cellio | mitzvot in Conservative Judaism

Entry tags:

judaism

mitzvot in Conservative Judaism

I was recently given a photocopy of the article "Conservative Judaism in an Age of Democracy" by Rabbi Harold Kushner. (I think it came from Conservative Judaism magazine. I can't find an online copy.) This theologically-attuned Reform Jew found it a fascinating read.

Rabbi Kushner's thesis is that the halachic system isn't working for Conservative Judaism, and maybe it's time to stop trying. He argues that there is no enforcement, not by the community and not by a sense of obligation, in the eyes of most congregants, the way there is among Orthodox Jews. He writes:

And concerning the things they do observe, they feel that they are choosing to observe them. We damage our credibility, we blur our authenticity and we cede "home court advantage" to the Orthodox when we continue to claim to be a movement of halachah [...] Conservative Jews at their best are respectful of halachic rules but do not consider themselves bound by them a priori.

Rabbi Kushner wants Conservative Jews to be observant; he's not knocking that. He just thinks that they will only do it of their own free will -- out of a sense of personal autonomy. In his eyes, this is the only way an act can actually be meaningful.

I've long been saying something similar about Reform Judaism -- the serious kind, not the common case of secular Jews claiming to be Reform so they "don't have to do stuff". Reform Judaism's message of informed personal autonomy, guided by history and tradition, speaks strongly to me. While I initially thought I would end up as a Conservative Jew, once I started to learn more about the various movements, I think I realized that I had to be either Orthodox or Reform. Either I believe that torah is the precise word of God or I don't. If I do, I have to decide which of many traditions of halachic interpretation fits; Conservative is one of them but (from the outside) seems to take enough liberties to possibly pose challenges. (I hope I have not just alienated all of my Conservative friends.) And if I don't, then what is the role of anyone's authoritative halachic system in my life?

(What do I actually believe about torah? On one foot, I believe it is a human-written record of a real encounter with God.)

So (back to the article), if mitzvot aren't halachically-obligatory commandments, then what are they? He suggests that they are opportunities to connect with God. This, too, resonates quite a bit for me. Why do I keep any mitzvot at all? In each case, for at least one of two reasons: I have come to understand, through study, that this is what God wants of me (commandment), or it helps me to draw closer to God. The first is straightforward and I could provide examples, but the second is more interesting: Even knowing that the rabbis of the talmud invented the lighting of Shabbat candles, knowing that there's not a solid foundation for that in text, I find the ritual meaningful. Beginning and ending Shabbat with flames serves as a set of "bookends" for the day; it helps me switch into and out of Shabbat mode. I notice the lack when I'm away (say, at a convention or an SCA event) and don't make havadalah until late. It just feels wrong -- yes, I can say the abbreviated blessing, but it's not the same as lighting the candle. Absent any belief at all that these particular rituals are commandments, I would still do them.

Rabbi Kushner suggests viewing a mitzvah as "the opportunity to be in touch with God by transforming the ordinary into the sacred". This idea, too, is familiar. Most Reform Jews I know do not believe there's a strict commandment to say a blessing before eating or say grace afterwards, but the act of doing so elevates a base, animal act, eating. (Either that, or they just view it as polite to say please and thank-you.) I'm not completely sure how I feel about separate dishes for meat and dairy, but I have them -- because it's one more way in which I'm mindful of the fact that I'm not like the animals. I can choose what and when and on what to eat. I have a mind, a soul, and free will.

Rabbi Kushner raises the question: aren't there other ways to sanctify eating (or whatever)? Sure there are, he says, but there's something to be said for following the ones that our community is already connected with. You could say that you elevate eating by eating pork but not veal, but you would not have a community connection thereby. His argument seems to be that you may as well do it our way if you're going to do it at all, so we're all doing the same things together.

He gives a number of examples of "what would X look like in a post-halachic world?". I'll quote one example:

Fasting on Yom Kippur will not be a matter of afflicting ourselves so that God will see our sincerity and our hunger pangs and be moved to grant our prayers, a view the author of Isaiah 58 has been trying to talk us out of for generations. [...] Instead, fasting on Yom Kippur will be a way of proclaiming that we are true human beings. We can do what no other creature on God's earth can do. We can be hungry and choose not to eat. We can be sexually aroused and choose not to respond. We can be angry and choose not to lash out. And when we realize that we have chosen badly, we can choose to repent and change.

Rabbi Kushner ends with these provocative words:

[T]he halachic system was an instrument of great depth and sensitivity and caused wonderful things to happen for many generations of Jews, but it is withering in an age of democracy and personal choice. Our movement, our generation is called on to do what Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai and his colleagues did two thousand years ago, to reinvent Judaism in a way that will meet the needs of people today to fulfill their human destiny and make God a constant presence in their lives in an age when the currency of Jewish loyalty and faith will no longer be obedience but the pursuit of holiness.

