Oct 21 2007
Given some reading I have done lately, and the degree to which I have enjoyed recent conversations I have had with friends about this topic, I thought it might be interesting to write about why, despite the fact that I am a member of a Reform/Reconstructionist shul, I am NOT a Reform Jew.
The Reform Movement is, and always has, been based upon the principle that the body of Jewish Law is not binding on each Jew, but the mitzvot are to be engaged as a matter of individual choice. Each individual Jew has the authority to determine what is or isn’t an expression of Jewish tradition to which he or she should adhere. Note that the choice is not limited to which mitzvot one will take up, but whether or not they are binding in any way beyond personal choice. The distinction here is very important. If the principle was that Reform Jews are free to decide what to do in terms of observance, it would not be a unique perspective; every Jew makes this choice hundreds of times every day. But it is something else entirely to place in the hands of each individual the authority to decide what is or is not obligatory. In other words, Reform Judaism - as I understand it - basically declares Halakha irrelevant to modern life, and each person therefore decides for him or her self what Judaism should look like.
Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the President of the Union for Reform Judaism, says it like this:
“We’re a mitzvah-oriented tradition, not halacha-oriented…If you take it all upon yourself as an obligation rather than as a choice, you’ve reached the point at which you’re no longer a Reform Jew.”
Hence the title of this post: I am not a Reform Jew, according to this definition. I have no problem with other Jews feeling more comfortable with this understanding of the Tradition, and this post is not meant to be a polemic or to trash 1.5 million American Jews who are Reform. It is just an explanation of why, for me, this orientation doesn’t work. The following points will hopefully shed some light:
1) Judaism is not a personal spiritual practice, self-help program, or monastic tradition. Although elements of the Tradition speak to all of these, Judaism has always been about community. We need a minyan - 10 adult Jews - for many prayers and for a Torah service. The rabbis have taught “kol Yisrael areivim zeh l’zeh,” which means roughly, “All Israel is responsible for one another.” Each Jew is part of K’lal Yisrael, we are all in the same boat, we are in this thing together. Judaism is the road map for the journey we are on as a people, and our Tradition does not provide for going it alone. Because of this connection we all share, we are not, in my mind, free to determine anything beyond how we, individually, will act. We cannot change the route for everyone. Rabbi Morecai Kaplan, in his book “The Future of the American Jew,” wrote: “Jewish life [is] meaningless without Jewish law,” and I think he wrote this because he knew that Halakha guided the evolution of Jewish civilization. Here are one Reconstructionist Jew’s thoughts about this.
2) Because Halakha determines what Judaism looks like, and we live in the modern world, there is hard work to do. We cannot check our brains at the door, or openly ignore realities of modern life. Neither can we throw Judaism’s future to the wind and the whims of an assimilation-happy society. Instead, we need a system of Halakha that can adapt; we need a Halakhic process to guide the development of Judaism. Central to this idea is the necessity for people fluent in Hebrew, Judaism’s primary sources, and a modern understanding of the world. Basically, we need rabbis who have not studied ONLY Judaism, but who are committed to its future enough to study it in depth, and to wrestle with our Mesorah while preserving it.
3) As vital as lay Jews are to Judaism - it doesn’t exist without us :)! - we are, by and large, not Jewishly educated with enough depth to make these decisions. Most of us do not have the background in the sources of our tradition to judge what the breadth of Judaism says about given questions of ethics, law, etc. Contrary to how statements like this are often taken in me-centered societies like ours, this is not a put down. It is just a statement of fact. This is especially true in non-Orthodox streams that have all but eliminated local and private rabbinical ordination in favor of big institutions like JTS and HUC. While our input should be valued in the Halakhic process, we should not be the decision makers.
I am not suggesting that I always live my life by every letter of Halakha as determined by my chosen authority, the USCJ Committee on Law and Standards, but I recognize that on some level, this is a template which I should try to follow. This is the difference between only doing things when they feel good on the one hand, and doing them whether or not they are enjoyable, on the other. Here’s one example. There are plenty of mornings when I wake up and really don’t feel like laying tefillin, but as a male convert to Judaism, that is one obligation I took upon myself. So I do, and even on those mornings during which it is tough to do, I am always glad I did. Kashrut is another example. It is very difficult to get kosher meat where I live, and on the rare occasion in which I eat a non-kosher turkey sandwich or piece of chicken, in the back of my mind I know that ideally, I would refrain until I can get kosher alternatives. There is always the ideal to work toward, and that is the point of Halakha.
