In Defense of Torat Chaim
Rabbi Shai Held has written a beautiful article on chiddush, Jewish authenticity, and gender egalitarianism in response to last week’s Hershel Shachter brouhaha.
Here’s an excerpt, but you should read the whole thing.
One can recoil at Rav Schachter’s words and still be grateful to him for drawing an absolute line in the sand. The world of Jews committed to serving God through a life of Torah and mitzvot is divided between those who believe that gender roles are eternally fixed and immutable, and those who believe that new faces of Torah and halacha are revealed in every generation—as they must, if Torah is to remain a Torat Chaim, a Torah of life, dynamic and alive in every generation.
One can respect the integrity—not to mention the robust clarity– of Rav Schachter’s position. But I wish to make one very fundamental point: the time is long past for Jews to assume that the forces of reaction are somehow “more authentic” or “more religious” than the forces of dynamism, responsiveness, and creativity.
For generations now, those arguing against Chiddush (innovation) in halacha have prided themselves on their insistence that conservatism is just about always the (only) authentic position. There is nothing particularly surprising about that.
But what is surprising—and not just surprising, but profoundly damaging for the prospects of Torah in the modern world—is that those who have argued for Chiddush out of passion and conviction that this is what God wants have largely conceded the point. And thus, countless Torah-observant Jews spend much of their time anxiously looking over their right shoulder, hoping against hope that those on the other side of Rav Schachter’s line will somehow confer legitimacy upon them.
Well said! It’s about time.
If they were comfortable that G-d accepts their choices, that they are standing on a foundation of Torah, they wouldn’t need affirmation from other Jews. They know that their “innovations” are not acceptable, so they are looking over their shoulder waiting for someone to call them on it. Granting “rabbinic” exemptions for people to drive to Shul on Shabbos is not an “innovation”. It’s a desecration that no one with a fear and love of G-d would permit. That happens to be a conservative position I find vastly more serious, and indefensible, than egal practices.
Anonymouse writes:
If they were comfortable that G-d accepts their choices, that they are standing on a foundation of Torah, they wouldn’t need affirmation from other Jews.
Something we agree on!
Anonymouse writes:
If they were comfortable that G-d accepts their choices…they wouldn’t need affirmation from other Jews.
Anonymouse also writes:
Granting “rabbinic” exemptions for people to drive to Shul on Shabbos is…a desecration…
I guess if I accept your first point, then I don’t care about your second point, huh.
BZ, I thought of you when writing that 😉
Who says there’s no exchange of ideas on Jewschool?!
Desh, that’s right. But as this article demonstrates, the opinion of Orthodox Judaism on halacha matters very much to Conservative Jews, because they maintain that they are part of the normative tradition.
In my experience, the average lay Conservative Jew doesn’t know the official Conservative argument to “innovate” driving on Shabbos. They just think that such prohibitions are backward in the modern age, or they take the halacha in a perfectly literal way – “I’m not technically lighting a fire, I’m turning a key”; they don’t understand the process by which halacha against lighting a fire was derived to driving an automobile. Most don’t understand very much about how Rabbinic law is created, and by whom, and for what reason. To know the answers to these questions, you have to study them with proper teachers using proper materials in a proper context.
The problem is that Conservative Rabbis actually do understand these issues, some better than others. That’s why 95% of them (or more?) DON’T drive on Shabbos.
This isn’t about hypocrisy. Hypocricy is a good thing. It gives us an option to do an exceptional thing we wouldn’t normally do, like wrapping tefillin one time, when you never did it before. I come from a Chabad background. I drove on Shabbos at some point, and I thought I would keep driving on Shabbos at some point. Becoming more Shabbos-observant was a slow and painful process of making individual, increasingly less hypocritical choices that I’m still making today. But I never needed a gimmick to explain my actions away, or to justify them as conforming to the will of G-d.
The “innovations” of Conservative Judaism are just that, gimmicks. No one really believes in them, which is why Conservative Jews keep looking over their shoulder at how the Orthodox will judge them.
The Reform’s answer to this is to cut themselves off completely from historically normative halacha. Some of them still care about what the Orthodox say, others don’t, and others, like BZ, seem to relish the fight against certain Orthodox tropes and bubbameises. Still, when push comes to shove, I’ve seen BZ’s carefully constructed arguments taken apart by someone who knows what they’re talking about. One needs a high level of learning to do it properly. The problem is that those people don’t often intersect the world of Jewschool. There are plenty of disenchanted and angry yeshiva drop-outs, though, who learned just enough to convince the completely unlearned that it’s all garbage.
So, the Conservatives are in an increasingly untenable balancing act. They want respect from Orthodoxy, but in some ways they are adopting the language and alterations (which I prefer to “innovations”) of Reform.