The halachic system is certainly not withering within the Orthodox movements, but it is having a rough time in many parts of the Conservative movement. I'm not sure why Rabbi Kushner feels the need to reinvent anything, though; serious Reform Jews have been pursuing many of these ideas for some time. I would like to invite him to join us in that pursuit.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I think the point is that it's the Conservative movement that needs to be reinvented. That said, Kushner's answer isn't it — how does it then differentiate itself from the serious/committed part of Reform?

(Then again, I'm still waiting for that to slam headlong into "classical" Reform.)

I think the point is that it's the Conservative movement that needs to be reinvented.

That's one possibility. Another (and I'm hardly the first person to say this, which is not the same as advocating it, just so I'm clear) is "some go left, some go right", and the movement fizzles. That is, the halachically-minded members might tend to drift to Orthodox movements, and the autonomy-minded members might tend to drift to Reform (or maybe Renewal or Reconstructionism).

The Reform movement is certainly not monolithic in this regard, of course. I am well aware of being in a minority within my movement; too many people's entire thesis is "I'm Reform so I don't have to do that". Sure, they're Reform and they don't have to do that; what I challenge is the "so".

(And, yeah, "classical" Reform is yet another force, though one that I suspect is quite literally dying out.)

Conservatism was actually founded in response to the Reform movement - the idea was to have a more strongly religious option that wasn't Orthodoxy. I know at least two people who would have been unable to complete their conversion without the Conservative movement.

I myself have huge issues with the Reform liturgy, though not with the movement. But then, my favorite mix is Orthodox liturgy and egalitarian leyning, for worship.

You know, I was just musing about this today; I frequently do. I am sitting here in my hotel room with my menorah brought on the plane. No one is here to watch me light the candles. Why do I do it, even when it is a pain in the ass to do so?

In truth, I don't feel in my life that God is directly invested in me doing these things, on either an emotional or intellectual level. On the other hand, I still feel that I've let God down when I don't do them. I think what comes closest to the truth is that I wish I felt God was invested in the outcome because that assumption is the only one that makes a system work that I want to work. But it is rare that I feel that way in my bones. I'm like everyone else in that I do these things because they make me feel comfort in the universe rather than because I think God commanded me and if I don't do it I'm destroying His plan.

What I find striking is the starkness with which everyone wants to pose these issues. EITHER halacha is God's Word and you obey because God Said So (or the rabbi told you God Said So), OR Judaism is an ethical cafeteria in which everyone does what they personally feel is meaningful.

The historian in me says that on most of these issues the tradition is elastic enough to make that either/or choice false. The Talmud is a playful document that constantly emphasizes both human agency and the implacable divine will. Being mushy and inconsistent about these things -- not needing to choose between extremes -- seems to me to be something that observant Jews really have lived with for thousands of years. The way I've come to feel about it is that orthodoxy, broadly speaking, is probably correct about what the halachic tradition mandates that we do. But Conservatism is correct about the history, about how those decisions were usually made on the practical level.

What this means is that in practice, when I come to the end of a train of thought like the one I started out this comment with -- that I don't feel obligated in some external sense -- I then reason back: do I do these things just because they make me happy, give me naches? That's what I think the logical outcome of Reform is -- you can eat pork or not, whatever works for you. But my reaction is more than that. It's not just bookends to the day; something is making me feel bad when I don't do things the right way.

Now, the great fudge of Conservatism is what I would call "mystical historicism," which is to say, there are other things than either God or your own reason to make you feel connected to mitzvot. In essence, it's kehilla or community -- you do these things for reasons similar that you obey a stop sign and feel bad if you don't, even if no one is around to see you do it. It's not a divine imperative or your own individual logic, and it's not just guilt; it's your sense of connection to others. Schechter and other Conservative theorists who defend it as "historical positivism" really come close to equating that with God's will.

You can easily say, as Reform have long said, that this is woolly romanticism, and bound to fail in the long run. Certainly there are some issues -- the current debate over homosexuality in Conservatism, for example -- that seem very hard to fudge. The Torah says this and you have to side either with mesorah or with historicism/skepticism -- that "mitzvot" in the Torah are human products, fallible and subject to change. The issue makes me wince because I don't think it can be solved, and I think that's where people like Kushner or Gellman are coming from.

Judaism is an ethical cafeteria in which everyone does what they personally feel is meaningful.

Since I put myself pretty firmly in the other camp, I'm curious about this position. Is there any other -ism (and yes I know Judaism is more than that) in which people do such different things and claim they are practicing that -ism? That was not meant as an attack question, but a stir the pot, see what response it gets question. The less original question (I hope the first one is original at least) is: Is there a limit to where a person can go with this 'I'm doing what I think is meaningful' and still call it Judaism?

I think the variety is built into many systems -- how else do you get hermit-like monks and crusading warriors killing people for Christ within the same system? In terms of limits, I think that for how individual people behave, an anthropological answer would be no -- people are quite able to tolerate inconsistency and to hold conflicting ideas in their head at the same time.