So, even though I get the magazine as a member of a Reform congregation, I find that a Reform approach to Judaism is not what makes the most sense to me. For me personally, a Halakhic process is very important, and the existence of targets to aim at in terms of observance is helpful. Hopefully in the future I will be making a post on progressive understandings of Halakha, and I would like to read about how people think about this in their own experiences.
kol tuv!
Yair
Loading ...
“There is always the ideal to work toward, and that is the point of Halakha.”
I agree. Very well thought out and written post. Thank you for it.
I am a super fan of this blog post. I’ve often written about how, although I necessarily refer to myself as a Reform Jew, and that I’m a member of a Reform shul, I do not necessarily “identify” as a Reform Jew.
I was hoping to blog on this, and perhaps I still will … though I might wait a bit so as to not be repetitive! It stems from a date I once went on with a Modern Orthodox Jew, who, when I said I was Reform but maintain several mitzvot denied by the bulk of Reform Jewry, said “So … why are you Reform again?”
Thanks for this post!
Tamara -
Thanks for your response, I’m glad that you enjoyed the post!
Chaviva -
I think there are lots of people for whom Reform is the only local choice, and so they become members because it is the only Jewish show in town. I know that if there was a USCJ or indie shul in my city, I’d most likely have joined there before the Reform one. I love my fellow Jews in my community regardless of their persuasion, so it’s not about the people… just about resources, practice, and philosophy.
kol tuv,
Yair
Your description of Reform legal philosophy fits the explanations of it i got from Reform or formerly-Reform people, but BZ at MahRabu claims that Reform does believe in some kind of non-choice halakhic obligations and halakhic system/process.
Hey Steg care to link to the actual post on MahRabu that makes the “claim”? I for one would be interested in reading it!
Actually never mind Here it is!
BTW Yair great post not only did you imo hit the nail on the head you stole my post idea!!! I mean right down to the Yoffie quote. And to be honest, I’m glad because you did a much better job than I likely would have!
I have some thoughts that i would like to share but I don’t have time just now. Hopefully tomorrow!
Hi Steg,
I checked out that link, and I think that while it was an interesting read, it does not change my assessment that Reform Judaism threw out halakha. There are a couple of reasons I believe this is the case, and I will spell them out below:
1) The President of the URJ, Rabbi Yoffie, said, to paraphrase, “if you think the mitzvot are binding, you aren’t a Reform Jew.” However, as understood by Conservative/Masorti and the spectrum of Orthodox, the mitzvot ARE binding, and they are enshrined in Halakha.
2) The observance of binding “ethical mitzvot” while ignoring optional “ritual mitzvot” is not a Halakhic understanding. That is a personal choice over what is binding made by the individual, not a series of decisions written by qualified poskim. Sporadic observance of some parts of Halakha does not make a movement Halakhic. See my next point.
3) Halakhic Judaism - Orthodox or Conservative - requires a Halakhic process in which individuals (Rabbis) qualified to make decisions on matters of Law - Poskim - determine how Jewish Law applies to circumstances as they arise. For example, the Conservative movement’s Halakhic body, the Committee on Law and Standards, passed the following ruling regarding the kashrut of wines: (http://rabbinicalassembly.org/teshuvot/docs/19861990/dorff_wines.pdf)
The CLS passes majority and minority opinions when there are disagreements among seated members, and each community’s rabbi is the one who makes the decision which ruling will apply locally. This is a system that makes use of fluency in the Tradition and years of rabbinical training, as opposed to Reform, which has abandoned any sort of true Halakhic process; if the mitzvot aren’t binding for a particular movement - which is the case for Reform, according to Rabbi Yoffie - then they are not a Halakhic movement, no matter how much some of them like the idea of being one. In such a movement, “responsa” are actually just suggestions, because there is either Halakha, or there isn’t. Note that I didn’t say THE Halakha, as there isn’t a single accepted authority among Halakhic Jews. But the thing we share in common is the commitment to the process through which decisions about Law are made.