But as this article demonstrates, the opinion of Orthodox Judaism on halacha matters very much to Conservative Jews, because they maintain that they are part of the normative tradition.
Um, no. This only applies to those Conservative Jews (who certainly exist, but do not constitute all Conservative Jews) who equate “the normative tradition” with “Orthodox Judaism”.
The Reform’s answer to this is to cut themselves off completely from historically normative halacha.
No, that’s the Orthodox (and sometimes Conservative) caricature of the Reform answer. The Reform answer is that the modern evolution of Jewish practice is historically normative halacha (in the same way that all major streams of Judaism agree that rabbinic Judaism is more normative in the present time than biblical Judaism).
others, like BZ, seem to relish the fight against certain Orthodox tropes and bubbameises. Still, when push comes to shove, I’ve seen BZ’s carefully constructed arguments taken apart by someone who knows what they’re talking about.
I rarely “fight” against Orthodox tropes on Orthodox terms, and those interlocutors rarely “fight” back on my terms, so in most cases, nothing is “taken apart”, we’re merely talking past each other due to not sharing basic premises.
Anonymouse writes:
But as this article demonstrates, the opinion of Orthodox Judaism on halacha matters very much to Conservative Jews, because they maintain that they are part of the normative tradition.
The article doesn’t say anything whatsoever about Conservative Jews. The only affiliations I see are “Sephardic” and “Ashkenazic”. The article is talking about educated Jews who engage directly with the halachic process and halachic sources. You know, sort of like your normative Jews.
BZ- do you really think that Reform Judaism really considers themselves halachic? I mean, if I call Los Angeles “New York”, then calling myself a New Yorker would be true, but… really?
My sense is that the Reform movement simply doesn’t view themselves within a halachah-paradigm. Which is a perfectly honest way to go.
In terms of why Conservative is always looking over its shoulder at Orthodoxy, I would think that the reasons are plain- we’re using the same sources to come to vastly different conclusions. If Conservative Judaism is supposed to be halachic, it would be natural for this to occur.
Josh writes:
BZ- do you really think that Reform Judaism really considers themselves halachic? I mean, if I call Los Angeles “New York”, then calling myself a New Yorker would be true, but… really?
Yes, really. I have a T-shirt from the 1996 NFTY Chicago/Northern Region Summer Kallah that says “Halachah!” (the theme of that kallah) in big letters on the front. Or, for a more serious source, see the introduction (available on Amazon’s “Look Inside!” feature) to Jewish Living: A Guide to Contemporary Jewish Practice by Rabbi Mark Washofsky, chair of the CCAR Responsa Committee (who is a smart guy, despite his resemblance to John Boehner). Some quotes: “Reform halakhah is the literary product of rabbis and thinkers committed to the proposition that Reform religious practice is a form of authentic Jewish practice and therefore ought to be expressed in the language in which Jews have historically asserted and debated their responses to God’s call.” “The Reform movement, over the two centuries of its history, has taken an active participating role in this conversation. It has always concerned itself with matters of halakhah, and the language of halakhah has always served as its means of religious expression.”
In terms of why Conservative is always looking over its shoulder at Orthodoxy, I would think that the reasons are plain- we’re using the same sources to come to vastly different conclusions. If Conservative Judaism is supposed to be halachic, it would be natural for this to occur.
If that’s the case, then one would also expect Orthodoxy to be looking over its shoulder at Conservative Judaism just as much. Well, actually, I suppose that’s what this whole Schachter affair is about…
I rarely “fight” against Orthodox tropes on Orthodox terms
Yes, I know what you mean, BZ. I should actually say that the number of people who have no business making halachic arguments but do so on your blog anyway is staggering. The vast majority are eventually forced into “we’re for Torah and you’re not, so we’re leaving”, which makes your task much easier.
That said, I think you use the “basic premises” argument in a similar way, to evade powerful, logical arguments that are difficult for you to contest. Instead of accepting their viewpoint, you simply close yourself off with, “well, we don’t share the basic premises”.
Saying that you don’t share the basic premises on which 2000 years of study have been built, and then arguing with the end product of those studies, which is normative halacha, is… it’s not disingenuous… what is it… well, it’s curious.
You go to the source texts, but you don’t accept the tradition (those “basic premises”) on which to evaluate those texts, in the context of which the texts were written.
I think you sometimes make very insightful remarks, strong arguments that really connect with Jews who don’t have a background in study. I’ve seen others mimicking your arguments online, so that why I read you, to go to the source, so to speak. What I enjoy more, though, are the times that someone comes along from that tradition – and I’m not that someone – who just washes away the premises on which you structured the argument and shows exactly where you deviated from the mainstream, and why the mainstream didn’t take that approach. That’s when you bring out the “basic premises” and agree to disagree. At least for me, it’s not a satisfactory rebuttal.
