Intermarriage
Parsha and its fulfillment - Parashat Chayei Sarah - Rabbi Eliezer Shenvald - 5769
In our Parasha, Abraham asks Eliezer to go out and find a suitable mate for his son Isaac: "And Abraham said unto his servant, the elder of his house, that ruled over all that he had: 'Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh. And I will make thee swear by the L-rd, the G-d of heaven and the G-d of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife for my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell. But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife for my son, even for Isaac.” (Genesis 24: 2-4). Choosing a partner is one of the most crucial choices in a person's life. The relationship affects all aspects of life and the future of the family. Therefore, the identity of the spouse; his/her world view and personality are decisive influences on the future of the family.
The construction of Isaac's home with his partner also depends on the continuation and continuity of Abraham's revolutionary spiritual enterprise. If the partner does not fit, all of Abraham's spiritual achievements may be lost.
The Torah gives great weight to a good relationship between the couple and love - "and she is your friend and the wife of your covenant" (Malachi 2:14).
The seventh blessing, which blesses the couple in the seven blessings at their wedding: "אשר ברא ששון ושמחה חתן וכלה גילה רנה דיצה וחדוה אהבה ואחוה ושלום ורעות". The absence of “Shalom Bayit” is a legitimate reason for forcing the couple to divorce.
However, the Torah sees the importance of building the house far beyond the framework that anchors the relationship between the couple. It sees it as the basis and the irreplaceable framework from which there is continuity.
Marriage is the complementary connection between the temporary and perishable present and the house of continuity and eternity, for future generations.
A few days ago, the marriage of a popular television host of Muslim origin to an actor of Jewish origin was on the public agenda. This is not the only case of 'intermarriage' at this time. But it attracted more attention because they are known and famous people.
Speakers with a religious and traditional worldview categorically and unequivocally disagree with the "mixed marriages" prohibited by Jewish law. It should be said that most of them, even those who are not so strong among them, did so in a gentle language. Speakers with a non-religious national outlook also expressed their opposition to intermarriage out of concern for the future and survival of the Jewish people. And the desire to preserve the Jewish people from the "white Holocaust" of assimilation and the vast scope of "intermarriage." There are those who even calculated with demographic tools that after the Second World War, the people of Israel lost more people as a result of assimilation than those who were murdered in the Holocaust.
On the other hand, broadcasters and spokespersons with liberal secular outlooks praised the "realization of love" that crosses the borders between different people who "listen to their love," the inner personal love, those who "found love" and do not consider any other kind of commitment. Some of them, as the bearers of the 'Enlightenment', scornfully referred to those who oppose 'mixed marriages' as 'dark' and 'racist'. And used the public microphone to greet and wish their best wishes to the famous couple. The groom himself responded to the critics: "Love won!"
The secular liberal view sees the establishment of the home as nothing more than the fulfillment of the couple's desires to institutionalize the connection between them. In a manner and format that they want without any obligation, moral or conscious, for what is outside them, and beyond their own lives. The main thing is the discourse of individual rights. Everything related to the whole is examined according to what it serves the individual and allows him to do as he pleases. As far as they are concerned, considerations relating to the fate of the Jewish people or some people in the present and in the future are not related to the very issue.
A fundamental principle in the liberal conception that everyone can do whatever he wants and no one has the right to criticize and express a position on his actions. And therefore, they believe that there is no right for others to criticize the wedding of those who have chosen to do so voluntarily and as individuals.
To these we wish to say that a 'home building' is not just a romance that serves the couple. It is a 'responsibility'. The members of the family unit, the couple and their descendants, what they give their offspring, emotionally and psychologically, and the clear identity and values they impart to them. There are indeed those whose liberal, secular outlook also leads to an undermining of the status and need of the family. It is said that 'love' without responsibility may be eroded (as evidenced by the enormous extent of divorce among couples who loved each other at the beginning), and the continuity of the family and its heritage remains forever.
The superficial public discourse that takes place in the media revolves around the discourse and categorizes every item into "good and bad." Expressions of human emotion; Happiness, love, sadness, disappointment, frustration, etc., easily recruit human empathy and participation in joy, among those on the sidelines, who broadcast and watch. The happy lovers are certainly the "good guys" in the story. And thus, the critics who point out aspects of the event that are not so happy do the part of the 'bad guys', those who do not understand and are not empathic and 'spoil the celebration'.
And in general, in the spirit of "postmodern", anyone who raises a claim that sounds to the liberal ear as judgmental, is on the bottom.
As a result, the media discourse succeeds too easily, to embarrass those who are against "intermarriage" in general, and in the case in question. For, who wants to be in the place of the 'bad guys'?! All this despite the fact that the liberal approach was supposed to be consistent and pluralistic. And to treat with respect and legitimacy, ideological positions and values that contradict their opinion.