Thanks for the link though, it was an interesting read, and it does capture how Reform is, I think, slowly working its way back toward embracing traditional practice.
Yair
Hi Avi,
Thanks! I know you and I are in agreement about this issue, and I am looking forward to reading your comments. I have a lot of respect for Rabbi Yoffie, I think he is a dynamic leader and a real dedicated guy, so I think his statement about mitzvot and the orientation of the URJ is worth taking literally. It illustrates well why the URJ is not a Halakhic movement, and I respect him for not pulling any punches.
kol tuv,
Yair
Steg and Avi-
Thanks for the links. Also, here is the post that addresses the Yoffie quote in question.
Yair-
I think you’re conflating individual decision making with “only doing things when they feel good”. You are entirely correct that most Jews (and most Reform Jews) are not educated enough to make informed decisions, but this is only a practical problem, not a theoretical problem (just as the fact that most Conservative Jews don’t know or care what the CJLS says does not itself poke any holes in Conservative Judaism as an ideology). In theory, we should be educated enough to make halachic decisions, and once we make those decisions, we are bound by them, not “only doing things when they feel good”.
Hi BZ, you’re welcome! I have a few thoughts on your comment directly above, but because it is addressed to Yair, I think I’ll let him have a chance to respond before I do.
Yair
I for one think you hit the nail right on the head with your post however I’m going to limit my feedback to the Rabbi Yoffie comment. I can remember reading the article with that quote earlier this summer and thinking to myself ” well that pretty much has settled it for me. I’m not a Reform Jew”. This is because theologically I do feel a commitment to a standard that is larger than myself. Having said that, I still feel it necessary to exercise a certain amount of personal autonomy, in terms of how I go about meeting that larger standard/commitment. Now from a practical perspective my commitment to observance meant that I had/have outgrown Reform shul’s. For example I keep kosher and that unfortunately means that at most Reform shul’s I can’t eat the food that is served.
Anyhow I’m late for a meeting so I’m going to wrap it up here.
But before I go and as I’ve already mentioned great post and excellent discussion you’ve got going here.
Hi BZ,
Let me try to respond to a couple of the things you said:
You wrote:
“I think you’re conflating individual decision making with “only doing things when they feel good”.”
This is probably a fair assessment of my statement, so I should clarify that I do not suggest Reform Judaism is all about doing what feels good. Rather, I meant that in Reform, there is not a logical standard other than personal choice employed when deciding what to do. And that is not Halakhic Judaism. You can’t say parts of the law are binding and others are not without some rational approach to deciding which are and which aren’t, and personal choice does not fit such a requirement; personal choice implies that the standards are NOT binding in a Halakhic sense, and each individual observes what he or she feels is important. That is the sense of Rabbi Yoffie’s comments, as I read them.
You wrote:
You are entirely correct that most Jews (and most Reform Jews) are not educated enough to make informed decisions, but this is only a practical problem, not a theoretical problem (just as the fact that most Conservative Jews don’t know or care what the CJLS says does not itself poke any holes in Conservative Judaism as an ideology).
Actually, I think it is a theoretical problem, but only if a Reform Jew tries to argue that Reform Judaism has anything to do with Halakha. The personal choice emphasis in Reform Judaism means that a system of law does not carry more weight than personal decisions - individual choice matters more than community standards. The very definition of a Halakhic Judaism is a Judaism based upon a system of Halakha, and such a system is not based on what I choose to do, but on endorsed opinions of recognized authorities. Thus, where a Reform Jew can say that it is OK to eat treif because the laws of kashrut are only as binding upon them as they decide to observe them, a Halakhic Jew will say if they eat treif, they really shouldn’t, because the laws of Kashrut are still the ultimate ideal to which they should hold. The lack of knowledge IS a theoretical problem if Reform Jews try to claim fealty to Halakha, because they are placing themselves in the role of Poskim - if only to themselves. Which is why Rabbi Yoffie said Reform isn’t Halakhic, and why I am not Reform :).