People have pointed this out to you on your blog in the past, so I don’t think I’m breaking new ground, and I don’t think it’s necessary to get into a tizzy about it. Just sharing my perspective.
Yes, I know what you mean, BZ.
I’m not sure you do.
That said, I think you use the “basic premises” argument in a similar way, to evade powerful, logical arguments that are difficult for you to contest.
Can you give an example?
on which you structured the argument and shows exactly where you deviated from the mainstream, and why the mainstream didn’t take that approach.
If the “mainstream” is defined by numbers, then the mainstream observes Christianity and Islam. Or, if we’re just looking within the Jewish population, then the mainstream (particularly in the United States) is non-Orthodox and agrees with me. And if the “mainstream” is defined by something other than numbers, then it’s a tautology.
That’s when you bring out the “basic premises” and agree to disagree. At least for me, it’s not a satisfactory rebuttal.
But I was never attempting to rebut or contest it in the first place. I never denied that Orthodox principles (including those about the nature of authority, etc.) lead to Orthodox practice. I’m not starting with Orthodox principles, and therefore I don’t arrive at Orthodox practice. And my posts on these topics are not intended to contest Orthodox practice (for Orthodox Jews). This is difficult for some readers to understand, because they assume that Orthodox Judaism as it exists today is the only possible Judaism that could have arisen from our common source texts, and therefore assume that if I’m writing about those texts, I’m writing about Orthodox Judaism. But that’s simply not what I’m doing most of the time.
In response to Desh, the post connected this article to the Rabbi Schechter brouhaha, which was with Conservative Jewry. It is with that in mind that I made my remarks. Far be it for me to prefer Establishmentarian (us vs. them) framing on matters of Jewry. We’re all individuals, making individual decisions, not cogs in a movement machine.
Anonymouse writes:
Rabbi Schechter […] Conservative Jewry
Freudian?
” This is difficult for some readers to understand, because they assume that Orthodox Judaism as it exists today is the only possible Judaism that could have arisen from our common source texts,…”
If I may, I think you are ignoring the disproportionate influence living in christian europe has had on the formation of reform judaism. Reform Judaism was not a “possible Judaism” in islamic countries because the european influence wasn’t there.
Put simply, there is no common source material. The reform have extra.
If I may, I think you are ignoring the disproportionate influence living in christian europe has had on the formation of reform judaism. Reform Judaism was not a “possible Judaism” in islamic countries because the european influence wasn’t there.
Of course, Christian Europe had substantial influence on pre-denominational Ashkenazi Judaism as well (takkanat Rabbeinu Gershom, anyone?).
Put simply, there is no common source material. The reform have extra.
The Orthodox have extra too, e.g. everything written by Orthodox rabbis after 1800. And, to bring this back to Anonymouse’s point, I certainly haven’t been using the writings of R. Samson Raphael Hirsch or R. Ovadia Yosef to support a Reform perspective.
I certainly didn’t intend to suggest that we share all source material in common, just that we share pre-modern texts.
My point was that the christian source material has taken primacy over Jewish ones. Some of Paul’s criticism of Judaism in the new testament seem to have been echoed by the founders of reform. Especially with respect to Jewish ritual.
The irony is that despite the distance and separation in time sephardi and ashkenazi orthodox don’t view each others judaism es essentially different. Unlike the disagreements Orthodox have with reform. That tells us something.
The last time such disagreements lead to the birth of a new religion. Why should this time be any different? What happens when thanks to patrilineal descent reform becomes majority gentile?
formermuslim writes:
My point was that the christian source material has taken primacy over Jewish ones. Some of Paul’s criticism of Judaism in the new testament seem to have been echoed by the founders of reform. Especially with respect to Jewish ritual.
Evidence?
What happens when thanks to patrilineal descent reform becomes majority gentile?
It is already likely the case that the vast majority of people recognized as Jewish by Orthodox Judaism (i.e., anyone whose mother’s mother’s mother etc. was Jewish, most of whom cannot be counted or identified) are not recognized as Jewish by Reform Judaism.
The last time such disagreements lead to the birth of a new religion. Why should this time be any different?
And one point I think we can derive from R. Held’s article is that if (some) Orthodox Jews decide they want to start a new religion, that shouldn’t bother the rest of us so much.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that R. Held’s portrayal of R. Schachter’s views is pretty much a straw man. Anyone who is familiar with R. Schachter’s pesak and learning knows that, whatever else he is, he is an innovative and creative halakhist. He is a big fan of hiddushim and praises them frequently. Its true that he takes a very lower-case c conservative position on a lot of women’s issues, but I would argue that this is a product of R. Schachter’s conviction that:
1. These particular innovations are very, very bad for the Jews, for a host of reasons, both halakhic and non-halakhic.
2. Even good changes need to meet certain standards and go through a proper process, and these innovations have failed to do so.
