Religion & Beliefs

POST A COMMENT

• 
  By mikewinddale 7/10/09 at 3:05 a.m. UTC

  Historically, we can certainly distinguish between Reform and Conservative on the basis which you make, viz. formal acceptance of halakhah per se.

  Indeed, whereas Reform began with such incidents as Geiger decrying milah as barbarism, Montefiore calling for Jews to accept Jesus and the Gospels, and Friedlander calling for Jews to convert, Conservative began rather differently.

  The relationship between the German Neo-Orthodox authorities (especiallys Rabbis Hirsch and Hildesheimer) and the Breslau seminary of Frankel (the precursor of JTS) is complex, to say the least. To put it mildly, the Neo-Orthodox saw the Positive-Historical school as nothing but heretical. I’d have more to say, if I were granted about ten pages to make my point.

  But when we look at JTS in America, we find something interesting: two of the most prominent founding members were Rabbis Sabato Morais and Henry Pereira Mendes of Congregation Shearith Israel, the traditional Sephardi shul in NYC. The same Rabbi Mendes, however, not only helped found JTS, but also the OU as well! See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shearith_Israel#Birthing_of_major_Jewish_institutions

  Additionally, Rabbi Dr. J. H. Hertz, the late Orthodox Chief Rabbi of Britain, was JTS’s first graduate. Rabbi Dr. Bernard Drachman, a prominent Hirschian Orthodox rabbi, taught at JTS during its earlier years. (Rabbi Drachman was sent to Germany by his American Reform congregation in order to become a rabbi, but he came back as Orthodox.)

  And for several decades, JTS was practically Orthodox. Between the RA and the Talmudic staff at JTS, the latter were decidedly traditionalist even as the former were far more liberal and agitated for revolutions in halakhah. As long as JTS had the veto in Conservative halakhah (in the CJL – Committee on Jewish Law), Conservative was practically Orthodox. But once halakhah was transferred (in 1948) to a new committee(Committee on Jewish Law and Standards – CJLS), where JTS no longer had exclusive power, Conservative became what it is today. Now that the RA and the more liberal factions of Conservative had an equal say in halakhah (and even a lone minority voice was granted equal legitimacy with the majority opinion), Conservative ceased to be Orthodox.

  (I am relying on "Factors of Traditionalism In Conservative Jewish Law", a doctoral planning by Evan Hoffman.)

  ————————

  Today, Conservative halakhah, however, would be so far from any Orthodox conception of halakhah, that it’s difficult to compare the two. One cannot overstate how egregious, from an Orthodox perspective, the permission to drive a car on Shabbat is. Additionally, one sees very little emphasis on lay-observance in Conservative. Of course, there are many individual observant Jews in Conservative! (I was participating in an Orthodox summer travel camp in Israel, and the rabbi said that a few years prior, they had met a Conservative summer travel camp in Israel, in which all the campers had tzitzit and the like, and appeared more frum than the Orthodox campers.)

  So I’d be very reticent to grant very much legitimacy at all to Conservative as a movement. I’d treat Conservative (and Reform) the way that Rabbi Yehiel Weinberg – the greatest German Orthodox rabbi of the pre-Holocaust generation – did: "To Reform as an institution, nothing; to Reform as individuals, everything."

  It might bear mentioning that personally, I’d associate with YCT (Yeshivat Chovevei Torah), R’ Marc Angel and R’ Avi Weiss, etc., all of whom desire to promote an Orthodoxy that is similar to what Conservative was originally meant to be. (R’ Angel is the rav of Shearith Israel, which is an Orthodox shul, but which originally helped found JTS and the OU, as I mentioned.)

  (I am also generally enamoured with German Neo-Orthodoxy and Turkish/Balkan Sephardism, with a love which cannot be overstated.)
• 
  By Naamah 7/9/09 at 11:40 p.m. UTC

  I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to say that there are two separate religions – i.e. Orthodoxy and all other brands of Judaism.  While it is true that the majority of Reform and Conservative Jews are not halakhically committed themselves, at least the Conservative movement has affirmed the binding nature of halakhah (whether or not you agree with some of their halakhic decisions).  There are quite a few non-Orthodox Jews who practice in a way that is comparable to that practiced by Modern Orthodox Jews. 
• 
  By Herbert Kaine 7/1/09 at 4:23 p.m. UTC

  In 100 years, Orthodoxy will be alive and well. No one will know who David Kelsey was
• 
  By rabeee 6/30/09 at 4:19 p.m. UTC

  David Kelsey wrote: "As there were once in Jewish life. There were the priests, there was the king, there were the rabbis, and there were prophets. Four seperate banches, and they didn’t often see eye to eye."

  That system does not exist since at least of the time of Hasmoneans (c. 140 BCE) when the priests took over the office of the King. But I am sure you can find supporters for your idea, who would advocate going back to the "original" religion of Israel where people were worshiping God and not the rabbis.  

  Just do not forget – in that pre-rabbinic system the Shabbat violators and male homosexulas were supposed to be stoned (and not in a good way). 
• 
  By David Kelsey 6/29/09 at 10:10 p.m. UTC

  mikewinddale,

  You cannot be fundamentalist AND traditionalist; it’s a decision between mutually exclusive alternatives. 