You wrote:
In theory, we should be educated enough to make halachic decisions, and once we make those decisions, we are bound by them, not “only doing things when they feel good”.
Who do you mean by “we”? Because if you mean that each individual Jew should be, I think we differ. That is the purpose of Halakha - those who choose to dedicate their lives to the study of the Jewish Tradition and the be given the authority to make Halakhic rulings make these judgements, and those of us who are “just” religious Jews follow the Law as our chosen authority interprets it, at least, as you said, in theory. An analogy might be made to the secular court system. Ideally, every American should know the American Constitution, and have a general understanding of law. But that does not mean every American should decide which laws apply to them, and which don’t, or even what the laws mean. First, we haven’t all been trained for such work - we do not all have Juris Doctorates and haven’t passed a bar exam. Second, society has not given us the authority to do so - at least not those of us who haven’t been elected or appointed to a judicial bench, for example.
Whatever the case, I apologize for my comment implying Reform is about doing what feels good only; that’s not what I meant, and I should have clarified myself more. However, I stand by the bulk of my post. And I thoroughly enjoyed reading your arguments and thinking about them!
kol tuv,
Yair
Hi Avi,
I like your statement:
“This is because theologically I do feel a commitment to a standard that is larger than myself. Having said that, I still feel it necessary to exercise a certain amount of personal autonomy, in terms of how I go about meeting that larger standard/commitment.”
This is the difference between a Halakhic outlook and one that isn’t Halakhic. You recognize a “standard that is larger than” yourself, even if at times you chose not to engage it. That recognition of the binding nature of that larger tradition, that you, ideally, would observe it and some day, b’ezrat Hashem, will do so, is a Halakhic commitment, so long as that larger tradition is determined by poskim, which I know is the case for you. You articulated this beautifully, I think. This recognition of that standard is what separates Halakhic (Orthodox, Conservative/Masorti, SOME Reconstructionist) from non-Halakhic outlooks (Reform, Humanistic, other chunk of the Reconstructionists).
Finally, I want to state here to EVERYONE…. I am NOT saying that Reform/non-Halakhic Judaism is bad. I fully embrace my Reform brothers and sisters. What I am saying is that that approach does not work FOR ME, and WHY that is the case. Because our Tradition values multiplicity of opinion, I am sure everyone gets this, but just in case some people felt I was picking on them, I offer my apologies for poor articulation, and I hope the thrust of my comments is now better understood.
kol tuv!
Yair
Yair
I’m glad that you like my point/statement and I don’t think you came as thought you were calling reform wrong. Just that it wasn’t for you. At least that was take on your post.
Magazine? We have a magazine? Where’s mine?
From the Reonstructionist link that Yair provided, this is really good:
“Kaplan diverges from the Orthodox approach by identifying the Talmud, rather than the Shulhan Arukh or the other medieval law codes, as the foundational halakhic text. While the law codes generally consist of dry, impersonal recitations of legal rules, the halakhic portions of the Talmud generally consist of freewheeling discussions of legal issues, with particular views generally attributed to particular rabbis and with dissenting opinions often respectfully set forth.”
Yes, this is what it means to be a Reform Jew: to follow in the progressive, argumentative tradition of the Pharisees, who resisted accepting a single authority.
I agree with Yair that “Most of us do not have the background in the sources of our tradition to judge what the breadth of Judaism says about given questions of ethics, law, etc.” And that is why I turn to a rabbi with such questions. A reform rabbi.
Hi Avishalom,
Yes my brother, there is a magazine ;). It’s called, ahem, Reform Judaism Magazine, and it comes to members of URJ-affiliated synagogues. I’d go to your shul’s office and find out why you aren’t getting it.
Regarding the post of the text re: the Talmud as Halakhic literature:
I am not sure why this is considered a novel approach. It isn’t as though Conservative rabbanim or their Orthodox counterparts limit themselves to the Shulchan Aruch when making decisions, and the teshuvot of the CJLS frequently cite the Talmud and most of the time consist of majority and minority opinions on any given issue. But I agree with the author of the article that this is a great method for a progressive-oriented Halakhic process.
