and passion for Judaism are great influences. But we don't build walls. We steady the poles. Steadying poles is a presumption that the air still flows freely through, an invitation, as you so perfectly put it at the end. So I apologize truly for being semantic here because it may be only a matter of the metaphor.
I wonder what is it that we face that should lead us to focus on poles vs walls? Seems to be the underlying tension in our back and forth! Lots to think about
Of course, Amy, I always love engaging and learning and even disagreeing!
I am not 100% sure that I understand the difference between what we are saying - i.e., if there is a meaningful disagreement or if we are using the same words differently.. because to me your central question - what does God want from me now - leads to a commitment to a mission that intrinsically will have some form of boundaries (at least in the way Im using this word..). Maybe you feel that we just shouldn't focus on boundaries even as being mission-driven means we should have them?
This is an interesting conversation. I guess I also feel that you might be obscuring what you are trying to say. My read is that you have a pretty specific idea of where the "red line" is, or which Jews you think can be "left behind", but you aren't coming out to say it. Are you trying to say extreme left? Extreme right? I think some more context would be helpful in understanding the implications.
Some red lines are pretty clear—I included examples in the piece to illustrate where I stand—but I also recognize that there’s plenty of gray, and different Jewish communities will draw their boundaries differently.
My PhD research focused on social boundaries in the Syrian Jewish community in Brooklyn, so I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about the nature of boundaries themselves—even without always defining what they should be. Here, I’m making the case for the legitimacy of boundaries, even when they exist in tension with making every person “feel at home.” Part of this is because I think the meaning of feeling at home has shifted—people increasingly interpret it as a demand that institutions eliminate normative standards if they find them unappealing. Hope that makes sense!
I still remember conversations with fellow educators who told me that being accused of failing to include everyone was the worst possible sin. I also think universal inclusion is an illusion—but that’s a different conversation.
Thank you Mijal! You are right, you did provide examples, and I think they speak to extremism on both sides of the spectrum. It's something I'm wrestling with that these "lines" have basically become synonymous with certain political ideologies. And, even though you could argue that political ideologies are just endogenous to where one stands on these "lines", it does seem to be a distinctly American issue. I do not see people questioning to what extent Israelis are "acceptably Jewish", or if lines apply there, regardless of religiosity. I wonder what makes the American case so exceptional, and if the lesson from Israel is that boundaries need not define our Jewishness.
Your research sounds fascinating - I would love to read more!
I'm so glad you asked this—I was literally wondering if I was introducing a tension with that piece! I don’t think so. To me, this is about acknowledging that a Jew might walk away, rather than actively pushing them out. But I completely agree that it’s a very complicated issue.
I do feel a responsibility to grapple with the difficult parts of Jewish history where Jews allied themselves with enemies of the Jewish people. Think, for example, of Jews who responded to the Inquisition by converting to Catholicism and then actively persecuting other Jews. Once that happens, we have to acknowledge that something fundamental has been broken.
I think about the second part with the current Israeli leadership, where it does seem that fundamental parts of being Jewish are being exploited and distorted...it relates to my comment below as well. Are we questioning enough whether these leaders are "coming with us"?
Sending you a DM on instagram! Thanks so much for replying to my comments!
Since this is arguable, and being discussed and debated, i should only give my own vote.
A covenant is a commitment and like an election each individual has their own choice only their own. I remember the Torah says the first five makos that Moshe Rabeinu told Paroh , Paroh chose to say No. and Paroh stiffened his own heart. But the last five plagues, Torah says GD hardened Pharoh’s heart and made him say No.
It also says that through his contrary behavior and because of it, GD would be honored and shown as Great.! It’s just that who would want or choose to be on the losing side, knowingly?
Interesting - I hear in what you are saying an echo of not thinking so much of the "chosen people" but the "choosing people". And of course, you're introducing big questions about free will which continue to be so relevant. Thanks for engaging!
Oh, yes. Perhaps you can recall the morning prayer that reads (B”H” who chooses) present tense, I believe. So HS” notices our attitudes all the time. Maybe the awareness may jolt us to the fear of heaven.
Who is to decide who is a Jew? What are the core tenets to which all need adhere or believe or understand or commit to or sanction? What are the Jewish red-lines and who decides? Or is a consensus the best approach? Excellent start of the conversation that, clearly, needs to be had.
So glad we're in agreement that this is the start of a conversation and not filled with definitive answers :) I think we've had these conversations in our communities for centuries and will continue to have them - we must just not be afraid to step into some big questions.
What worries me in the current moment is that loud voices, some who have previously opened the tent to all, now spread the word of their political tribe loudly and as if they speak for all Jews. We are just as vulnerable to division as the general population in 2025. I wish for us to stand together in our diversity. This post is brilliant conversation starter. Thanks for your work.
