(The article presented here is as revised for The Unfolding Tradition: Philosophies of Jewish Law, Elliot N. Dorff, editor, Aviv Press, New York, 2011, pp. 408-422)
We are told that Rembrandt, the famous Dutch painter, used to hide behind his paintings at the art gallery to listen to people’s criticism. Once, a cobbler looked at one of his paintings and remarked: those shoes are all wrong! No one makes shoes like that! After he left, Rembrandt popped out and fixed the shoes. A week later the same cobbler passed by the same painting and said: that face is all wrong! Upon hearing this, Rembrandt jumped out and said: Look here Mr. Cobbler — you have the right to criticize shoes, but who gives you the right to say anything about faces!
In the following article, I shall take Rembrandt’s advice. Since I teach halakhah and write a great deal about halakhah, I shall give a critique of the attitude of Conservative Judaism towards halakhah. In so doing I shall follow in the footsteps of Bernard Lazare, the nineteenth-century French Jewish writer, who said: “I shall have the courage to point out the ulcers of my people and to cure them”. But I shall also bear in mind the warning of Benjamin Disraeli: “It is much easier to be critical than to be correct.” Lastly, I shall follow the advice of Moshe ibn Ezra, the medieval Hebrew poet: “A critic must be like a grinding stone, which sharpens but does not cut.” My intent is to sharpen, not to cut. I would like to point out certain shortcomings in the Conservative approach to halakhah and to suggest corrections and improvements to our approach.
There is a tendency in our movement to restrict our halakhic discussions to three topics:
1) What is our halakhic philosophy and how does it differ from the Orthodox and Reform approaches?
2) How and to what extent is it possible to change halakhah?
3) How can we improve the halakhic status of women and, more recently, of homosexuals in Judaism?
Indeed, I have spoken about these topics on many occasions and have published articles and responsa dealing with these very topics.2 Nevertheless, I will not be discussing these topics despite their significance and interest, because they are not the major challenge facing us today. On the other hand, the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox attacks on our legitimacy are not the major challenge facing our movement either. I am not afraid of such a challenge. If we are truly committed to a modern halakhic approach, we can withstand any external challenge.
What then is the major challenge facing us today? I believe that the main problem is internal within the Conservative movement, to wit: Are we a halakhic movement at all? Do our members accept upon themselves the authority of the halakhah? Do our members pray three times a day, keep kosher both within the home and without, and keep Shabbat and the Jewish holidays? Do our members pay taxes and refrain from ona’ah (overcharging) as prescribed by Jewish law? Do they observe the laws connected to leshon hara (slander) and keeping far from falsehood? Do they give tzedakah and visit the sick according to Jewish law?
If the answer to all of these questions was in the affirmative, we could discuss one of the three popular topics that I mentioned above. Since that is clearly not the case,3 let us set those questions aside for a moment and seek a solution to the major problem I have outlined above. Stated simply, that problem is: how can we foster the study of halakhah and its observance within the Conservative movement?
Four Things to Avoid or De-emphasize
First of all, I would like to stress four things which we currently do or emphasize which we should avoid doing or de-emphasize since they do not help us foster Conservative Jews who are committed to halakhah. On the contrary, they frequently lead to the opposite result.
1. We should avoid overemphasizing the Conservative approach to halakhah. Every few years we publish another book or pamphlet on this topic.4 In addition, there are numerous symposia and articles in Conservative periodicals such as Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly and Conservative Judaism magazine. These books and articles are very interesting and very important but they are not enough. They have not succeeded and will not succeed in bringing our members closer to the observance of the mitzvot. In order to observe mitzvot, it is not enough to know why we must observe them. In order to observe mitzvot, we must know what the halakhot are and how to observe them. Books and articles on our philosophy of halakhah do not satisfy this need.
2. We must cease talking constantly about the need to change halakhah. This topic has been the obsession of our movement almost since its inception. Most of our publications and our struggle are devoted to this subject simply because many Orthodox rabbis reject the concept of change and development within the halakhah. But this is not our agenda; it is their agenda! We have a much more basic problem. In order to change halakhah, one must first accept ol mitzvot — “the yoke of the commandments”. In other words, before we can attempt to change the tradition we must first accept the authority of that tradition. Perhaps it is possible to change or to reinterpret or even to do away with certain aspects of the halakhah — but such things must be done from within the system. If the halakhah is not binding upon us, what right have we to change it? Mashal l’mah hadavar domeh — to what can such activity be compared? To a person who changes the rules of driving when he himself does not know how to drive. Does he have the right to make such changes?
The preoccupation of some Conservative rabbis with changing halakhah was epitomized in an article published by Rabbi Harold Schulweis in 1993.5 He eloquently argued that the only way to save halakhah and to make it relevant to unaffiliated Jews is to abrogate immoral laws such as those regarding mamzerut and homosexuality. I must confess that his logic escapes me. I readily agree that we must grapple with halakhot that we consider immoral and perhaps even modify some of them. But to say that abrogating such laws will lead Jews back to observance is beyond my comprehension. After all, we have ample proof from the decision of the Law Committee in 1950 to allow Conservative Jews to drive to the synagogue on Shabbat.6 The majority of the committee abrogated or circumvented or ignored a host of biblical and rabbinic prohibitions in order to “revitalize the Sabbath.” Yet the Sabbath was not revitalized. We simply legitimized something that our congregants did in any case and enabled some Conservative rabbis to drive to synagogue on Shabbat — which is , in any case, a direct violation of the lenient responsum from 1950! You don’t revitalize something by abrogating it. To use a modern analogy, you don’t convince consistent speed violators to obey the speed limit by removing the speed limit. You may adjust the speed limit or educate people to observe the speed limit by formal instruction and by personal example. But if you remove the speed limit, what exactly have you revitalized?!