But if what you're asking is, on the level of system, can this variety be accepted within that system, well, I think that's built into the history of any meaningful idea. In Australia the "Liberal" party is conservative; in America "liberal" means progressive. When some people stretch concepts and philosophies in different directions, other people do the work of deciding whether those stretches are legitimate. In different periods and for different reasons, the stretches are more or less legitimate in the eyes of the larger group; divisions are formed or ended, etc.

Can Jewish movements accept limits on what is legitimate? Well, we all seem to agree that Christianity, whatever else it is, isn't Jewish, even in the "Jews for Jesus" variety. So presumably that's a start!

But why? If they are doing what they feel is ethically correct, and basing it on their understanding of the Hebrew Bible (which they read to predict Jesus), why is that outside your ethical cafetera in a way that other behaviors are not? I understand the ethical cafeteria school of thought wants Judaism to be a big tent. But at some point the tent gets too big, no? To have a meaningful philosophy there must be some things that we do believe, and some things we do NOT believe.

Saying "your philosophy is not compatible with our set of beliefs. You are outside the fold." doesn't have to be value-laden. We think we are right and we can respect your right to think something else, but not to say it under our banner.

(truncated because I exceeded the character limit in the other comment)

But on the day to day level, generally, this is closest to what I feel in my gut -- we do this because we're part of a way of life and a system of thought that connects us with God but also with each other, like in this conversation right now, which we would never have over anything else. Which is why I am upset over people like Kushner, since to my mind they want to replace the common grounds of this conversation over halacha with whatever homiletical mush they feel like serving up today. You can only figure out how you fiit into halacha once you know what it is and what the prayers or mitzvot were originally supposed to accomplish within that system. After that, reject it, maybe. But a "post-halachic" Judaism can only happen if and when halacha is known to the Jewish people, and that's not where his philosophy leads.

You're right that it does lead to Reform, but I don't know that you'd want to trumpet that... if Conservatism is judged a failure for not connecting Jews with halacha, I surely think Reform is open to the same charge vis a vis Jewish ethical values or whatever. You do know that you are extremely unusual for a Reform Jew; I think of you probably in some of the same terms that some orthodox people might think of me -- an outlyer within the movement that does not, unfortunately, disprove the broader truth about that movement. (E.g. one guy asked me, "how many Jews that walk to shul on shabbos are there in Cranston?")

So the point at the end there inviting Kushner et al. to join you is a little unfair; t's like me saying that you're not a real Reform Jew because you do the mitzvot... or like me saying that orthodox people are this, this, and this, but look at this person being a "hypocrite" over here -- people in other movements justify what they do in those terms and not by fulfilling their role as foils to our movements. Or, just because some orthodox people have been known to daven in minyans led by women, doesn't mean that I get to say that they're not really orthodox, or that when they do so, they're being Conservative in all but name so why don't they join us. (The rejoinder would surely be something like, only once you live entirely within the system, do you get to define your deviations from it.)

Thank you for the thoughtful comments.

Granted that I am not a typical Reform Jew, but I, like you, do feel a sense of obligation (and feel bad if I don't do something) -- that's why I said there are two factors that can play into my deciding to do a mitzvah. I do feel commanded about Shabbat, kashrut (liberal interpretation), and several other things. (I've carried a chanukiyah on a plane too.) And as you point out, the ethical mitzvot are not optional to Reform. So we have this mix of mitzvot-as-commandments and mitzvot-as-good-ideas, and that certainly muddies the water.

Does Rabbi Kushner argue that we shouldn't even learn the halacha? That would be sad. As you said, we have to know what it is before we can make decisions about it; that's what the "informed" in "informed autonomy" is all about. I have changed aspects of my observance (in both directions) after study; that study is obligatory, and one of the things we can never do enough of (c.f. eilu d'varim).

I did not mean my last paragraph as a snark or a claim that Rabbi Kushner is really Reform. I don't want other people telling me where I really belong; I don't intend to do that to others. I meant that I think his thinking would resonate quite strongly in the Reform movement, where there are people who've been thinking similar thoughts for a while, and engaging in that dialogue could be beneficial for all involved. I'm not asking him to swap out his Conservative affiliation for a Reform one -- just suggesting that we are more similar than he might think, and he shouldn't disregard us either.

(Of course, it's possile that it's really only people like me who would feel this resonance, and he really doesn't have that much in common with the average Reform Jew.)

And as you point out, the ethical mitzvot are not optional to Reform.

Whoops. That was actually

mbarr below. Sorry.

I think you're right that "post-halachic" Judaism is another name for Reform or Reconstructionism. As far as learning the halacha, look at Kushner's maneuver about why we perform the mitzvot -- personal relevance supersedes an explanation grounded in history or theology. It doesn't have to be all or nothing, but then you have Kaplan's "voice not a veto" approach to halacha, ie Reconstructionism. But on some level what he's calling for is giving primacy to the personal relevance message over the obligation message; I don't see how that doesn't reduce halacha to a historical or homiletical curiosity. (And, since I spent a lot of pixels yesterday and today over why I'm not orthodox, I'll say that this is what I find impossible about Reform.)

