The Conversion Crisis part 13

In 1807, Napoleon, concerned if Jews could ever become real Frenchmen, in exchange for full civil rights, convened what he called a "Sanhedrin" of 71 rabbis from all over his empire, presenting them with questions as to their beliefs, and how they regarded non-Jews. The rabbis reported back to him that their beliefs could be divided into two separate doctrines. About half of them felt that the Torah was no longer operative, except as a guide. These decided to dub themselves "Reform". The other half believed that the Torah, with all of its laws and doctrines, is eternal. This group decided to call itself "Orthodox".. This was the first time that these terms were used in a Jewish context. Until then, one was "just Jewish", with some observing the Torah, and others not. To be sure, Orthodoxy had different forms, and even different beliefs, in different times and places, but the common denominator was the acceptance and practices of Torah and Talmudic tradition. The inclusive nature of Jewish tradition can be best illustrated by the publishing of Mikraot Gedolot (Great Scriptures) in 1524. This work, in various editions, is still used in virtually all Jewish schools around the world. It consists of the full text of the Tanach, together with the traditional Targum (Aramaic translation). In some Biblical books, there are two or three Targumim in different styles. In addition, there were a host of commentaries from different medieval rabbis, surrounding the Biblical text. Their approaches were as different as day and night. Subsequent editions contained additional commentaries. Perhaps the most venerated is the commentary of RASHI. His commentary attempts to give the literal meaning of Scripture, with much added Aggadic material. He is sometimes called the most Jewish of the commentators. Also present is RASHBAM, a grandson of RASHI, who is so super literal, that he often departs from Jewish tradition in his interpretation, albeit insisting on observing the tradition, rather than his interpretation. He posits a complete separation between text and tradition. For example, he understands Scripture as declaring the day to begin at dawn, rather than nightfall (interpreting "there was evening and there was morning, One Day" as meaning evening came; when morning came it was now one day). But he never suggested that his interpretation should be in any way accepted as halachah, nor did he change his own practice.. Also present is RAMBAN (Nachmanides), who makes frequent use of Kabbalah to understand problems in Scripture. Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra is also present in Mikraot Gedolot. He is a literalist, a grammarian, and a philosopher. However, in some difficult passages, he writes an enigmatic "there is a secret (sod) here". In his other writings, he clarifies the meaning of this "secret" that he recognizes the possibility that some passages may contain human errors, or even may be from a later hand. Nevertheless, when he saw RASHBAM's interpretation of the day beginning at dawn, he tore it out from his own copy on Shabbat, for fear that some people would be misled! His commentary also includes polemical diatribes against Karaism. Newer editions contain fifteen different commentaries, all in different directions. The common thread is the Divine origin of Scripture, and the eternal obligation to observe it, along with the elucidations of the Oral Torah. Few have questioned the special place of Mikraot Gedolot in Judaism. Until about 1800, no one questioned the validity of its commentaries. With the rise of Reform, lines were drawn in the sand. Orthodox means "straight belief". What exactly DO we believe, that separates us from non-Torah "Judaism"? Books were written and are still being written, trying to pin down what is "straight" and what is crooked. This was virtually unknown in earlier times. As I have written in a previous series, RAMBAM's Thirteen Principles of Faith were largely ignored, or even denounced, in the Middle Ages. After the Sabbatean debacle of the mid seventeenth century, most rabbis sought a philosophical, logical, non mystical and clearly defined Judaism. RAMBAM became central. Modern translations of Mikraot Gedolot in English, have been edited (censored) to make them conform to our current "accepted" concepts. Even RASHI is not immune, with passages which might challenge some current rabbinic ideas conveniently disappearing. In my opinion, these developments stand at the center of the controversy between different factions of Orthodoxy. Rather than the earlier concept of "both these and these are the words of the living G-d", now there was only one approach. But which one? Who gets to decide? Yeshiva heads? Rabbinic organizations? (Which one?). Local practices? Views of a particular rabbi?This kind of intolerance can be argued to have saved us from heresy, or, on the contrary, formed a new Judaism that would be unrecognizable to our ancestors. I believe that if today's controversies had existed five hundred years ago, there probably would have been books written defending one approach over another. But there would not have been the rejection and delegitimizing of other groups, so long as they were Torah based. Present day controversies about conversions; whose we recognize and whose we don't, would not have exist. In my next post, I will get into some of these present day groups, and examine how they differ from each other, and why. I believe that then we will not only come to a better understanding of Judaism, but also why Baalei Teshuvah, and more so converts, often unknowingly step on the toes of major rabbis and organizations, raising anew issues that have been "hot topics" in recent generations, and had been considered as having been laid to rest. In other words, how much of the controversy is Law, and how much politics.

