A joke attributed to Jewish comedians from upstate New York resorts in the 1960s--affectionately known as the Borscht Belt--recounts sailors rescuing a solitary Jew stranded on a deserted island. He shows his rescuers a clearing and calls it "the first synagogue." He invites them to a second area and labels that as "the other synagogue." The sailors ask why one man needs two temples. His response: "I wouldn't be caught dead in the first."
This allegory exaggerates the fact that while Jewish culture and religion welcome debate, sometimes there's too much emotion in the dialogue.
Consider the opposing-page guest column by two brothers Solomon to my column of two weeks ago in which I implored more Jews to vote Republican. I appreciate their contribution to the discussion. Let me share where we agree and disagree.
• The Solomons accuse me of seeking to speak for all Jews. Had I thought I had that ability, my column--which was hortatory--would've been unnecessary. I don't speak for Jews, nor do I believe that I do. I did, however, speak to them.
Notably, the Solomons said of themselves: "Speaking only for ourselves (but we believe for others as well)." So, perhaps, they've read into my column some of their own intent. In any event, I'm glad that any confusion on this issue has been cleared up.
• In my previous column, I observed that most Orthodox and many Conservative (the religious, not the political denomination) Jews vote Republican. The Solomons concurred and added that the remaining Jews to whom I'm speaking are also "many." We agree.
While myriad Jews already vote Republican (with the more religious voting more Republican), more do not. I believe they should.
Republicans recognize the need for a greater awareness of a higher authority. Republicans seek to incentivize human initiative while offering charity. Republicans promote the family while cherishing all life.
These are Jewish values.
The left, in contrast, no longer welcomes the disenfranchised seeking voice with claims for equal treatment and fairness. Presently, progressive policy is purely about privileging preferred minorities--prioritizing pigment and plumbing--over merit.
Jews who support this emetic leftist discrimination enable the very racism previous generations desperately fought to eliminate when colleges and employers were restricting the intake of Jews as students, faculty, and professionals.
It's past time that Jews abandon leftist race-hustling and pursue the commitment to fairness and equality that defines Jewish culture.
• Thereafter, I observed that Judaism prohibits abortion, as it does eating pork. This is where the Solomons most objected.
They first presented an exegesis on Catholicism and the papacy to declare that there's no single leader in Judaism. True, but Judaism still has defined rules--613 laws, in fact.
I understand the challenge in distinguishing what is law versus opinion. This can be a difficult philosophical question. The abortion issue in American law is actually quite apposite.
From 1973, when the Roe v. Wade case was decided, until last year, the law was that abortion was guaranteed by the Constitution. Many, including me, believed that the Supreme Court had misinterpreted the Constitution. But that didn't change what was legal and not. After the Dobbs case, the law flipped, as have the objectors.
Religious law is more difficult, because God doesn't openly decide the dispute of those on the deserted island or elsewhere. So, opponents on whether Judaism prohibits abortion have two paths. They can simply disagree with each other. And it will, at best, be sorted out in the afterlife.
Or either or both can assert that Judaism is not a set of laws, and adherents can read anything they choose into it--much like progressives do with the Constitution. But that is not much of a religion--or Constitution for that matter.
If the Solomons fall into the first camp, then I'm content to simply differ, as I'm sure we did on the meaning of the Constitution. But when they quoted a rabbi from Chabad (a highly respected Orthodox Jewish sect where I attend synagogue) who said that there is nuance in Jewish law on abortion, I read the Solomons as seemingly asserting that abortion is up in the air under Jewish law. That claim is harder to swallow, particularly given that Chabad rabbis will tell you the default position of Judaism is that abortion is prohibited.
Consider the other law I mentioned--that Jews may not eat pork. Judaism allows for nuance there too, as one can eat pork to save a life. So, while there's nuance, I think it's fair to say that Jews and Gentiles alike recognize this iconic ban. Nuance isn't the dragon slayer of prohibition.
Indeed, some even claim defunct the pork prohibition. Thus, there's a minority view--using a term employed by the Solomons in their column. Around the time of Jesus, two religious schools hotly debated Jewish law: Shammai and Hillel. Shammai's interpretations are almost always considered the minority view, while Hillel's are regarded as Jewish law. Shammai is respected greatly but not followed generally.
Further, the Solomons wrote that while I recognize that abortion is permitted to save the mother's life, "Republican-controlled legislatures, including Arkansas', have voted for extreme anti-abortion laws that do not allow exceptions for the health of the mother"--seemingly suggesting a contradiction. None exists. These are two critically different notions. Both Arkansas and Jewish law have a life of the mother exception, not a health exception.
Some Jewish laws have been harder for me to observe than others, as was obeying speed limits on highways when I was younger. But in neither case have I suggested that the laws don't exist; just that compliance can be challenging. Neither nuance, naysayers, the lack of a single authority, nor the absence of unanimity negate that Jewish laws (including prohibitions) exist--politically undesirable prohibitions to progressives notwithstanding.
Some Jewish progressives' claims that Judaism supports leftist ideals is precisely what my original column cautioned causes confusion amongst Christians as to the Jewish body politic. Of course, one is free to disagree. And my appeal to Jews in my previous column grew out of some leftists' attempt to map their pigment-and-plumbing prioritizing, wealth-redistributing, family-denigrating communitarian ad-hoc value system onto Jewish law. (I have no idea where the Solomons fall on these issues.) I don't believe those ideas reflect Jewish ideals.
The story of Solomon--the king this time--also often causes confusion. Two prostitutes asked Solomon to decide the maternity of a child. Solomon offered to literally split the baby. The real mother withdrew her claim and, in the end, wound up with the infant.
Some misinterpret this story to suggest that the lesson derived is the value of compromise--referring to the colloquialism "let's split the baby."
The true lesson of Solomon, however, is that there was one--and only one--just outcome, and Solomon worked to find that single answer. Jewish law provides rules and answers as relevant today as they were 4,000 years ago. The right answers are out there. You just need to look.
This is your right to know.
Robert Steinbuch, professor of law at the Bowen Law School, is a Fulbright Scholar and author of the treatise "The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act." His views do not necessarily reflect those of his employer.