Of course it's the very resemblance to Reform/Recon that would make Kushner resist the comparison. In the 19th century, some of the most strident antagonists of Reform Judaism were Unitarians who resented being told that they were basically Reform Jews. Deciding where you end and the other movement begins might almost be said to be the essence of religion.

Yep- he gave the keynote 2 years ago at the Biennial USCJ Convention. Menachem Creditor also spoke on the same basic topic.. and I was arguing then that they called their result Reform. They really annoyed the non-egal folks and some (very few) of the more traditional, but egal folks. AKA -- the folks that actually have shabbos communities, and keep kosher, in the movement.

As far as I can tell -
reform = do mitzvahs not because you are obligated, but because it will bring you closer to God. interpersonal commadments are still required, though.

conservative = you are bound to do it all. We just think we can change things faster than those old fogeys in the ortho world.

ortho- Change? Why? (Unless you're on the far left, and in which case... you're basically classical Conservative.)

Personally speaking- the decision last year about now on the gay rab school & marriage stuff were rather problematic. (mostly in the way they were done, and what they say, vs the topic at all) - They even managed to get a good portion of the law committee to resign over it, which.. isn't good.

The Masorti (conservative) movement in israel looks very different than the one here... it'd be incompatable with most folks that attend a conservative shul, unless they live in very small parts of the country. No driving, no electricity, keeping kosher, etc.

Oh well.. this is the area I inhabit... the far left of the ortho world :)

Having grown up in the Conservative movement while shifting toward the Orthodox, I have been watching the shifting sands in the Conservative movement for many years. I have long been of the belief that, at some point in the future, there will no longer be a Conservative movement, with the right-leaning Conservative joining the left-leaning Orthodox camp and the left-leaning Conservative joining the right-leaning Reform. And it bothers me, because that will leave a large number of people un- or under-represented in the major Jewish movements.

Not that I can completely classify myself within a movement. When pressed, I say I'm Modern Orthodox, but even that definition is hard to pinpoint, with many who identify as Modern Orthodox having divergent definitions of what it means to *be* Modern Orthodox.

Then there's "Modern Orthodox" who follow the rules for community's sake, but don't pick and choose as individuals. They wear modern clothes but keep kosher, might turn on a light or two, but don't drive on Shabbos and Holy days.
There aren't many of them left, but they seem to be mostly Eastern European, Second or Third generation, and from the trades classes rather than the intellectual lines.
They seem to be a cultural class rather than a religious movement.

I know I'm not the decider of who is or is not in what movement, but as a rabbi-to-be of Modern Orthodoxy, I would not consider someone who regularly violates the Shabbat to be within the Modern Orthodox fold. On the other hand, some might not consider me to be in the MO fold due to some of my behaviors.

I read your precis of R' Kushner a little differently; I think he starts off by making the observation that on the ground, away from the JTS ivory tower, Conservative Jews have already made the transition to a non-binding halacha. Having grown up in a Conservative shul, I came to the same fork in the road that you did, and decided that between the two consistent positions of obligation and cultural inheritance, I was more comfortable accepting obligation. It was a few years later that I formally shifted membership to an Orthodox shul.

For years I've expected the Conservative movement to split along that fissure, but now I'm not so sure. It seems so obvious to those of us who faced that decision, but there are many people who want a movement that straddles the divide, that formally declares that there is such as thing as "the right way to do things" but doesn't enforce it by communal pressure. There are many people who don't keep kashrut or Shabbat personally but would be scandalized if the shul served trefus or ran an event on Shabbat that was mechallel Shabbat.

On the other hand, I'm eagerly awaiting the fracture of Orthodoxy into YU Orthodoxy and Agudas Israel Orthodoxy --- As a "left-winger" I am very unhappy that the "black hats" get to define what most people thing of as Orthodox Judaism.

I came to the same fork in the road that you did, and decided that between the two consistent positions of obligation and cultural inheritance, I was more comfortable accepting obligation. It was a few years later that I formally shifted membership to an Orthodox shul.

Here's a comment I would ask you (respecting the decision you made) and to

cellio as well -- the assumption that the fork in the road leads to a broader recasting of the basics of belief. It is one thing to believe that I should perform the mitzvot out of a sense that God has obligated me to do so. But orthodoxy goes far beyond that: it demands that you accept not ony that the mitzvot were given by God, but that the Torah is an entirely divine creation, and even more so, that Tanakh is meant to be understood in a literalistic way. I.e., the psalms really were written by David and Kohelet by Solomon; the patriarchs observed Shabbat even before it was commanded, etc.

I'm going to put this in a comment to the main post and try to deal with it at greater length there.

I might be weird (ok, I am weird :-) ), but I do actually feel I am commanded in certain things. I don't just keep Shabbat or kashrut or mitzvot about business dealings because they give me warm fuzzy feelings or I hope to parlay for divine attention by doing so. (And it's certainly not about cultural identification.) And heaven knows (if you'll pardon the expression) how inconvenient these things can be. Rather, through study and personal exploration, combined with effects that I can only describe as divine nudges (YMMV), I have come to understand these things as commandments. What I have not come to understand as binding is the system following from Avot 1:1.

