USCJ Review - Spring 2006
Jewish Law Within Conservative Judaism: An Introduction to The Unfolding Tradition
The Unfolding Tradition
The United Synagogue convention in Boston made it crystal clear that the place and functioning of Jewish law within Conservative Judaism has become a major topic of discussion. Are we a halachic movement at all?
If not, why not, and how should we then use the Jewish tradition to identify Jewish norms of behavior? If we are halachic, how do we reconcile our commitment to historical scholarship, which indicates a heavy human hand in the fashioning of the Torah itself, let alone later biblical and rabbinic books, with our belief that Jewish law is binding and that it is not only human but divine?
These are serious questions that go to the very heart of our identity as Conservative Jews, and it is good that lay Jews are discussing them as vigorously as rabbis do. The depth and breadth of the debate themselves indicate the seriousness with which we take our commitment to Judaism in general and to Conservative Judaism in particular.
As it happens, during the very week of the convention my new book on theories of Jewish law was published. Called The Unfolding Tradition: Jewish Law After Sinai, it focuses on understandings of Jewish law within the Conservative movement. In one chapter, though, I compare Conservative theories to some on our right and our left, for although we gain our identity primarily through what we affirm, we also define ourselves by what we deny.
In the book I first try to bring the subject down to earth, so those with no background in philosophy or law can understand what a theory of Jewish law is and why anyone should care. In the succeeding chapters I describe 15 theories of Jewish law that have been written by Conservative Jews. These include six that were written before 1970 (Frankel, Schechter, Kaplan, Robert Gordis, Agus, Heschel) and, amazingly, nine that have been written since then. Ours is definitely a lively and Jewishly vibrant movement!
The nine new theories include what is, to my knowledge, the first feminist theory of Jewish law, written by Rabbi Alana Suskin as part of an independent study that she did with me during her last year of studies at the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies at the University of Judaism. They also include three different approaches by current Seminary professors - a positivist approach by Rabbi Joel Roth, an anthropological approach by Rabbi Neil Gillman, and an aesthetic approach by Rabbi Raymond Scheindlein. The nine also include varied articulations, each with its own distinctive emphases, of what many would consider more centrist positions within our movement. In alphabetical order, these were written by Rabbis Elliot Dorff of the University of Judaism, David Gordis of Boston Hebrew University, and Louis Jacobs of England. In addition, the book includes a paper by Rabbi Gordon Tucker theologically explaining and justifying the way that the Conservative movement allows for pluralism in making halachic decisions and yet retains the authority of Jewish law, together with another paper by Rabbi Edward Feld of JTS, who claims that we are not, and should not be, a halachic movement altogether but should rather see ourselves as embracing aggadic Judaism. In each case, I summarize the theory, make some comparisons to other theories, and then spell out some of its weaknesses and strengths. Selections from each of the authors' work on Jewish law follow my description and evaluation of it. Finally, after the chapter comparing Conservative theories of Jewish law to those on the right and the left of our movement, I included a chapter that illustrates how Conservative theories of Jewish law function in selected specific legal issues that have been the subject of rabbinic rulings adopted by the Conservative Movement's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards or have been the topics of rabbinic letters that intend not to apply Jewish law anew but to explain it. Although my new book treats deep subjects that most Jews probably have not studied in depth, I wrote it deliberately without using philosophical or legal jargon so that anyone with a college degree or the equivalent should be able to understand it and profit from it.
How Is Jewish Law Related to Conservative Judaism?
In the remainder of this article, I will use material from the first chapter of my book to discuss the general question that the book addresses -- the relationship between Conservative Judaism and Jewish law. As I indicated above, there are at least 15 theories about what that relationship is and should be, but that does not make the movement incoherent. On the contrary, they represent what is alively debate within the parameters that define our movement.
The name "Conservative Judaism" is itself misleading because the word "conservative" is usually used to indicate the opposite of liberal; that is, a position, person, or group that resists change. Most English speakers would associate those labeled "conservative" with particular political, social, and economic positions, and conservative religious groups generally adopt those stances.
As used to describe the Conservative movement, however, the word has a different meaning. Its founders called the movement "conservative" because rather than "reforming" Judaism, as some Jews in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries wanted to do, thus creating the Reform movement, the founders of the Conservative movement wanted to conserve it. That is, from the very beginnings of Conservative Judaism, the objective was to make traditional Judaism live in a modern context. The preamble to the Constitution of the United Synagogue, which was adopted in 1913, summarizes well both the traditional and the modern perspectives and values that Conservative Judaism stands for. It reads,
The purpose of this organization is as follows:
The advancement of the cause of Judaism in America and the maintenance of Jewish tradition in its historical continuity,
To assert and establish loyalty to the Torah and its historical exposition,
To further the observance of the Sabbath and the dietary laws,
To preserve in the service the reference to Israel's past and the hopes for Israel's restoration,
To maintain the traditional character of the liturgy with Hebrew as the language of prayer,
To foster Jewish religious life in the home, as expressed in traditional observances,
To encourage the establishment of Jewish religious schools, in the curricula of which the study of Hebrew language and literature shall be given a prominent place, both as the key to the true understanding of Judaism, and as a bond holding together the scattered communities of Israel throughout the world.