I love this line: "I wish for us to stand together in our diversity."
And yes—completely agree that there’s real danger in the "as a Jew" phenomenon. When people feel the need to justify themselves with that phrase, they often aren’t representative of a broad segment of the Jewish community, even as they present themselves that way. It’s a tricky balance—wanting to honor the authenticity of every Jew while also pushing back against token Jews being treated as spokespersons for the whole. Thanks, Ann!
And there are Kahanists in power in Israeli government and guess what? They should NOT be included there or anywhere.
So I'm not sure the question is who should be included as a Jew. I'm not sure whether it is an important question. She thinks she's a Jew? She's a Jew.
The argument that needs to be made with vigor is not about WHO or what group is allowed in the tent, but a question of what does it mean to be Jew? These arguments are the pillars of every Torah reading.
The remnant who left Egypt were in a terrible rush.
They were most likely not able to think about the Jews who chose or were forced to stay behind. My guess is Jewish remnants through history have always been made up of all kinds of Jews, some more committed than others. My peasant grandmother, having lost her mother to death during childbirth, missed the Titanic, having gotten lost with her blended family in the forest escaping the pogroms in Trochenbrod. She was Jewish and a survivor of terrible times but, escaping, making latkas and speaking yiddish was no formal commitment to being Jewish. It did nothing to assure her inheritors they would lead meaningful Jewish lives.
In difficult times, it's less important to ask who will be a Jew in the future, but what will Judaism stand for? You are compelling when you write the tent may be too wide. Should we include everyone?
I don't think the tent is too wide. Do we really have a say who is in it? Even if we dont think they represent us?
The problem is we have been more concerned about the tent, than about what the tent stands for. It's an imbalance we can never afford that causes generations going forward to lose much of what is important that will literally get lost in translation.
Thank you for this opportunity to be engaged in such a fascinating conversation.
hmm.. I'm not so much talking about who is a Jew. I am more interested in what you said: figuring out what the tent stands for. But the argument I'm making is that any tent that stands for something will by nature not make everyone feel at home..
I'm going to keep thinking about this line: "In difficult times, it's less important to ask who will be a Jew in the future"
Shabbat Shalom, Amy!
I guess what I'm saying as a bit of a challenge is that a wide tent doesn't need walls. It needs to make better use of the poles it already has. I know that is an important part of what you are saying too.
In my mind, there is no such thing as a tent that is too wide. Besides, having a wide tent has little to do with watered down Judaism. Watered down Judaism that stands for nothing means compromising Jewish principles and values for the sake of accommodating people. I do not see that as a definition of widening the tent. It's about leadership, parents, teachers and others prioritizing whims or desires of people as more important than asking the question required of us every moment since Sinai: that is, what is it that God wants of us? That's the original mission statement and Jews throughout time have spectacularly differing responses to that. In Beshallach, the Jews hadn't even asked that question yet. We were only at the beginning of what it meant to be free. If giving a wide tent walls means to you standing for something and accepting that some might not feel at home as a result, to me feeling at home is beside the point. Who is in charge of the rules for the walls? I certainly don't want my Judaism defined by Jewish Voice for Peace or perhaps any group for that matter. All I know is it is not about what Jewish voice gets to determine what a Jewish "Home" is. It is about me, using my voice to stand for something when necessary, listening to the Voice that called to me from Sinai above all the other voices.
Honoring another Jew's authenticity is also beside the point. That doesn't mean I won't argue and point out that I disagree with the very foundation of what they proclaim is Jewish. It's much like the way many Christians feel today about the evangelicals who have kidnapped their own sense of a Christianity which is deeply humanitarian and integrated. Many Christians claim not to feel at home now in Christianity, not realizing the urgency of reclaiming it. They are thinking more about the thieves now than the importance of their faith. But the evangelicals have no more right to determine what is the home of Christianity than they do. They only have the right to feel at home in their Christianity and that can be stolen only if they allow it.
I'm not sure how clear all this sounds and I also hope you can trust I express these ideas out of a sincere passion for Judaism and being so enthralled by your ideas. As others said, this particular commentary is full of conversation starters and I appreciate the opportunity to keep processing and clarifying.
Yes
We really mostly agree but perhaps it's your metaphor of walls which triggered my need to tease this out. So this is really a small point but perhaps important. As you say it is vital to clarify Jewish values and to stand our ground especially when other Jews with very unsettling voices speak out. Sometimes it is tough to discern if their speech is taken as Jews or for Jews. But they are still Jews no matter how reprehensible we both may think they are. In your mind, in my mind they don't speak for what it means to be Jewish, but they are Jewish. Even Kahanists feel at home in Israel even if I would like them to feel at home nowhere. But my feeling about that is not the point. The point is we have no control over how other Jews speak out as Jews or for Jews or live as Jews. But we know education and passion for Judaism are great influences. But we don't build walls. We steady the poles. Steadying poles is a presumption that the air still flows freely through, an invitation, as you so perfectly put it at the end. So I apologize truly for being semantic here because it may be only a matter of the metaphor.