The Conversion Crisis part 12

(Please remember that this series is NOT about Jewish Feminism, but rather how feminist attitudes and demands have been, and continue to be seen as a threat to the rabbinate, especially in terms of female converts)

As you may recall from previous series, the Conservative movement was, from its inception, an uneasy cohabitation of two philosophies. Based, as it was, on the German Wissenschaft idea (Jewish knowledge), one group sought to establish Torah Judaism on the basis of analysis of sources; jettisoning folklore, and establishing a pure Judaism based on Torah and Talmud. The other group sought to discover why we have what we have, with a de emphasis on practice. It was essentially "Reform Lite", except that changes were based on historical analysis, rather than the whims of one group of Jews or another. Keeping peace between these divergent ideas was not easy, and conflicts were real, although they were generally kept from the public eye. Around the year 1980, Feminist demands for an equal place in Judaism became a real issue. Many Jewish observances make a clear distinction between men's roles and women's roles. But how many of these distinctions are actually embedded in the system, and how many were simply the result of sociology? There were clearly cases of both in the sources. But there was also a vast "middle ground" that required analysis.The "Reform Lite" branch of Conservatism favored a complete acceptance of equalizing of roles. The group that believed in observance of halachah, albeit with an eye to how things came about, also generally felt that change was in order. It would be necessary to check Talmudic and Medieval sources, to see what was really essential and unchangeable, and what could be altered, yet remain within the halachah. Could women count in a minyan? Lead services? Be called to the Torah? These were all not simple questions. Many of these rabbis rejoiced at the opportunity for reanalysis; publishing peer reviewed articles, engage in debate, and make badly needed decisions. The first issue to come up for discussions was weather or not women could be ordained as rabbis. Reform had already done this a decade earlier. Anyway, our modern ordination is only symbolic, the authentic ordination having died out (or had been murdered) in the fourth century. It seemed like an easy issue. Several Modern Orthodox rabbis had even made "theoretical" declarations in favor of ordaining women. All that woulds be required was for these halachically committed Conservative scholars to do some research, write some papers, have a conference and present their findings for adoption of this historic innovation. All Jewish "denominations" are run by two groups. One is a lay organization, the other rabbinic. In the Conservative movement,the lay organization is known as the United Synagogue, while the rabbinic group is called the Rabbinical Assembly. The Rabbinical Assembly eagerly rose to the challenge. Meetings were held, papers were written. But an order came from the United Synagogue. The women are in an uproar. Synagogue sisterhoods are demanding the ordination of women...yesterday! The rabbis MUST come up with an immediate solution. It was seen that there was no ready majority for a vote of the rabbis; most were for the proposal, but only after careful further research. The rules were changed. It would not be a vote of the rabbis, but of the entire Jewish Theological Seminary faculty. Teachers of music, art, poetry..would join in the vote. The proposal passed. It would be the first of several that would first give women complete equality in all things Jewish, and eventually to rule that Conservatism is not a halachic movement, but rather a historical movement. This happened step by step, issue by issue, over a twenty five year period.. It had long been predicted that the Conservative movement would eventually split down the middle over the issue of halachah. In fact, the split was not fifty fifty, but rather only an intellectual elite resigned from the movement Some became Orthodox. Some remained, but chose to keep silent.,Some formed a separate group, called the Union for Traditional Judaism, with its rabbinic group called Morasha. Some congregations left the United Synagogue. The reason was not so much halachah, but more that the innovations were felt to be a break from Jewish continuity. Laymen, unlike rabbis and cantors, generally do not like change. There is a comfort in attending a service that is identical to the ones you attended with your grandfather and grandmother. For the rabbis of Morasha, it WAS a halachic matter. But only a limited number of synagogues were keeping the traditional ways. Efforts to unite with Open Orthodoxy were rebuffed. Morasha, and its lay group, the Union for Traditional Judaism remained small. There is currently a revitalization in progress. Many Conservative congregants simply either stopped coming, or else joined Orthodox congregations. Like the Catholic Church, which lost millions of its members when it abandoned the Latin Mass, (I was once at a meeting of Ohio Right to Life, where many faithful Catholics expressed their sentiments that Row vs Wade was a punishment for abandoning the traditional Mass).Conservatism had been serving those Jews who liked tradition, more than following rules. They felt disenfranchised. Within a few years, the Conservative movement lost approximately one million members. We have here a case where rapid change, even when based on sound reasoning and sources, backfired. This must give us pause. Orthodox rabbis generally ignored the changes; giving apologetical explanations why the status quo was right. Women who were converts or potential converts, continued to ask questions, which rabbis saw as potentially dangerous. They saw a slippery slope before them. Even if there are plenty of sources to allow women to be called to the Torah..what will be next? Intermarriage? (already practiced in Reform, but also by Conservative in some areas, yet to be accepted by the movement). Would the same happen to Orthodoxy? . There is an Arabic proverb "Al 'agel min ash'shaitan". (Haste is of the Devil). But there are times where decisions need to be made...and quickly. Open Orthodoxy is now struggling with these issues. Some say that they are on the same road as Conservatives. Some accuse Morasha of Neo Conservatism. Many disagree. That will be my next post.