Do I still derive benefit from studying halacha (and aggadah)? Yes, in several ways. The insight into the reasoning process is valuable (and has led me to realize things of the form "if you accept this then you must accept that"), the view into history is interesting, the whole process is intellectually stimulating, and maybe study for the sake of heaven is beneficial in ways I can't yet see. I treat the whole system seriously and with respect; I'm just a lot less certain on the specifics of divine origin of oral law.

Maybe my own thinking is fuzzier than I had thought (and more than I would like). Hmm.

As I try to clarify in the comment I just posted later down on this page, I think the fork-in-the-road moment is one of whether one accepts the system in toto as obligatory. I think your model of engaged Judaism is a vital one, and that your understanding of the nature of obligation is deep.

I also have great respect for your understanding of what you don't consider obligatory: "What I have not come to understand as binding is the system following from Avot 1:1." That's the distinction, exactly put.

in toto

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

(Thanks also for your kind words.)

This comment is inspired by some of the comments and how they dovetail with the main post, so bear with me.

I know several Conservative Jews (in addition to the commenters) who faced that same sense of the fork in the road and felt they had to choose orthodoxy. Since people ask me some version of the same thing all the time, it's sure something I think about a lot.

I would reiterate that I really think this is a false dichotomy that everyone is setting up. It serves the purpose of denominational polemicists to insist that you have to make this choice, and that leads ineluctably to one denomination or the other. But it seems to me that whether or not you feel obligated by divine will, personal choice, communal values, or cultural inheritance has almost NOTHING to do with whether or not you're a Conservative Jew or if Conservatism will survive. It's not what Conservatism is based on, in the final analysis.

Conservatism (and the other movements too) is not about personal choice at all but about the halachic process. Conservatives maintain that the divine character of tradition can be maintained even if you think it is the result of a human process, what I would call "historicism" -- that decisions about mitzvot are made through human agency and not as the direct outgrowth of divine imperatives.

To pose the issue starkly: what does it mean, and can we accept, the idea that Torah writ large is the product of human discourse? Orthodoxy can't accept this because it seems to destroy the underpinnings of the halachic system. Conservatives say that you can accept this but still keep the system because the system acknowledges its own constructedness (with certain limits, of course).

It's a damn hard thing to do -- to say one day that the Torah is God's revelation and to say the next that it is a piece of wisdom writing among others in the northwest Semitic ethnic literature. For most of us, though -- and by "us" I mean thoughtful Jews who have engaged in the modern world -- it's the only real position. We want to think that we say brachas because we connect with the divine even as we know that Noah and Gilgamesh have an awful lot in common with each other.

And here it is that I can't make the jump to orthodoxy, and I suspect Conservatives as a whole won't either: orthodoxy goes further than saying that we are obligated by God to perform mitzvot. In the name of defending the integrity of Torah and halacha, the rationale for the obligation is given a trans-historical, supernatural character. Orthodoxy requires not only orthopraxis but belief in the ahistorical character of Torah as a whole. The psalms were written by David; Ecclesiastes was Solomon. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob observed Shabbat before it was given at Sinai. Etc. Every surface comment of the text has divine significance, and every traditional bulwark for belief must be accepted as truth. That's what happens when you maintain the divine character of the whole system, which has more or less merely unfolded in accordance with God's original intent.

I don't mean to deny that orthodox Jews are incapable of reasoning about history or of seeing distinct historical phases in halachic development -- of course they do. It's just that there's a limit to how far you can extend such insights. You can see individual halachic actors at work, but not in the creation of Torah, which is above all that. To (over)generalize, orthodoxy believes that historicism is corrosive and has to be kept away from texts that touch on the divine character of the system.

I would submit that there will always be a need for something like Conservative Judaism, because the fruits of historical thinking applied to Jewish religious development are simply too powerful to be wished away even by those who still feel God is present in the mitzvot as a whole. For me, it's a big part of why I could never see myself following these folks into leaving Conservatism. Even if I could see myself being orthopractic someday and make the leap to believe in divine obligation, I could never see myself making the leap to deny historical ways of thinking. That would be to deny everything I feel in my gut about how the world works. And I honestly don't know how they made that leap themselves over that issue.

There's Orthodox and then there's orthodox. As I wrote above:

On the other hand, I'm eagerly awaiting the fracture of Orthodoxy into YU Orthodoxy and Agudas Israel Orthodoxy --- As a "left-winger" I am very unhappy that the "black hats" get to define what most people thing of as Orthodox Judaism.

I believe that the halachic system is God-given and binding. I also believe that the Torah text was written and edited by divinely-inspired humans, that the universe is billions of years old, etc. The various beliefs that you ascribe to orthodoxy are held by some, but are not necessarily part of the halachic package.