Finally, it should be pointed out that my arguments for Halakhic Judaism rest on Halakhic Judaism being defined as Judaism built on (1) a SYSTEM of Halakha, an organized method for determining standards - or sets of standards - for the body of adherents, and (2) the mitzvot… all of them… are binding (whether or not people follow them is another story, but it is important to make a distinction between believing they no longer apply, and believing they do, and ideally one would follow them, even if at the present they aren’t doing so). I do not believe a Judaism is “Halakhic” just because people ask the rabbi what to do, although I am glad you do!
Thanks for your comments!
kol tuv,
Yair
Hi
I really enjoyed your post. I am in the process of choosing which form of Judaism to convert to. You said that you go to a Reform shul but if I understand correctly you try to practice in a Conservative way. Does this work out well? Do you find that many other Reform Jews do the same and that you have a community? The communty part is important to me. Also, are you happy with the Reform services? I lean toward Conservative but my son is just under 3 years old and I do not want to get him circumcised at this age. My understanding is that Reform would not require it.
Jim
Hi James,
Thanks for your comments! Your post brought up a couple of thoughts for me:
1) My shul was formed in a merger between two congregations, one Conservative and one Reform, and currently we are affiliated dually with the URJ and the JRF (Reform and Reconstructionist movements). So we have a tradition of being very inclusive with all of these backgrounds. Our services, especially Shabbat AM, are pretty traditional, and although the observance of things like Kashrut and the wearing of a kippah outside of shul are not uniform, any level of observance is respected.
2) This is just my two shekelim, but if I were you I’d go Conservative, at least for the conversion, as Conservatives only recognize Reform conversions done according to Halakha, which means brit milah or hatafat dam brit for men and boys. In terms of identity, the acceptance of the conversion is a big issue, and I am not sure your son would want to be raised through his bar mitzvah in to a Jewish adult only to discover later that he’s gotta go get a brit milah in order to count as a Jew in a Conservative shul. But as the father of two daughters, I didn’t have to deal with this issue for anyone but me, and I was ok for hatafat dam, thanks to medical myth in this country when I was born :). I feel strongly about this, as it is really an issue of connection to Am Yisrael at a basic, organic level, and I think that Reform does a disservice by not requiring it, but that might just be my own mishegoss talking.
Whatever you decide, good luck on your path to joining the Jewish people!
kol tuv,
Yair
Rather, I meant that in Reform, there is not a logical standard other than personal choice employed when deciding what to do.
The standard is thousands of years of Jewish text and evolving tradition, interpreted anew in each generation. Individuals who are interpreting these texts and traditions for themselves should be taking the underlying values seriously in making these decisions, and not merely deciding based on whim.
In the Conservative movement, though the CJLS approves (sometimes conflicting) opinions, individual rabbis are authorized to make halachic decisions for their congregations. Even though (other than on a few politically charged issues) C rabbis aren’t required to follow the CJLS rulings and have the power to make their own independent decisions, you don’t seem to be accusing them of lawlessness in the same way, perhaps because you’re assuming that they’re acting in good faith even when they disagree with the authority structure. Ideally it should be possible to assume the same about Reform individuals (individuals, not just rabbis). And while it may not be reasonable for us all to be highly trained experts, it’s a lot more attainable to expect us to know as much about halacha as the average Conservative pulpit rabbi.
And that is not Halakhic Judaism.
“Halakhic” simply means “legal”, in contrast to “aggadic” which means “narrative”. It may not be in accord with your conception of how halacha should work, but if it contains directives on how to live, then it’s not “not halachic”. See this post by Jonah Steinberg for a perspective on why progressive Jews (including those who don’t defer to other living authorities) shouldn’t abandon the term “halacha” to describe their practice.