The Conversion Crisis part 11

In the Talmud, we have many pro and anti feminist statements. What I found remarkable is the fact that although some rather disparaging remarks about women are made, the rebuttals of some of the rabbis' wives are also quoted. One story, however, has caused much of the negative feelings towards women. It is a virtual certainty that the story is false. Rabbi Meir, a great second century rabbi, was married to Beruriah, the daughter of Rabbi Hananiah Ben Teradion, himself a great scholar, and one of the rabbis martyred (burned alive) under the Roman persecution. Beruriah was no ordinary woman. She was a great scholar, presumably taught by her illustrious father. She would argue halachah with the rabbis, who often would concede to her superior knowledge. There is an enigmatic statement in the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 18b), that Rabbi Meir had to flee to Asia Minor (Turkey) because of the incident with Beruriah. We are nowhere told in any Talmudic source what was the nature of the "incident". There appeared in about 800 ce, a scurrilous work called "The Alphabet of Ben Sira". It was recognized by Sepharadic rabbis as a brutal satire of Judaism. (RAMBAM wrote a scathing denunciation of the work), and is recognized as such by all modern researchers. The medieval Ashkenazic rabbis, however, accepted it at face value. The book is full of "X Rated" stories about both Biblical and rabbinic figures. Ben Sira was a real enough person, who lived in the second century BCE. He wrote a book, known either as "The Wisdom of Ben Sira" or "Ecclesiasticus". It is a book of wisdom. The rabbis regarded it highly, and often quoted it, but did not regard it as Scripture. It was, however, accepted as Holy Writ by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. In the book "the Alphabet of Ben Sira", he is moved back to the sixth century BCE, and is the accidental offspring of the prophet Jeremiah and his daughter, who, unfortunately, bather in the same pool as her father. (!!!). (Despite the fact that G-d orders Jeremiah not to marry or have children).One of the many horrible stories in this work, "fills in the gaps" on the "incident with Beruriah". We are told that the rabbis opposed Beruriah's learning, and taunted her with the statement of "Women have weak daat". Rabbi Meir rebuked her for her "uppityness",and warned her that she would eventually be brought to shame for not accepting the words of the rabbis. The rabbis who opposed her, chose a young scholar to seduce her. After "many days" of entreaty, she finally agreed to commit adultery. The young rabbi then said "Aha! Women have weak daat!", whereupon she killed herself, and Rabbi Meir had to flee in shame. The Ashkenazi Talmudic commentators somehow accepted this story, and included it in their commentaries. It has since become a part of the Jewish consciousness in many circles (although rejected by the Sepharadic rabbis. Even many Ashkenazic rabbis named their daughters Beruriah, to show their contempt for the story.) But the message sank in; women, no matter how pious and learned, can never be trusted. On the contrary, their learning will make them too devious and sure of themselves; so better let them remain ignorant. Somehow, no one raised the question of how a male rabbi would respond to repeated seduction attempts, or how holy rabbis could possibly justify bringing a righteous woman to shame, just to prove a point. In Ashkenazi consciousness, one does not question the writings of a great rabbi, especially a Talmudic commentator. But RAMBAM (along with most Sepharadic rabbis), who was also a great rabbi, totally rejected the story as a fabrication, and the book as a forgery. Before any discussion of women's place in Judaism, I believe this story must be dealt with honestly. Any "principles" derived from the story must be reexamined. (One famous twentieth century rabbi even relied on this story in issuing a very controversial halachic opinion concerning artificial insemination). This has also been a factor in many rabbis' hesitancy to convert women.In my opinion, we owe women a huge apology, for this and many other injustices. In my next post, I will deal with how the Conservative movement attempted to deal with these issues, but whose sloppy handling,, brought itself from being the largest Jewish denomination in America, to the smallest.

