[net.religion.jewish] Conservative Judaism - <long quote at end !!>

mab@hou4a.UUCP (Michael Brochstein) (01/03/85)

	It was inevitable that this can of worms would come up eventually.
It is unfortunate that most of Jewry is not more familiar with Conservative
Judaism if for no other reason than mis-information would be minimized.
Baruch Sterman although well intentioned I am sure, has mistated (in my 
opinion) a few things concerning Conservative Judaism in his response to
another article on this topic.

	Let me start out by saying that there is unfortunately two sides
to the Conservative movement.  There is the Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS)
version and the congregational version.  The JTS (or Camp Ramah) version is
composed of strict observance of the laws (kashrut, shabbat, etc...) whereas
the average congregant of the average Conservative congregation is not very 
learned or observant.  Please do not judge the movement by the 
average congregant since we live in a free country where noone can force 
another to be observant etc.  (Conservative as well as Orthodox congregations
will accept the membership dues of prospective members without hiring an 
investigator to check religious observance etc.) I can not defend the 
average congregant but I will speak up here for the part of the movement 
which subscribes to the JTS version.  Be assured that the movement tries to 
teach and inspire their members to become learned and observant. 

1. The halachic process is alive in the Conservative movement.  There is
(really) Conservative responsa today on various topics.  The people
who contribute to this are quite learned and are well beyond knowing the 
minimum of gemara needed to write with authority on a subject.  I suggest
for those who are interested that they read the opinions of the Law committee
of the Rabbinical Assembly and the seminary (JTS) faculty (especially the 
Talmud deaprtment).

	The only simple innovation that the Conservative movement has decided
that I think I understand well enough to relate as an example is the kashrut
of wines made in USA.  It was decided that these were kosher because human hands
NEVER touch the grapes or anything else in the process of making these wines
since the machinery is so automated in all phases of production in the US.  	
I personally don't drink non-hekshered wines but this is not because I think
their reasoning is faulty.

2. Whether a rabbinical student at the Seminary (JTS) needs to learn 50 
or 100 pages of Gemara is irrelivent for a few reasons.  The truth is that
(sad as it is) in most Conservative Congregations there is usually never
asked of the rabbi any questions that necessitates a large amount of gemara
learning.  The questions could probably be answered by most knowledgable 
laymen.  The questions of kashrut in a synagague catering hall are usually
looked after by the mashgiach of the official caterer.  Questions concerning
synagague practice are usually routine.  Anyone who has read Lamm's book
on the Jewish Way in death could answer most of these questions.
A lot of questions are answered by a Law committe of the Rabinnical Assembly
(a sort of union of Conservative rabbis).  

	Yes I have also heard of local Conservative congregations who 
permit things that most disagree with.  How can they do this?  They 
decide this locally and these things should be a reflection of this 
particular rabbi and congregation and not of the entire Conservative movement. 
Certainly in Orthodox Judaism there is not a uniformity of opinion on all
topics and therefore I don't necessarily agree with congregations which 
have unconventional practices.
	
	One point which I am sure will prompt disagreement from some is that
the practical needs of a congregation for a rabbi today (in the Conservative
movement) is for someone who is an administrater, educator, counselor, model 
of moral, ethical, and religious behavior, and a of course a source of 
learning sufficient to guide the religious life of a congregation.  As I
stated above, a rabbi does not need much gemara for his job.

3. I have not studied many Conservative halachic opinions but of the ones
I have read they have all quoted sources very carefully.  The last few
I read were on the topic of womens ordination (please lets not start this
debate) by Professors Joel Roth, David Wiess Halivni, and Yitzchak Francus
of the Talmud department.  Check them out and then you might change your 
opinion.

4. On the topic of Taharat Hamishpacha (or any other observance), I believe 
that this is a personal matter and whether a certain Conservative rabbi's 
wife follows it or not is not relavent to the entire Conservative movement.

>>The Conservative point of view seems to be misunderstood by many of its
>>detractors.  Its only departure is to say that we can still make halokho if we
>>ground our decisions in Jewish sources.  The conservative movement allows
>>itself some flexibility to struggle with both the laws as they stand and the
>>original intents of those laws, to the extent that they can be determined.  In
>>reaction, the Orthodox sector has become less flexible and in general more
>>... I see no reason
>>to say that Conservative Jews have deserted Judaism or tradition.
>
>I have come to the conclusion that Conservative
>Judaism is at best misguided and perhaps hypocritical and deceitful.
>...
>Conservative claims to work within the accepted traditional system
>of halacha - the difference being that they are much more willing 
>to accept modern intellectual developments and use them to weigh
>the issues more objectively.  ....
>In reality, however, Conservative Judaism is misrepresenting itself.
>To receive ordination from the Semanary one must have learned at least
>50 pages of Talmud. How can one profess to know anything at all about
>the traditional Jewish legal system after 50 blatt of Gemara?
>In a previous article I argued that law can only be changed by those
>who have studied it thoroughly. This is an obvious point.
>
>Over the past sixty odd years, of all the responsa coming out of JTS,
>one - the Lieberman Ketubah - was accepted by the Talmud faculty there.
>In every other case the Talmud faculty was not even consulted. What 
>kind of respect for the law is that? Where is the honesty? Why not
>test your theories with the true scholars in the field? The responsum
>on using electricity on Shabbat, for example, is a farce. One position,
>based on another single opinion is quoted and accepted. An Orthodox
>responsum will typically quote all the sources, then fight to show
>that the author's opinion is correct. For all the nonsense about
>intellectual honesty and historical influence, what right does a
>shul rabbi have to tamper with the legal system without consulting the
>experts?
>
>I was speaking with a graduate of the Semanary about Taharat Hamishpacha-
>laws of family purity. She said that although her husband was ordained
>by JTS she was did not go to go to the Mikvah. This law is biblical - there
>is absolutely no way out of that. She felt that since these laws came
>about because of superstitious assumptions, pagan influences, ancient
>social customs and what not, she need not follow them. Amazing. A few
>courses in Bible and already she's able to determine the reasons for
>one of the most complicated and crucial of Jewish rituals and reject it. One
>that Masters and Johnson called the greatest method of keeping the vitality
>and excitement in a marriage that they had found in all their years of
>research.
>
>At least Reform Judaism has the honesty to admit that it rejects the
>halachic system. I disagree with its views regarding the nature of
>Judaism, but at least we're being honest. I'm tired of hearing            
>JTS students tell me that Orthodoxy doesn't address this or that,
>but Conservative, in it's zeal to save Judaism from becoming petrified,
>has returned to the age of dynamic halacha. There is not one issue
>that Conservative Judaism has raised that is not addressed by Orthodox
>thinkers. Sometimes, after careful study, Orthodoxy may determine that
>leniency is not the best option, but intellectual honesty searches
>for truth, and is guided by objective evaluation, is it not? Scholarship
>insures that one is seeking truth and not merely rationalizing.
-- 
Michael Brochstein     AT&T Information Systems, Holmdel, NJ
ihnp4!hou4a!mab        (201) 834-3482