I am not saying that anyone has to accept or even care about R. Schachter’s opinion, but if you are going to spend time bashing him, you might as well bash what he actually says. For more info on his views, read the long Teshuva from the 80s on Women’s Tefillah groups in his book Be-Ikvei Ha-Tzon, or listen to his seven part series on the History of Torah She-be’al peh (http://www.yutorah.org/browse/browse.cfm#speaker=80153&category=234612&lang=cfm&organizationID=301).
Full disclosure: I spent a year in R. Schachter’s kollel at YU, although I do not really consider myself a student of his (the kollel is big and I didn’t have very much to do with him at all).
Here’s a Left-MO response to the Held article:
http://morethodoxy.org/2010/05/05/understanding-orthodox-halachic-innovation-rabbi-lopatins-tribute-to-rav-hershel-schachter-shlita/
whats fascinating is that this thread has little to do with actual religious thought, but babbles on about denominations. i guess that is why i wasn’t inspired the speech to begin with.
It is already likely the case that the vast majority of people recognized as Jewish by Orthodox Judaism (i.e., anyone whose mother’s mother’s mother etc. was Jewish, most of whom cannot be counted or identified) are not recognized as Jewish by Reform Judaism.
Source, please.
if (some) Orthodox Jews decide they want to start a new religion, that shouldn’t bother the rest of us so much.
Hahahah! That’s why I love, you, BZ. Well, that’s not why I love you, but it’s why I love to read you. Still, I see the rug sliding out from under you, and quickly. Reform are returning to Jewish ritual in droves – tzitzis, tefillin, mikveh, etc. Baal teshuvah is the wave of the century. We’re experiencing a general, post-modern convergence back to Torah and mitzvos. Keeping the general population, particularly young Jews, from learning the texts for themselves will prove more trying than ever before.
As a steady stream of Jewschool posts have shown, the more you study the texts, the more you have to confront the good-natured shallowness of the “tikkun olam” ideological substitute for faith around which the Reform world is now spinning.
It is already likely the case that the vast majority of people recognized as Jewish by Orthodox Judaism (i.e., anyone whose mother’s mother’s mother etc. was Jewish, most of whom cannot be counted or identified) are not recognized as Jewish by Reform Judaism.
Source, please.
I don’t have data to back it up, but I suspect that the total number of people in the world who are matrilineally descended from Jewish women (which includes the matrilineal descendants (for some 80 generations) of all the Jewish women who converted to Christianity 2000 years ago) far exceeds the total number of people in the world who identify as Jewish.
Keeping the general population, particularly young Jews, from learning the texts for themselves will prove more trying than ever before.
Who is trying to keep young Jews from learning the texts for themselves?
Still, I see the rug sliding out from under you, and quickly.
I’m really not sure which rug you’re talking about. You’re the one who sees a contradiction between Reform Judaism and “Torah and mitzvos”, not I.
I suspect that the total number of people in the world who are matrilineally descended from Jewish women (which includes the matrilineal descendants (for some 80 generations) of all the Jewish women who converted to Christianity 2000 years ago) far exceeds the total number of people in the world who identify as Jewish.
I thought you were making a statement to the effect that Jews by matrilineal descent who don’t participate in Jewish life – whatever level of observance and communal participation – are not considered Jews by Reform.
There are such people on Jewschool, who think that the only gauge of a Jew is whether they practice Judaism, and if they don’t, that they shouldn’t be called Jews.
You raise an interesting question that I’ve had myself. One of Muhammad’s wives was a Jew. Theoretically it may be possible to trace her children down to the present day, mother to daughter, given the strong family tree history that Arabs have preserved.
Also, Palestinians in WB/Gaza have taken Jewish women as wives, particularly in the 60s and 70s, when socialists on both sides intermingled heavily. Arabs go by paternal descent, so they don’t see a problem with it. Just recently, a friend of a friend in Jenin married a girl born to a Jewish mother and a Palestinian father. She actually had trouble getting married because most people still saw her as a Jew, but the man’s family told everyone not to worry because her mother converted to Islam, and the girl was also practicing Islam. So, my Palestinian friend, who knows better, was trying to explain to them that the girl is still a Jew and that her kids will be Jews, but they couldn’t understand it.
I saw an estimate at some point that 2000 Jewish women were taken as wives to Gaza in the 80s. Given an average of 6 to 9 children, there is likely to be tens of thousands of Jews in Gaza alone.
Plus, as you may know, there are entire Arab villages that are known to have been Jewish villages until just three or four centuries ago, at which point there seems to be been a mass conversion for some reason. Every once in a while Haaretz or Ynet will publish a story about them, quoting some old Arab who says that everyone knows their village descends from Jews.
It’s an interesting problem, from a spiritual perspective.