Finally, it should be pointed out that my arguments for Halakhic Judaism rest on Halakhic Judaism being defined as Judaism built on (1) a SYSTEM of Halakha, an organized method for determining standards - or sets of standards - for the body of adherents,
Rachel Adler, in Engendering Judaism, warns against “methodolatry”:
“[M]embers of a Jewish male elite constructed the categories and method of classical halakhah to reflect their own perspectives and social goals and have held a monopoly on their application. … The method becomes a kind of false god. It determines the choice of questions, rather than the questions determining the choice of method. Questions that do not conform to the system’s method and categories are simply reclassified as non-data and dumped out.”
Legal positivism is one approach to halacha, but it is certainly not the only one; there are other approaches proposed by Adler and others. If you have an approach that you prefer, I have no problem with that, but you exclude many other halachic approaches when you set up a litmus test that requires 1) a human power structure, and 2) an understanding of halacha as a formal system.
(2) the mitzvot… all of them… are binding
But who decides what “all of them” are, and what they mean? There are at least 10 different enumerations of the 613 mitzvot in the Torah, and countless interpretations of each one.
according to Halakha
This begs the question. If you accept the 1893 CCAR responsum on this topic (which is an amazing document on a number of levels; no, I don’t agree with it all), then conversions without berit milah are just fine “according to halacha”, and if you accept Orthodox definitions of halacha, then Conservative conversions are not “according to halacha” (since Conservative rabbis are not considered kosher witnesses, and most Orthodox batei din require converts to take on an Orthodox lifestyle, including sending the children to Orthodox day schools).
Thus, the only context in which Conservative conversions are accepted, and Reform conversions are not, is…. Conservative communities.
Hi BZ,
This is going to be a lazy post, because I am on my way out the door, but a couple of things to consider (First, let me say I enjoy your well thought-out, well argued posts)…
1) Even if the only situation in which Reform conversions are accepted and Conservative are is a Conservative community, that accounts for roughly half of non-Orthodox affiliated Jewry in America, not an insignificant population to discount when one is approaching the prospect of undergoing a conversion.
2) The CCAR responsum that you mention is fine for a Reform community, but it is outside what is the accepted body of halakha for conservative Jews, which is identical to that of Modern Orthodox in terms of CONVERSION - obvious differences exist on who is a rabbi, but Reuven Hammer, a prominent Masorti posek living in Israel, has written:
“The codes do not require that the Beit Din be constituted of rabbis (see Rashi to Kiddushin 62b), nor that the convert be taught more than some of the lenient and some of the stricter mitzvot (Maimonides, Issurei Biah 14:2). However, after the fact, even the lack of a formal acceptance of mitzvot is not enough to void the conversion (ibid 13:17).”
See whole article in the Jerusalem Post: http://www.masorti.org/media/12142005_jp.html
I’ll comment on the rest later… but I really enjoyed your post!!
kol tuv,
Yair
BZ,
Ok, I read that Jonah Steinberg piece, and it was really well done. I think that I mostly agree with him, and you, but let’s look at something to illustrate. He wrote:
“I mean halakha as the creative project of seeking right ways and of working to practice them – halakha the process, not halakha the reified code. Especially with its pretensions to the definite article, “The Halakha,” a stone-faced and very nearly idol-like construction, and a dubious one to boot, has been the blunt point of so many arguments, and has hurt so many, that it may be hard even to hear what I mean by halakha the searching way. I mean the distinctive and dynamic course of each way-seeking and way-making Jewish soul, Jewish family, Jewish community.”
Halakha, as understood by the USCJ, and the Rabbinical Assembly, is NOT “THE” Halakha, but a Halakhic SYSTEM, as I wrote before, much like the Reconstructionist halakha article I linked to describes. Now, the Committee on Law and Standards certainly has its more Orthodox-esque voices in terms of fealty to previous decisions (i.e. Rabbi Joel Roth), and those who tend to be more free ranging in their approach (i.e., Rabbi Elliott Dorff). The publish majority and minority opinions on the shel’ot they hear because that tradition in Judaism is older than the one-book-special that Halakha has become in Haredi communities. (in my conversion study days I talked to a Haredi rabbi about studying, and he suggested I start my journey toward Judaism by reading the Kitzur Shulchan Arukh ://). I agree that that ossified system has done a LOT of damage to people, and that any set of “rules” can become an idol for some. But I am not talking about rules in and of themselves, but rather, the process through which rules are changed. By the definitions I used of Halakha I referred to it as a system, not a static collection that never changes.
