mitzvot in Conservative Judaism
Dec. 4th, 2007 11:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioRabbi 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.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-05 03:11 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-06 04:07 am (UTC)Here's a comment I would ask you (respecting the decision you made) and to
I'm going to put this in a comment to the main post and try to deal with it at greater length there.
Re: part 2
Date: 2007-12-07 03:12 am (UTC)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.
Re: part 2
Date: 2007-12-07 02:29 pm (UTC)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.
Re: part 2
Date: 2007-12-10 02:04 am (UTC)Ah, thanks for the clarification.
(Thanks also for your kind words.)