You write:

I would reiterate that I really think this is a false dichotomy that everyone is setting up.

I respectfully disagree. The question is: "Do I consider myself obligated by the demands of the halachic system, even when they are inconvenient and even when I dislike those demands?" (Please note: this question does not address the degree to which and means by which the halachic system itself may evolve over time.)

Either answer can lead to a fulfilling Jewish life. The answer that, in my opinion, is intellectually inconsistent is "I am obligated by those halachot with which I agree." When one starts choosing which halachot one considers binding, then no single halacha is binding, and one has actually answered "no" to the question of whether the halachic system imposes obligation.

And, in my experience, the Conservative Movement's answer to the question is "yes" but the Conservative laity's answer to the question is "no." And that's the problem facing the movement. For example, the USCJ CLS has not and never will write a responsum permitting people to eat pork or shellfish, yet many Jews affiliated with Conservative synagogues do so. If that's not a dichotomy, I don't know what is.

Well, that last point there is the divergence between principles and practice. Just speaking for myself, I can't be bothered by that. Every belief system has armloads of hypocrites and tolerates hypocrisy. I agree with you that the divergence is lamentably bad for Conservative Jews, but that doesn't force a choice onto me personally.

I say this because I would certainly put myself in the category who sees myself (as you put it) "obligated by the demands of the haalachic system, even when they are inconvenient". And I agree that when most Conservatives pick and choose halachot with which they agree, they are being inconsistent -- but, nu, it's human nature that people are inconsistent, I think.

So if what you're saying is that Conservative rabbis or people like me who agree with your statements are essentially orthodox, great! :-) But of course that's not true on either the orthodox side or the Conservative side.

When I've brought this issue up with orthodox folks, they tend to give the answer that you do -- it's not really necessary if you're orthodox to believe "that stuff in the margins of ArtScroll."

But I think the way you yourself put it, that the system is God-given, is the heart of why left wing orthodoxy is always going to be married to right wing orthodoxy: both kinds of orthodoxy are grounded the same perspective on Torah, which is different from the Conservative perspective. Orthodoxy cannot validate critical historicism, ie the documentary hypothesis for the Torah or by extension for the halachic system in general. It's not possible for the Torah to be divinely created and yet for all these random pieces of Mesopotamian and Canaanitic mythology to be in there. I'm not talking about evolution (we all learned from the Hertz chumash that it's compatible with orthodoxy) but about what it would really take to acknowledge that Torah, broadly speaking, is not mi-Sinai.

That's why orthodox shuls couldn't join the United Synagogue in the 1910s (to Schechter's regret) -- it supported JTS, which trains rabbis in historicism.

Far be it for me to decide what is necessary to be part of another value system, and I know there's a lot of interesting stuff going on in the YCT wing of orthodoxy. Some folks, like the Greenbergs, are able to judge Conservatives on the basis of actions and not on beliefs. I see that.

But I think the reason those are minority positions within orthodoxy is that they are bucking the underlying intellectual thrust that divides the movements. It's a divide of belief here that goes beyond obligation and beyond what the other people in shul are doing. I don't think orthodoxy makes sense unless you see Torah as essentially standing outside of human history. And I don't think that most orthopractic Conservative Jews are going to get to that belief, even if the movement splits.

You claim that the fact that the institutions of Conservative Jewry won't permit eating pork & shellfish, but that Consevative Jews do so is a difference of principles and practice? If so, that should mean that were the pork-eaters asked, they would acknowledge that they shouldn't be eating pork, and perhaps feel some guilt. Is that what you believe would happen were the question asked?

Yes. In my experience most nonobservant but occasionally shulgoing Conservative Jews know that they're not living up to what the movement would have them do, and to some extent they feel guilty about it, though not necessarily enough to want to change their behavior.

Orthodoxy cannot validate critical historicism, ie the documentary hypothesis for the Torah or by extension for the halachic system in general.

You'll have to be gentle when you break the news to my rabbi and shul. Especially the professors of higher biblical criticism. :-)

It's not possible for the Torah to be divinely created and yet for all these random pieces of Mesopotamian and Canaanitic mythology to be in there.

Why not? If I can believe that God used evolution to create humanity, why can't I believe that God used the development of Mesopotamian and Canaanitic mythology to get us to end up with the Torah as we have it today?

Torah, broadly speaking, is not mi-Sinai.

If by "mi-Sinai" you mean literally theophanic, then you're probably right. But of course even in the gemara when they say "halacha l'Moshe mi-Sinai" that is a legal expression with the same import as "since time immemorial" in British common law.

I'll also point out that among the breadth of positions laid out in Emet Ve-emunah are several that you are identifying as orthodox and as incompatible with Conservative beliefs. I know the Conservative movement has evolved in the last twenty years but I don't think it's narrowed its umbrella that much.