What I am not comfortable with is the idea that nothing matters, nothing is binding, and anyone can make any decision they want and call it Judaism. So, for example, someone could decide they really like having an evergreen with lights on it “around” Hannukah, and decide that in addition to the eight candles, they’ll have an Xmas tree, and call it it observance of Hanukkah. Or they could decide that a really neat thing might be to sacrifice a squirrel on a stone alter in the back yard, and in the world without and Halakhic authority other than the individual, that can become somebody’s legitimate expression of Judaism (A Reform rabbi actually said this to me at one point). That isn’t ok, as far as I am concerned, and I don’t see how one can be intellectually honest and say that Reform has any defense against that, given the stress placed on personal choice. After all a CCAR “responsum” isn’t really considered binding… it’s more of a suggestion, right?? A Reconstructionist might say, “well, if the Jewish People’s evolving religious civilization decides sacrificing squirrels is important, then the Jewish people decide,” and as much as I disagree with that, I understand the logical consistency of the position. But I do not see what argument Reform can make against something like that other than “That’s not my choice, but if that’s what does it for you, go ahead,” or “the CCAR discourages that, but you have to decide.” I know it’s a far-out example, but it helps illustrate the point I think.
Let me admit that I think personal choice is important in that people should know WHY they observe particular mitzvot, and they shouldn’t take them on if they aren’t ready. But even the Orthodox largely believe that.
Now, about this point:
“Rachel Adler, in Engendering Judaism, warns against “methodolatry”:
“[M]embers of a Jewish male elite constructed the categories and method of classical halakhah to reflect their own perspectives and social goals and have held a monopoly on their application. … The method becomes a kind of false god. It determines the choice of questions, rather than the questions determining the choice of method. Questions that do not conform to the system’s method and categories are simply reclassified as non-data and dumped out.””
I am not arguing that Halakha has traditionally been less conscious of women’s input and needs. But, then again, I am not Orthodox, and the halakhic body to which I look includes female rabbis in the decision making. I am not arguing for Ultra-Orthodoxy, but Conservative/Masorti approaches to Halakha, which are NOT male-centered.
But while we are on the topic, let me just say that I think this argument is not a terribly good one, because by extension it implies that women who follow such a “classical” halakhic system are blinded, bound, stupid, or superstitious. Seriously. Either they haven’t seen the light or they are being forced to stay there. And that ignores completely the fact that many brilliant female scholars of Torah, Talmud, Midrash, etc… women who have Ph.D.s in the stuff and teach at places like Hebrew University, Bar Ilan, and the Pardes Institute, good, strong, intelligent Jewish women, are Orthodox. Why, if “Classical” Halakha is an ossified, chauvanistic system, do these brilliant women stay? If anyone actually asks THEM, and takes their word for it, they say that the Tradition is important to them, and Halakha is important for myriad reasons. Frankly, I think that sometimes progressive Jews are really paternalistic in their assessments of Orthodox and Haredi women. Here’s a cool place I’d like to study where some of these topics could be explored:
http://www.pardes.org.il/about/faculty/
Anyway, that’s what I’ve got for now. I hope you realize that from my perspective, this is a good, friendly argument, and that, again, I am not arguing that Reform is wrong, just that to me, it is less comfortable than a Rabbi Dorff-like Conservative/Masorti outlook.
kol tuv!
Yair
What I am not comfortable with is the idea that nothing matters, nothing is binding, and anyone can make any decision they want and call it Judaism.
I don’t think anyone is promoting this idea. (I’m not, anyway.) This is what I have written before on this topic:
===============
If Reform Judaism believes that halakhah is interpreted autonomously by each individual, then does Reform Judaism stand for anything? If you and I have different interpretations of halakhah, then do we have anything in common?