The Conversion Crisis part 10

A fact in discussing conversions to Judaism, is that the overwhelming majority of converts are female (in my experience,about 10 to 1). I know of no research as to the reason for this, My observations of male-female relationjships are that about one third of men dislike women (although they may find them useful), one third like women, but are unable to understand their thought patterns and are constantly bewildered by their thoughts and actions, and another third like women, and have taken the trouble to try to understand them. The Talmud remarked "women are a people unto themselves". All those who know me, will testify that I fit into that third group. There is a statement in the Talmud that a woman "understands more than a man", but also "women have weak Daat" (usually translated as "weak minds", but actually means "weak ability to connect with ideas"). In my opinion, putting this into modern parlance, women have the remarkable ability to see the implications of things,far beyond men, as their thinking is far less linear. A woman notices details that few men would, as well as the ability to extrapolate the implications of those details. On the other hand, a woman is far less likely to accept an argument based on doctrine or ideology, if it goes against her inner feelings and instincts. In a paternalistic, doctrinal context, a woman's intuition can be seen as dangerous. In TANACH, we find female prophets, even advising Kings, but not advising sages. Women are closer to G-d, while men are closer to rules. If we believe in the Divine origin of these rules, both are vital. In my opinion (and all of this is my opinion), female converts, who are the majority,  can be seen as a great threat to any established system. In Judaism, in particular, women coming in from the outside, will often question basic assumptions that rabbis are often hesitant to deal with. "Because I said so, that's why" will satisfy few woman. But, unknowingly, these women are falling into very old controversies, that are still smoldering. They are unaware of stepping on very sore toes. I believe that much of the hesitancy about conversion stems from this. Consciousness raising is essential on both sides.I will elaborate in my next post.