I wonder what is it that we face that should lead us to focus on poles vs walls? Seems to be the underlying tension in our back and forth! Lots to think about
Of course, Amy, I always love engaging and learning and even disagreeing!
I am not 100% sure that I understand the difference between what we are saying - i.e., if there is a meaningful disagreement or if we are using the same words differently.. because to me your central question - what does God want from me now - leads to a commitment to a mission that intrinsically will have some form of boundaries (at least in the way Im using this word..). Maybe you feel that we just shouldn't focus on boundaries even as being mission-driven means we should have them?
This is an interesting conversation. I guess I also feel that you might be obscuring what you are trying to say. My read is that you have a pretty specific idea of where the "red line" is, or which Jews you think can be "left behind", but you aren't coming out to say it. Are you trying to say extreme left? Extreme right? I think some more context would be helpful in understanding the implications.
Hey Nicola! Thanks for this question.
Two thoughts:
Some red lines are pretty clear—I included examples in the piece to illustrate where I stand—but I also recognize that there’s plenty of gray, and different Jewish communities will draw their boundaries differently.
My PhD research focused on social boundaries in the Syrian Jewish community in Brooklyn, so I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about the nature of boundaries themselves—even without always defining what they should be. Here, I’m making the case for the legitimacy of boundaries, even when they exist in tension with making every person “feel at home.” Part of this is because I think the meaning of feeling at home has shifted—people increasingly interpret it as a demand that institutions eliminate normative standards if they find them unappealing. Hope that makes sense!
I still remember conversations with fellow educators who told me that being accused of failing to include everyone was the worst possible sin. I also think universal inclusion is an illusion—but that’s a different conversation.
Thank you Mijal! You are right, you did provide examples, and I think they speak to extremism on both sides of the spectrum. It's something I'm wrestling with that these "lines" have basically become synonymous with certain political ideologies. And, even though you could argue that political ideologies are just endogenous to where one stands on these "lines", it does seem to be a distinctly American issue. I do not see people questioning to what extent Israelis are "acceptably Jewish", or if lines apply there, regardless of religiosity. I wonder what makes the American case so exceptional, and if the lesson from Israel is that boundaries need not define our Jewishness.
Your research sounds fascinating - I would love to read more!
Also thinking about the lessons of Vayeshev. Is this turning against each other?
I'm so glad you asked this—I was literally wondering if I was introducing a tension with that piece! I don’t think so. To me, this is about acknowledging that a Jew might walk away, rather than actively pushing them out. But I completely agree that it’s a very complicated issue.
I do feel a responsibility to grapple with the difficult parts of Jewish history where Jews allied themselves with enemies of the Jewish people. Think, for example, of Jews who responded to the Inquisition by converting to Catholicism and then actively persecuting other Jews. Once that happens, we have to acknowledge that something fundamental has been broken.
I agree with your perspective!
I think about the second part with the current Israeli leadership, where it does seem that fundamental parts of being Jewish are being exploited and distorted...it relates to my comment below as well. Are we questioning enough whether these leaders are "coming with us"?
Sending you a DM on instagram! Thanks so much for replying to my comments!
Since this is arguable, and being discussed and debated, i should only give my own vote.
A covenant is a commitment and like an election each individual has their own choice only their own. I remember the Torah says the first five makos that Moshe Rabeinu told Paroh , Paroh chose to say No. and Paroh stiffened his own heart. But the last five plagues, Torah says GD hardened Pharoh’s heart and made him say No.
It also says that through his contrary behavior and because of it, GD would be honored and shown as Great.! It’s just that who would want or choose to be on the losing side, knowingly?
Interesting - I hear in what you are saying an echo of not thinking so much of the "chosen people" but the "choosing people". And of course, you're introducing big questions about free will which continue to be so relevant. Thanks for engaging!
Oh, yes. Perhaps you can recall the morning prayer that reads (B”H” who chooses) present tense, I believe. So HS” notices our attitudes all the time. Maybe the awareness may jolt us to the fear of heaven.
Who is to decide who is a Jew? What are the core tenets to which all need adhere or believe or understand or commit to or sanction? What are the Jewish red-lines and who decides? Or is a consensus the best approach? Excellent start of the conversation that, clearly, needs to be had.
So glad we're in agreement that this is the start of a conversation and not filled with definitive answers :) I think we've had these conversations in our communities for centuries and will continue to have them - we must just not be afraid to step into some big questions.