Yes. Not halakhah but aggadah. Despite diversity in Jewish practice, Reform/liberal Judaism has expressed a relatively coherent aggadah, so that liberal Jews can agree on Jewish values. (And if aggadah is going to steer halakhah, then this puts some constraints on how halakhah can develop, avoiding the “anything goes” situation that some fear.)
In contrast, perhaps Orthodox Judaism has (relatively) more uniformity in halakhah and less uniformity in aggadah.
===============
Adler’s critique was directed not only at Orthodox Judaism, but specifically at Conservative voices like Roth and Dorff. Even if the Conservative movement says that women can do X, it still starts from the basic premise that in the state of nature they can’t, then looks for legal loopholes to prove otherwise.
And I brought this quote not only to talk about gender issues, but other issues that I find to be overly constrained by “the system”. For example, the categories of work that the rabbis prohibited on Shabbat reflect the realities of an agricultural economy, and I think contemporary urban Jews need new categories that reflect our own realities during the other 6 days of the week. This requires not merely trying to fit modern technologies into the rabbinic categories, but going back and figuring out the values by which the rabbis generated those categories in the first place.
Again, you don’t have to agree with this approach, but my point is this is still an approach to halacha, and not just anarchy.
BZ,
Point taken. I think that just as you said earlier most Conservative/Masorti Jews don’t observe Halakha in a way the movement ideology is committed to doing, the same is true of Reform Jews and the approach you describe. I can see the logical consistency in yours to a degree, but, funny enough, I think to work it would actually require MORE literacy in Halakha - not just Aggadah - from lay people. While Conservative Jews can read CJLS responsa, Reform Jews would have the responsibility of looking deeply in to each issue and deciding. In my experience, this is not the case, but if it where, it would be a system that I could get with, at least in theory if not practice. I like to study, and do a lot, but I still am not ready to say that in every area I have the skills necessary to make all the decisions.
Your statement about Aggadah was a good one. I think part of that spirit is what leads Hiloni Jews in Israel to still identify with the Hebrew Bible and our collective Story, if not with religious observance. Some balance is necessary between addadah and halakhah to be sure, and over concentration on one at the expense of the other is potentially dangerous, I think. What is really enjoyable for me personally is to read the writings or hear the teachings of rabbanim who are good at using Aggadah to reinforce Halakha, and vice-versa. Here’s our story, here’s where we come from, so nu, what do we do with it?
Incidentally, I have to agree with you completely about revisiting the Halakha about what is prohibited on Shabbat and what isn’t. There certainly are different issues now. For example, I sit and read and write all week for work, and apart from studying the Parshat Hashavua before Shabbat Shacharit, I don’t want to spend Shabbat studying. However, because of my work schedule, I don’t have much time during the week to do creative things for myself which I enjoy, like Hebrew calligraphy, photography, etc. Now, what is more Shabbosdik, sitting on my can reading because that’s all I can do, even though I do it ALL WEEK for work, or engaging in a meditative and creative art involving holy texts? It seems like an area ripe for revisiting. Another is patrilineal descent. Rabbi Harold Schulweis has recognized this as an issue the Conservative movement needs to address, because, frankly, the reasons for ignoring it are no longer valid, and we have a demographic issue to consider. But besides this, dedicated Jewish fathers who are intermarried should not be made to feel “less Jewish” than Jewish mothers. The only reason for maintaining this law is if you believe the Hassidishe garbage about the soul coming through the mother only, and children of a Jewish father having a “behemishe neshoimeh” as I mentioned in a comment on another post.
Anyway, good discussion, and Shabbat Shalom,
Yair
It’s almost like we need a chat room function … !
LOL, agreed Chavi!
I think to work it would actually require MORE literacy in Halakha - not just Aggadah - from lay people. While Conservative Jews can read CJLS responsa, Reform Jews would have the responsibility of looking deeply in to each issue and deciding.
Yes. I totally agree that this approach demands much more literacy, which doesn’t match the education that most self-identified Reform Jews have.
Oct 22nd, 2007 at 8:23 am
[…] interesting articles over at JewsbyChoice: From Yair in the the North Woods - Why I Am Not a Reform Jew - Even if I Get the Magazine…; And from Yankel the Chabadnik: My Little Shul Part […]