It shall be the aim of the United Synagogue of America, while not endorsing the innovations introduced by any of its constituent bodies, to embrace all elements essentially loyal to traditional Judaism and in sympathy with the purposes outlined above.
Thus the word used for Conservative Judaism in Israel is Masorti, meaning traditional, the word I suggested in 1980 that we North American Jews adopt as well to describe what we stand for. That name is especially appropriate because historically Judaism has not only affirmed certain beliefs and mandated that we behave in a certain way, it has also described a methodology by which Jewish law may and should change over time.
Whatever the name, then - Conservative, Masorti, or Traditional - the point of this form of Judaism is to make Judaism live in our own lives and in those of our descendants by balancing and mixing the traditional with the modern. In each case, achieving the proper balance and mix requires judgment. It is always easiest to understand, explain, and have passion for one or the other of the ends of a spectrum, for then you can embrace that endpoint consistently. It does not require much thought. It is harder to affirm a middle point on any spectrum, for then it is necessary to have the maturity, intelligence, psychological security, and wisdom to exercise judgment and to live with inconsistencies. On the other hand, the great advantage of affirming most middle positions is that life is usually neither one extreme nor the other, but somewhere in the middle. So the neatness, clarity, and psychological security that is sacrificed in taking a middle position is more often than not made up for by the fact that it describes the real world and offers insights as to how to live in it. It may be easier and more comfortable to pretend that the world is simpler and to live your life that way, but ultimately that requires shutting yourself off from the real world. There is a considerable price to be paid for doing so.
In terms of Jewish law, taking a middle position has meant that the Conservative movement is committed to teach Jewish ritual practices and moral norms to Jews of all ages, encouraging them to abide by those laws in both their private and public lives. It also has meant that from time to time the Conservative movement has adopted changes in Jewish practice, adding some things (including bat mitzvah ceremonies, new rituals for the birth of girls, and new prayers for the modern State of Israel), subtracting others (for example, making the laws of bastardy effectively null and void and removing the barriers to women leading Jewish worship), and changing the form of others (adding mixed pews for worship, allowing males and females to study together and use the same curriculum, and making additions to the ketubbah, the marriage document, that protect the woman's ability to remarry in the case of divorce).
Sometimes change has come about through a conscious decision, sometimes through popular custom, and sometimes through both. So, for example, the practice of boys and girls (and men and women) sitting together in the same classroom learning the same subjects has characterized Conservative educational institutions in North America from the movement's earliest years, but, except in the case of admitting women to rabbinical school, it has never been subjected to legal analysis; it is simply the way the Conservative movement carries out Jewish education. Similarly, mixed seating for worship was treated legally only decades after it had become the all-but-universal Conservative practice. Those are good examples of changes that grew out of custom. Most legal decisions, though, are made by local rabbis, who use their rabbinic education and their knowledge of the local context to apply Judaism wisely to it. In addition, the movement has established a Committee on Jewish Law and Standards in North America and a Va'ad Ha-Halakhah in Israel to subject some legal matters to movement-wide analysis, leading to decisions on everything from the kosher status of cheeses to stem cell research and privacy on the internet.
In all cases, in order to conserve Jewish law, Conservative ideology places the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of those who want to change Jewish law rather than on those who want to maintain what has come down to us as our ancestral ways of following God's will. Sometimes, at least in the eyes of most Conservative Jews, that burden can be met, and hence the changes that the Conservative movement has instituted in, for example, the status of women in worship and family law. Any changes, though, occur within the religious and educational context established by Conservative Judaism to encourage commitment to tradition in the vast majority of its principles and practices.
Conservative Judaism is thus an historically authentic form of Judaism - I would say the most historically authentic form of Judaism - because it embraces both tradition and modernity and tries in everything it does to blend the two wisely, just as our ancestors did. In doing so, Conservative Judaism seeks to deepen and broaden Jewish life for us now so that the Judaism we pass on to our descendants can be as rich, vibrant, relevant, and moving as the tradition that our ancestors passed down to us.
Rabbi Elliot Dorff is rector and Sol and Anne Dorff Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the University of Judaism in Los Angeles.