The Conversion Crisis part 9

Several people have asked me if I see any hope in the current wave of intolerance in the area of conversion. I am not a very good prognosticator, but my answer is a tentative "yes". I have already written of my admiration for the new movememnt of Open Orthodoxy, and its Israeli counterpart, Tzohar. I realize that many are against my assessment. But my reasons are that unlike Modern Orthodox, these movements are completely halachic rather than "we need to do this because we've always done this" (with the "always" usually going back 100 years or less). It is also spiritually based, rather than a blind commitment to questionable, fairly new legalisms. Perhaps most importantly, these movements consider the needs of all Jews, rather than just the already committed. The establishment, both in Israel and the U.S. is "stonewalling" them. But I believe the walls already show cracks. In response to evidence that many assertions of Modern Orthodoxy are baseless, they have come up with the new concept of "mesorah" (tradition), meaning that the way the American synagogue does things, is in itself a level of Judaism that may not be tampered with. This theory has few sane adherents. But, perhaps even more significantly, I beleive that Chabad is about to play a very major role. When the Lubavitcher Rebbe passed away in 1994, most people thought that the entire movement would soon fade into oblivion. But, on the contrary, it has grown exponentially. I am well aware of the criticisms of Chabad; many of them well founded. But which group is perfect? Some over zealous followers may do unethical, or even heinous things. But the movement as a whole has been wildly successful at bringing in alienated Jews, as well as essentially founding the Noachide movement. When I was in Chabad (1965-1975), the thrust of their outreach was primarily to win new adherents to their own group, and often to stifle other views. This is mostly no longer true. Most Chabad houses around the world try not so much to make new Chabad Hasidim, as to bring people back to Judaism, at any level with which they are comfortable. Chabad is, today, "user friendly". Chabad emissaries may vary in their openness and acceptance, but by and large are tolerant and receptive. I am deeply disappointed by Chabad's submission to the RCA in no longer doing conversions (this was a feature of Chabad houses until the 1980s, with far more liberal standards than are now imposed). I am no longer privy to behind the scenes Chabad considerations, but I can see two possibilities as their reasons for their capitulation. First, the RCA is powerful and influential. . They can cut off funding for Jewish causes with which they are not happy, or even arrange for the removal of a Chabad presence from a community. The Chabad rabbis may have felt that their activities in bringing back lost Jews was their main priority,with pragmatism demanding a moratorium in the area of conversion., There was never any love lost between Chabad and Modern Orthodoxy. Both the OU (which is rarely relied on by Chabad Hasidim) and the RCA are adjuncts of Yeshiva University.The sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe (Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn) once remarked "I don't know in what way Rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan (Spector 1817-1896) could have sinned, as to have such an institution named for him. They should have called in Belkin's College". (The official name of YU's rabbinic school is the Rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan Theological Seminary. Its Dean was a Dr. Belkin). But YU shifted to the right in the mid-1970s, and was no longer considered anathema to Chabad and most "yeshivish" groups. Perhaps Chabad decided that it was both acceptable and expedient to give over the conversion work to them. However, I beleive that there is likely another reason. In middle and small sized Jewish communities around the country, Chabad has been gaining ground, at the expense of Modern Orthodox congregations. People are (usually) made to feel welcome. The scrutiny and judgement one needs to go through at organized synagogues are (usually) absent. Also, Chabad works by getting donations, so their services to the community are almost always free. Recent sex scandals involving some Modern Orthodox leaders, have also served to make Chabad seem more genuine. My strong suspicion is that Chabad feel that they need to "play ball" with the RCA in the short run, but see the day as not far when they will be bigger and more mainstream than the RCA. At that point, they will be able to "call the shots" in American Orthodoxy, including in the conversion arena. I do not see Chabad as ideal, by any means. But it is a great leap forward. Moreover, the leaders of Open Orthodoxy (known for their integrity) have for decades maintained a close relationship with Chabad. I know this will be interesting. i have hopes that it will be good.