  Wrong. You can be in between, and draw from both the traditional and fundamentalist worlds. Look at the Left-wing ulta-Orthodox (LWUO) and elements of the right-wing Modern Orthodox (RWMO). They even use fundamentalist terminology for the adherants: ben Tora, bas Torah. The exact phrasing of the hardline quiescent fundamentalists, even if they interpret it somewhat differently, to be sure. Never the less, just like the ultra-Orthodox, the focus is often on ever-increasing stringency on the Chukim (irrational laws).

  By that logic, American law is about how to serve congressmen and Supreme Court justices. 
  

   Hardly. There are checks and balances. As there were once in Jewish life. There were the priests, there was the king, there were the rabbis, and there were prophets. Four seperate banches, and they didn’t often see eye to eye. They weren’t supposed to either. Now in the right-wing ultra-Orthodox world (RWUO), rebbes and Roshei Yeshivas have near absolute power.  The reputation of the local synogogue Orthodox rabbi’s authority is assiduously being undermined.

   
• 
  By mikewinddale 6/29/09 at 9:00 p.m. UTC

  "Both are committed to increasingly detailed rabbinical interpretation of Jewish Law." — Then the traditionalists are not really traditionalist. You cannot be fundamentalist AND traditionalist; it’s a decision between mutually exclusive alternatives. If the traditionalists become stringent to the point of fundamentalism, then they cease to be traditionalist.

  Professor Friedman, in fact, puts the matter bluntly: "In my opinion the Eastern European, Ashkenazi character of haredi Jewry remains questionable to this day."
• 
  By David Kelsey 6/29/09 at 3:53 p.m. UTC

  1) What does a page about the Shulhan Arukh have to do with "how to
  serve rabbis"? Check the first sentence of the Shulhan Arukh:

  I’m worried about the rest of it, which codifies Jewish Law according to rabbinical interpretation.

  2) You say "this inherent structural flaw of traditional and
  fundamentalist Judaism", but what do "traditional" and "fundamentalist"
  Judaism have to do with each other?

  Both are committed to increasingly detailed rabbinical interpretation of Jewish Law. Sure, the ultra-Orthodox are muchmore stringent and go further beyond ritual in terms of legislation, but Kiruv remains heavily ultra-Orthodox, and even many Modern Orthodox groups work with and feed them, such as NCSY. 

  Jeff, I should have written secular and Liberal Jews.
• 
  By mikewinddale 6/27/09 at 3:14 p.m. UTC

  Professor Menachem Friedman has written on this topic. See the essays on his page, at http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/so/mfriedman.html

  In particular, see "The Lost Kiddush Cup" and "Haredim Confront the Modern City" and "Life Tradition and Book Tradition in the Development of Ultra-Orthodox Judaism". If anyone thought Haredim represented authentic Torah Judaism, these essays do well to disabuse one of this erroneous notion.

  I am actually in the process of writing an essay of my own on this topic; stay tuned at http://www.jewishideas.org, where it will be – if at all ever – published.
• 
  By mikewinddale 6/27/09 at 3:08 p.m. UTC

  A few things I don’t understand:

  1) What does a page about the Shulhan Arukh have to do with "how to serve rabbis"? Check the first sentence of the Shulhan Arukh: "Be strong like the leopard, fast like the deer, and brave like the lion to do the will of your Father in Heaven". Unless G-d is a rabbi…

  2) You say "this inherent structural flaw of traditional and fundamentalist Judaism", but what do "traditional" and "fundamentalist" Judaism have to do with each other? It is well-known in academic circles that Haredi Judaism has precious little of anything "traditional" about it.

  Professor Marc Shapiro notes ("The Uses of Tradition", review essay, Tradition 28:2):

  In his discussion of the origins of what is popularly known as ultra-Orthodoxy, Silber conclusively shows that in many ways this community, although claiming to be the guardian of tradition, actually presents an entirely new outlook. This is a good illustration of G. K. Chesterton’s well known comment that it is really Orthodoxy which is "the natural foundation of revolution and reform.” (Orthodoxy (Westport, Connecticut, 1974), p. 257.)

  …

  Kaplan’s essay is followed by Menachem Friedman’s "The Lost Kiddush Cup," in which R. Karelitz also plays a great role. Friedman’s concern is with the larger measurements for religious requirements which, through R. Karelitz’ influence, have become standard for the haredi community. What is most significant about this point is that the acceptance of these new measurements required a rejection of many years of family tradition; a step made easier following the destruction of the Holocaust. This illustrates once again how Orthodoxy, rather than being merely the faithful guardian of the past, can also be quite revolutionary and dynamic.

  …

  Basic to the studies of Katz and his students, in particular Moshe Samet, is the awareness that Orthodoxy is not to be identified simply with loyalty to tradition in the time-honored fashion. Rather, Orthodoxy refers to a self-conscious adherence to tradition, in the context of large scale defections from this tradition. As Katz points out, although the Orthodox, as opposed to the Neo-Orthodox, portrayed themselves as nothing more than the guardians of traditional life, this was not at all true since they were, in fact, responsible for many innovations and also developed a new method of confronting the deviant trends (cf the essays of Silber and Friedman, mentioned above).

  Note that the [Ultra-]Orthodox are contrasted with the Neo-Orthodox. In truth, the German Neo-Orthodox and the Sephardi traditionalists are far more authentic and legitimate than the Ultra-Orthodox. In reality, the Haredim are as revolutionary and non-traditional as Reform and Conservative.

Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!