I have already discussed the ideologies of the various non-halachic forms of Judaism in my series "Orthodox and non-Orthodox Judaism". These differing ideologies produced many new concepts of what is a rabbi, as well as great differences in their training. As we have seen, Reform, from its inception, largely rejected the ritual commands of the Torah, stressing the ethical laws only. It also, from the 1700s to the 1930s, tried to mimic Christian styles of worship, and make religion a private matter. Classical Reform even went so far, in many places, as to adopt a Sunday Sabbath! Rabbis' training was primarily in Bible from a historical and archaeological perspective, as well as history, with a smattering of Talmud. Great emphasis was placed on formal philosophy, both Jewish and non-Jewish. The ideas of religious philosophers were greatly emphasized. Rabbis and congregations had great leeway in deciding what they would or would not observe. Since the 1930s, Reform has become ever more inclusive of traditional Jewish ideas and values, albeit not as obligatory halachah. Reform rabbinical schools, since that time, have included more study of Talmud, as well as at least an overview of halachah. There are even classes on Kabbalah and Hasidism. When they reject the observance of one law or another, they now attempt to at least present some Jewish explanation. In my experience with rabbis of various kinds, I have generally found Reform rabbis much more open to considering and discussing Orthodox and Hasidic ideas than Conservative rabbis. They are not committed to the idea that only THEY have it right. I have often been asked to address Reform congregations and groups, and have been warmly received. Although they do not observe anything like I do, they are generally open to new ideas. One must remember, however, that although Reform is open, it gives no place to the sense of obligatory observance that more traditional Jews have. The rabbi, then, is NOT the arbiter of law. Reform rabbis have little training in halachah, and only a smattering of Talmud. They would, in no way be considered rabbinically qualified from an Orthodox perspective.
Conservative is another story. It has its roots in the German Wissenscahft school, The emphasis was clearly on history and the development of ideas, rather than on the ideas themselves. The Conservative rabbinate is, in my experience, very elitist. They are convinced that only they have the answers, with Reform and Orthodox hopelessly chasing their tails. Rabbinical studies are primarily on the study of Bible and how it evolved, and the in-depth study of Talmud; not in terms of its contents, but rather the underlying social and political currents that formed it. One twentieth-century Conservative scholar, who felt that they had actually gone too far in this, quipped: "if you want to know what Abayei (third century) said, go to Yeshiva University. If you want to know what he wore, come to us". Since the 1950s, and much more so since the 1980s, Conservative rabbis have used this idea of historical development not only as hindsight, but as foresight. If we are seeing Judaism as the result of historical development, we can further that development by making new laws and practices, declaring even Biblical laws as no longer being applicable, due to shifting social norms. One much more traditional scholar of my acquaintance, who was on their Committee for Laws and Standards, would often say derisively "OK, what are we abolishing today?" In the field, there are many different types of Conservative rabbis. Some are more didactic. Some are more social-conscience oriented. Some are very political. Some are genuinely spiritual. Some are defenders of Tradition. In smaller, outlying communities, Conservative rabbis must also accommodate Orthodox Jews, too few in number to form their own synagogues. In these places, Conservative is barely distinguishable from Orthodox. There is a huge spectrum of beliefs and practices, some very close to Orthodox, some very close to Reform. Alas, those trained in the recent two decades are likely to see all religions as of equal value, with our preference for Judaism being merely cultural. Many remain traditional, to one degree or another. Whereas Reform has been moving over the last decades closer to the Right, Conservative has been drifting more to the Left. Although I have met Conservative rabbis who were open to discussion, this has been the exception rather than the rule. There is, in my opinion, an exaggerated concept of "Hasagat Gevul" (Literally, invading borders, essentially "turf") that bristles at other rabbis or groups trespassing on what they feel is their territory. Conservative has, in the last 40 years, gone from the largest faction in American Jewry to the smallest. Why this is so is subject to interpretation. The most common explanation is that in the mid-twentieth century, there was a generation that had grown up with at least the trappings of traditional Judaism, that sought a happy compromise between being Jewish and being a modern American. A generation later, Jewish tradition had mostly been forgotten, and was seen as irrelevant.
In my next installment, I shall deal with new concepts and practices of ordination in the Orthodox community, including "honorary" ordination. Is it a good or a bad thing? I will also touch upon the scandalous subject of purchased ordination. Next time!
Conservative is another story. It has its roots in the German Wissenscahft school, The emphasis was clearly on history and the development of ideas, rather than on the ideas themselves. The Conservative rabbinate is, in my experience, very elitist. They are convinced that only they have the answers, with Reform and Orthodox hopelessly chasing their tails. Rabbinical studies are primarily on the study of Bible and how it evolved, and the in-depth study of Talmud; not in terms of its contents, but rather the underlying social and political currents that formed it. One twentieth-century Conservative scholar, who felt that they had actually gone too far in this, quipped: "if you want to know what Abayei (third century) said, go to Yeshiva University. If you want to know what he wore, come to us". Since the 1950s, and much more so since the 1980s, Conservative rabbis have used this idea of historical development not only as hindsight, but as foresight. If we are seeing Judaism as the result of historical development, we can further that development by making new laws and practices, declaring even Biblical laws as no longer being applicable, due to shifting social norms. One much more traditional scholar of my acquaintance, who was on their Committee for Laws and Standards, would often say derisively "OK, what are we abolishing today?" In the field, there are many different types of Conservative rabbis. Some are more didactic. Some are more social-conscience oriented. Some are very political. Some are genuinely spiritual. Some are defenders of Tradition. In smaller, outlying communities, Conservative rabbis must also accommodate Orthodox Jews, too few in number to form their own synagogues. In these places, Conservative is barely distinguishable from Orthodox. There is a huge spectrum of beliefs and practices, some very close to Orthodox, some very close to Reform. Alas, those trained in the recent two decades are likely to see all religions as of equal value, with our preference for Judaism being merely cultural. Many remain traditional, to one degree or another. Whereas Reform has been moving over the last decades closer to the Right, Conservative has been drifting more to the Left. Although I have met Conservative rabbis who were open to discussion, this has been the exception rather than the rule. There is, in my opinion, an exaggerated concept of "Hasagat Gevul" (Literally, invading borders, essentially "turf") that bristles at other rabbis or groups trespassing on what they feel is their territory. Conservative has, in the last 40 years, gone from the largest faction in American Jewry to the smallest. Why this is so is subject to interpretation. The most common explanation is that in the mid-twentieth century, there was a generation that had grown up with at least the trappings of traditional Judaism, that sought a happy compromise between being Jewish and being a modern American. A generation later, Jewish tradition had mostly been forgotten, and was seen as irrelevant.
In my next installment, I shall deal with new concepts and practices of ordination in the Orthodox community, including "honorary" ordination. Is it a good or a bad thing? I will also touch upon the scandalous subject of purchased ordination. Next time!
No comments:
Post a Comment