The Conversion Crisis part 8

While it is true that the Temple had a Court of Women, it is not true that the sexes were completely segregated. Men were allowed in that Court. In fact, the Sanhedrin met in that Court! Men mostly gathered in the Court of Israel, where the altar and most Temple appurtenances were. . According to RASHI, women were never allowed into the Court Of Israel. However, according to RAMBAM and the Tosafot (a group of about a thousand rabbis, the grandsons of RASHI and their students), women DID enter the Court of Israel when bringing a sacrifice. There were eight days a year when this was not true. The Talmud relates that King Solomon made a "great innovation". During the Sukkot holiday, every night featured a great celebration of singing dancing, and even juggling. The celebration was connected with the "Water Libation". Whereas nearly all sacrifices were associated with a libation of wine, during Sukkot, water would be drawn from the nearby Gihon spring, and poured upon the alter. This Is not mentioned in the Torah except by way of a hint, but was understood to be a tradition going back to Moses. It was a sort of symbolic prayer, for a blessed rainy season. (Eretz Yisrael, like other Mediterranean lands, has two distinct seasons; Rainy and Dry). The celebration took place in the Court of Women. Solomon feared that if singing and dancing through the night were to take place with men and women together, it would likely lead to debauchery; a common feature in pagan Temples. So a balcony was constructed for the women, so they could see and enjoy the spectacle. But it is important to note that this balcony only existed for eight days a year.The Talmud mentions that some rabbis actually enforced this practice in synagogues, as a way of insuring proper concentration and decorum during worship. The wording of the Talmudic passage indicates that this practice was, however, not common. We are unable to determine if the ancient synagogues which have been found in Israel had separate women's sections of not. Mosques have not only separate seating, but also partitions that are way over the worshippers' heads. Churches in Southern Europe had women's balconies until the tenth century. (My friend, Msgr Tutone, once told me "not in Ireland! The women would not have stood for it!") It is likely that the same situation existed in medieval synagogues. But no rabbi mentions this, until the thirteenth century. Rabbi Mordecai ben Hillel (known as the Mordecai), writes that this is a universal practice, but by no means a halachic requirement. It is merely a symbol of modesty. The issue goes again unmentioned until the eighteenth century PRI MEGADIM, who likewise declares it an symbol of modesty, with no halachic significance.This all changed in 1840. The Reform Temple in Albany, New York, suffered major damage from a fire. A local Church allowed the congregation to use its sanctuary for Friday night services. The people loved the mixed seating, and it was soon adopted by Reform congregations all over America. This was slow to be accepted elsewhere; it flew too much in the face of tradition. (I have been in two European Reform synagogues, in France in 1965, and Hungary in 1989.The former had a women's balcony. The latter had separate seating, albeit without a mechitzah (partition)). When the Conservative movement began in about 1880, their stance was that separate seating was good and proper, but mixed seating would be allowed on a temporary basis, until the people would be "won back to tradition". In fact, the main sanctuary at JTS, the Conservative seminary, had separate seating, WITH a mechitzah, until the 1980s, when feminism and egalitarianism saw this as an affront to women. But even before this, the public perception was that the main difference between Orthodoxy and Conservatism ,was the question of mixed seating. Orthodox leaders, fearing a new sect in Judaism, were adamant. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein declared mixed seating a Biblical prohibition, and separate seating without a mechitzah a rabbinic prohibition. Any rabbi serving in such a congregation was not "kosher", and all his actions were to be seen as null and void; even if he were personally fully Orthodox. Rabbi J.B., Soloveichik, the head of Orthodoxy's left wing (his wife did not cover her hair, and he would practically force guests in his home to partake of ordinary, unsupervised cheese), issued a declaration that if one heard the shofar on Rosh HaShanah in a mixed seating situation, one has not heard the shofar. If one's options are to hear it in a Conservative synagogue or not hear it, better to not hear it. Neither of these views had any halachic basis (some were offered, but were flimsy and easily refuted). Others argued that the silence on the subject in our sources was due it it being too obvious to mention.Others saw this argument as ridiculous. But these harsh actions were seen by there rabbis as necessary in order to separate "the men from the boys"; Traditional Judaism needed to be saved from an upstart, and potentially dangerous sect. Many Orthodox synagogues had been without mechitzahs as well. By 1970, this had all but disappeared. Until 1985, when the Conservative movement ordained women rabbis, the RCA rabbinic placement service was placing members in Conservative congregations that were unable to get a Conservative rabbi (who get much higher salaries). This stopped, and rabbis who had been placed in these congregations were ordered to leave their positions, or face sanctions. Conservatism continued their Leftward path, until today, in most places, it differs from Reform in only a few details. In 1991, I needed to come to the States for a week, to visit my Mother before her death. I spent Shabbat with the local Conservative rabbi, a man as pious and careful about halachah as any Orthodox rabbi I know,. We had been friends since 1966. I asked him if he would eat in the home of the average Conservative rabbi. He answered "Five years ago, yes. Today, no". Had Rabbis Feinstein and Soloveichik foreseen this direction, and minimized the damage by aggressively persecuting anyone connected with Conservatism? Or had they brought the current rift about, by pushing away a third of American Jewry? This is a question often heard whispered in rabbinic circles. G-d only knows. However, one thing is certain. Suddenly, thousands of people who had converted in completely halachic ceremonies, were now driven out of the Jewish people. This will ultimately be judged by the True Judge. 

