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.
Re: fidei defensor, continued
Date: 2007-12-07 03:30 am (UTC)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.)
Re: fidei defensor, continued
Date: 2007-12-07 02:15 pm (UTC)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.
Re: fidei defensor, continued
Date: 2007-12-07 02:24 pm (UTC)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.
Re: fidei defensor, continued
Date: 2007-12-10 02:16 am (UTC)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.
Re: fidei defensor, continued
Date: 2007-12-10 02:38 am (UTC)Being within the system is key; that said, the system does not produce single answers most of the time.
Yup.