OK, well, if you have a rabbi who teaches biblical criticism and the documentary hypothesis from the pulpit and you're in an orthodox shul, I admit, that's a new one for me. Granted that much of my knowledge is from reading and the like, but so much of orthodox writing that I've seen is apologist against bib crit. Would teaching it at YU not get you put under cherem? Look at the blasting directed at a mild historicist like Eliezer Berkovits. I admire his stuff quite a bit, but I really think his is an outlier position even in modern orthodoxy.

If I can believe that God used evolution to create humanity, why can't I believe that God used the development of Mesopotamian and Canaanitic mythology to get us to end up with the Torah as we have it today?

The Torah has long been legitimately be read allegorically in Judaism, so I think Hertz was right when he said that evolution posed no problem. The Semitic religion thing... huh. I dunno how you square that circle. Perhaps you want to say that the myths are there to mislead us the same way some biblical fundamentalists say the fossils are in the rocks to test our faith. But if you're a historicist you have to say something along the lines that those stories are probably there because the Hebrews got them from their neighbors, told them around the campfire for a long time, they got to be seen as sacred after awhile, and then someone put them in the Torah. I don't see how that's compatible with the idea that God gave Torah to Moses in more or less the form we have it now in a single revelation, which is the classic traditional formulation.

Again, I'll admit to not knowing all the ins and outs of modern orthodoxy, but there's no doubt at all that the rupture between what was then modern orthodoxy and traditional Conservatism came down to the fact that Schechter's JTS taught what was seen as heretical by the American rabbis of the early 20th century. The reasons aren't hard to fathom. When you let historicism in you also let in questions not just about why these stories are there, but whether the mitzvot themselves are the product of a certain time in history and thus are maybe no longer relevant to us. That leads down the path to classical Reform.

I wouldn't say that an ahistoricist perspective on revelation is incompatible with Conservative beliefs -- the idea with that chart was to include everyone to the right of Reform. (Conservatism has done less to theoretically differentiate itself from orthodoxy than to say that the Conservative approach is just making explicit what halachists have always done.) However, I understand that they don't let you into JTS unless you accept biblical criticism.

When one starts choosing which halachot one considers binding, then no single halacha is binding, and one has actually answered "no" to the question of whether the halachic system imposes obligation.

Where is the line between "X is not binding" and "I disagree with the interpretation of X and choose not to follow it"? For many mitzvot, and staying within the orthodox movements (plural intentional), you can find a range of opinions that includes "not applicable". Consider, as one example, dress. Modern Orthodox women are not, in their theology, sinning by wearing pants; they don't see a commandment forbidding it. A woman of chareidi theology who wore pants would understand herself to be sinning. Both follow the same system but got different answers. Do you believe one of them is following "those halachot with which I agree" while the other is not? How does that differ from the Conservative system, or from a Reform Jew who says "I disagree about X"?

I am not trying to be combattive here; these are honest questions from someone who's still trying to figure this all out. (Really, the study and the struggle are lifetime endeavors.)

When one starts choosing which halachot one considers binding, then no single halacha is binding,

I misspoke when I wrote this, and I apologize. What I should have written was:

When one starts choosing which halachot one considers binding, then one has answered "no" to the question of whether one accepts the halachic system (in toto) as binding.

As you point out, one can certainly accept individual halachot as obligations without accepting the entire system, although I am not sure whether that differs from one taking on an obligation that is not rooted in the halachic system. For example, I consider it my civic duty to research the candidates and vote in every election.

I think the core of the halachic system is "aseh l'cha rav" --- one must establish a relationship with a rabbi who has been trained as a halachic decisor and who can serve as ones posek. There are many rabbis, each of whom has a unique perspective on the halacha, and all of whom balance their understanding of the historical development of the halachic texts, the current social milieu, and the needs of the individual asking the sheila. The system is designed to give different answers to different people at different times.

So, as in the case you discuss, one rabbi will rule one way and another will rule differently, and one follows one's rabbi's ruling while (in an ideal world, at least) acknowledging that a different rabbi's ruling, provided it was done following the halachic system, is valid for that rabbi's community.

When the Conservative "system" works, it's not that different from the Orthodox "system." The Committee on Law and Standards gets to define what are the bounds of normative halacha for the United Synagogue, and the social milieu and understanding of the historical evolution of the halachic texts is sometimes broader than what would be relied upon by an Orthodox rabbi, but the principle is the same: the shul rabbi is the mara d'atra and issues rulings for his or her community and those rulings obligate the members of the community.

The problem that Rabbi Kushner is addressing is that this system seems to break down more often than not.

Moving on now to a different sub-topic, that of "conscientious objection" as it were....

Where is the line between "X is not binding" and "I disagree with the interpretation of X and choose not to follow it"?

There's a whole spectrum of answers to "Why don't I follow halacha X." At one end, there's "I know I'm obligated to, but I don't have the strength of self-will to do it." At the other, there's "I don't believe halacha can tell me what to do."

But "I know the halacha says that, and I normally follow the halacha, but in this case I think the halacha is wrong" is not on that spectrum. It's along a different axis. I think it's the hardest part of having chosen to accept the halachic system: there are halachot with which I disagree, and I have to decide which of the things I believe in I have to compromise.