The Conversion Crisis part 7

Reform in some parts of Eastern Europe was mostly outwardly distinguishable  from Orthodoxy by the placement of the readers desk, with prominent rabbis writing responsum after responsum attacking this, declaring the podium of the prayer leader being in the front of the synagogue, and the Torah reader's desk in the middle of the synagogue, to be absolute fundamentals of Judaism. The fact that Reform had rejected the concept of halachah, and was allowing many major violations of Jewish law. In Philadelphia, they even moved the Sabbath to Sunday. This became standard in many places. I spent the Summer of 1973 in Cleveland. The main Reform Temple still maintained a Sunday Sabbath. This was largely ignored in rabbinic literature, as it meant nothing to the uneducated Jew. The "evils" of both the reader's desk and the prayer podium being in the front of the synagogue, dominated the conversation in the nineteenth and early twentieth century.By the mid twentieth century, many Orthodox synagogues had adopted the practice of the reader's desk being in the front.. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein issued a responsum that "for us" it is not really a problem (although many will still not set foot in such a synagogue). The bigger issues of Reform deviation from traditional Jewish ideas were now apparent. (Again, let me stress that this was American Reform. Reform took different forms in different places. Indeed, even in America, there were huge differences between Reform of Cincinnati, and Reform of the South and West). Conservative was more of a problem. Among the early Conservative leadership were scholars who, for all intents and purposes, were Orthodox (roughly from 1880 to 1980). The long time Dean of the Jewish Theological Seminary, Dr. Shaul Lieberman, is still highly regarded in most Orthodox circles. But the Left Wing had thinkers who were, in almost every way, Reform. Professor Seymour Segal (no relation!) openly declared many parts of the Torah to be "immoral".But JTS was generally seen as an "Ivory Tower" of "eggheads". The people who attended Conservative synagogues were, until the late twentieth century, people who had grown up in Orthodox synagogues, but who enjoyed the less legalistic atmosphere of Conservatism. Much changed in the 1950s. After WW II, the U.S. governemnt gave generous mortgages to veterans. Roads, traversing the U.S. made access to previously remote areas easy. Jews began moving to the newly created suburbs, and even to rural areas. Few traditional Jews would dream of coming to synagogue by car. But in the suburbs, the synagogue was often three miles, rather than three blocks, away. Reform had a stigma attached to it for most Jews. That was not seen as an option. The Conservative Committee for Jewish Law and Standards officially forbade driving on Shabbat. But they published a minority opinion that driving is permissible, as all the "labors" involved in driving are indirect actions (turning a key is permissible. That the key makes a fire, is "none of our concern".) The Committee stressed that they do not agree with this view, but, at the discretion of the local rabbi, it could be relied upon for the purpose of getting to and from synagogue only. After a few years, this became "standard operating procedure", although, at that time, almost no Conservative rabbis would dream of driving on Shabbat. In this way, Conservatism became the religion of suburban Jewry. When it came to conversion, Orthodox rabbis generally accepted Conservative conversions on a case by case basis, and would perform a "quicky" reconversion for the others.. Until the early 1990s, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate maintained a list of which Conservative rabbis were acceptable (although this fact was never made public). By the late 1960s, Conservatism had become the largest Jewish group in America. Orthodox rabbis began to panic. While there was surely some politics in this, there was mostly a feeling of how can we trust a movement that is largely halachic, but has a significant part of its leadership that is not. The Committee for Law and Standards, which had historically given reasonable compromises between what had been done, and what seemed appropriate now "until we win marginal Jews back" had taken some very dangerous, and deviationist positions. For example, the Torah forbids a Kohen from marrying a divorcee. With divorce becoming more and more common, this became a real problem. The Committee issued a responsum that, as there is NO CHANCE that the Temple will ever be rebuilt (!!!), we need no longer keep the laws of Priestly purity. At first, this "heter" stipulated that such a marriage may not be held in the main sanctuary of the synagogue. This was reversed a few years later, with the stigma removed. For the first time, the Conservatives had reversed a law in the Torah, and had codified disbelief in the restoration of the Temple Service. In the Musaf Service of Shabbat and Holidays, instead of the prayer that read :"restore us to Jerusalem that we may perform our obligatory sacrifices" an emendation was made "restore us to Jerusalem, where our ancestors performed THEIR obligations". At first, the amended version was optional. Soon, it became obligatory. There were, of course, many Conservative rabbis who disagreed with this. But they remained silent. After all, even RAMBAM in his "Guide" had opined that sacrifices would not be restored (a position which he contradicts both in his legal code, as well as in his commentary on the Mishnah). Nearly all Orthodox rabbis now saw Conservatism as a heresy. But how to fight it? Some continued dialogue. A number of prominent Modern Orthodox rabbis continued to have Conservative rabbis address their congregations, allowing time for debate and discussion. But most felt that the Conservative movement must be deligitimized. Just as Hungarian and Polish rabbis had fought Reform over the issue (or non issue) of synagogue architecture, a symbol that everybody could see and understand was sought as the battleground. By 1960,the "Mechitzah" (partition traditionally put up in synagogues between the sexes) became that battleground The details of this dispute, and its effects on the recognition of Conservative conversions (and just about anything else done by Conservative rabbis, or even Orthodox rabbis in Conservative pulpits) will be the topic of my next post.