But you even see that in the Talmud sometimes. There will be two conflicting halachic principles, and one of them will have to be compromised. So when I face this sort of struggle, I try to understand it in that way, that it's not a conflict between halacha and my personal, internal moral compass, but that my moral compass itself has been shaped by and is grounded in my learning Torah, and that the conflict I face is one within the halachic system.

There's a whole spectrum of answers to "Why don't I follow halacha X." At one end, there's "I know I'm obligated to, but I don't have the strength of self-will to do it." At the other, there's "I don't believe halacha can tell me what to do."

I don't now remember where I learned this, but I have come to understand that there are three, not two, basic answers to the question "do you keep halacha X?". They are "yes", "no", and "not yet". For me, "not yet" is very powerful; it keeps open the possibility, acknowledging my current lack of either knowledge or will without shutting any doors. When my answer is "no", it is for sound reasons after study and consideration. Most of my answers are either "yes" or "not yet".

I'm not sure what caused me to write that here, but I'll leave it there anyway.

But "I know the halacha says that, and I normally follow the halacha, but in this case I think the halacha is wrong" is not on that spectrum.

So when a rabbi (in Orthodox Judaism you would always consult your rabbi, yes?) says "in this situation this person should have a lenient interpretation", he is not saying "the halacha is wrong" but rather "the halacha is flexible enough to permit me this interpretation for this sholeh". That makes sense. (And, in retrospect, I knew that.) Being within the system is key; that said, the system does not produce single answers most of the time.

I first encountered the "not yet" in Nine Questions People Ask About Judasim by Prager and Telushkin.

Being within the system is key; that said, the system does not produce single answers most of the time.

Yup.

But it seems to me that whether or not you feel obligated by divine will, personal choice, communal values, or cultural inheritance has almost NOTHING to do with whether or not you're a Conservative Jew or if Conservatism will survive. It's not what Conservatism is based on, in the final analysis.

It might not be what Conservatism is about (and might not be what causes it to succeed or fail), but isn't it a key tenet of Conservative Judaism (on paper, at least) that there is a halachic system, given by God, that is binding on all Jews? The Orthodox movements say the same thing but the movements disagree on specifics. (So do the various Orthodox movements, by the way.) Conservative Judaism adds mechanisms that allow more lenient modern interpretation, but I thought it was all supposed to be working within a framework.

Reform Judaism rejects the framework binding on all Jews, but accepts that mitzvot can be binding. (How do we know? Big question, and I don't think I'll have time to speak to it before Shabbat.) Personal choice, divine will, communal values, and cultural inheritance are all seen as justifications for doing mitzvot; within the other movements, while doing is better than not doing, you're not being a good Jew if you don't specifically go down the "divine will" path (one of the Rambam's 13 principles).

Now as a Reform Jew who does understand some mitzvot to be binding on me (not just good ideas), I'm in a weird place in my movement. (I wrote about this in another reply.)

I would submit that there will always be a need for something like Conservative Judaism, because the fruits of historical thinking applied to Jewish religious development are simply too powerful to be wished away even by those who still feel God is present in the mitzvot as a whole.

Thank you for helping me to understand this.

isn't it a key tenet of Conservative Judaism (on paper, at least) that there is a halachic system, given by God, that is binding on all Jews?

Yes, that's absolutely true, but what I'm saying is that exactly how you feel you're obligated doesn't have a lot to do with why you pick a given denomination. I think it has more to do with what you believe about the nature of Torah than about how you're obligated to mitzvot. And those are obviously related things, yes. But it's critical historicism and not the rationale behind the mitzvot that I think are at the heart of what CJ is all about.

This article is still not available online, btw. (I bookmarked your post to look for it later.) I have succumbed and will be subscribing to the magazine instead, with a request to get the past two issues so I can read it. :P

Boy was I surprised to get comment email for this post. :-)

I'm sure I have the paper copy...somewhere. (Neatness, when it comes to paperwork, is not one of my virtues.) If you want me to send you a copy, please ping me after the flurry of holidays.

If you could, please do! (I respond now out of fear that if I delay I will lose track of the plan.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

mitzvot in Conservative Judaism

no subject

no subject

no subject

rambly but hopefully worthwhile

Re: rambly but hopefully worthwhile

Re: rambly but hopefully worthwhile

Re: rambly but hopefully worthwhile

part 2

Re: part 2

Re: part 2

Re: part 2

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: part 2

Re: part 2

Re: part 2

fidei defensor, continued

Re: fidei defensor, continued

Re: fidei defensor, continued

Re: fidei defensor, continued

Re: fidei defensor, continued

Re: fidei defensor, continued

Re: fidei defensor, continued

Re: fidei defensor, continued

Re: fidei defensor, continued

Re: fidei defensor, continued

Re: fidei defensor, continued

Re: fidei defensor, continued

Re: fidei defensor, continued

Re: fidei defensor, continued

no subject

no subject

no subject