Therefore, I strongly concur with the rebuttals to that article penned by Profs. Ismar Schorsch and Jack Wertheimer. The former states that our laity “want more Judaism, not less. They want higher standards and clearer boundaries... they seek a rabbinic leadership marked by exemplars of piety, learning and love, not halakhic revolutionaries.” The latter says: “There are many Conservative... Jews who respect a Judaism that insists on standing for religious principles — even when such principles conflict with prevailing social mores. Many Conservative Jews may not agree with or even understand all of those religious principles, let alone observe the bulk of mitzvot, but they want to know that Judaism is a normative religious system with a set of obligations, not merely a pick and choose religion that helps Jews feel good. If we wish to compete for these Jews, we must clarify our understanding of the obligations of Judaism, not just the rights of Jews.”7
Nonetheless, Rabbi Schulweiss’s approach has been evident in recent decisions of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS) or Conservative publications. Within a few short years, the CJLS has allowed testimony by women which is a biblical prohibition; has declared the laws of mamzerut “inoperative” which is another biblical prohibition; has taken a liberal approach towards homosexuality which is another biblical prohibition; and a booklet about sex has condoned couples living together for long periods of time before marriage or without marriage.8
The trend of these and other recent decisions is clear: Conservative Judaism must accommodate current American or Western cultural norms. To this entire trend in the CJLS and in our movement I reply: “Lo zo haderekh” — this is not the right path! I say this for four reasons:
a) The Talmud (Avodah Zarah 37a) says that a bet din which makes three major heterim (leniencies) is a Bet Din Sharya, a “permissive bet din,” while Yossi Ben Yoezer Ish Zeredah gives testimony about three heterim in Mishnah Eduyot 8:4 and the Mishnah labels him Yosef Sharya, “Joseph the Lenient.” These are not compliments. A Law Committee which issues major heterim every year or two is a Bet Din Sharya. How many major issurim (leniencies) have been issued by the CJLS during the last ten years? A serious legal system and a serious religious movement must rule l’kula and l’humra, leniently and stringently. A legal system which only rules l’kula is not a legal system at all. It is simply a fig leaf to accommodate Judaism to the norms of general society.
b) We are all aware of the many passages which talk about God’s midat hadin and midat harahamim, His Attribute of Justice and Attribute of Mercy, but our Sages also discussed Justice and Mercy in connection with halakhah:
Rabbi Akiva says: ein merahamin badin — one does not apply mercy in court cases (Mishnah Ketubot 9:2-3).
Rabbi Elazar intended to allow maintenance [of daughters] out of the movable property [of their deceased father].
Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim said before him: “Rabbi, I know you are not using the attribute of Justice, but the attribute of Mercy, but the students might observe this ruling and fix it as a law for future generations!” (Ketubot 50b).
A Law Committee must exercise both justice and mercy, not just mercy.
c) Once the CJLS has made such major changes in Jewish law, then within one generation, it will probably recognize patrilineal descent and allow intermarriage. If our main goal is to justify current values of American society and to make every person feel “OK,” then these steps are inevitable. And if so, the Conservative and Reform movements will eventually merge.
d) Finally, radical leniencies do not make Conservative Jews more halakhic as explained above.
3. We must stop the process of democratization which has penetrated most of our congregations. The halakhic system is indeed democratic but only within a forum of rabbis who have the proficiency to make halakhic decisions. We have reached the point where in many of our congregations halakhah is decided by congregational vote. This practice stands in contradiction to the entire history of halakhah from the Tannaim — the rabbis of the Mishnah — until our day. Laypeople do not decide halakhah, rabbis do; amei ha’aretz, those ignorant of Jewish law, do not decide halakhah but rather the Sages do. When a halakhic problem arises, one must turn to an ordained rabbi for the solution.
Indeed, after I wrote these words I discovered that “there is nothing new under the sun”. The same point was made over ninety years ago by Prof. Louis Ginzberg upon his assumption of the Chairmanship of the Committee on the Interpretation of Jewish Law, the first law committee of the Conservative movement which functioned from 1917-1927. He said:
It is certainly one of the most grievous misfortunes of modern Judaism, that the cobbler will not stick to his last and will imagine himself able to judge all things in heaven and earth. We Jews glory in the fact that we have no privileged class or caste which is the sole possessor of truth... A promise is made in Scripture to Israel that “all children shall be taught of the law so that great shall be the peace” [Isaiah 54:13]. As long, however, as this promise is not fulfilled, we must be guided in questions of law and doctrine by those who know. Judaism never taught that “ignorance is bliss” or that “the majority cannot be wrong.” The conception that in religious matters anyone, however ignorant, can judge for himself, is the direct denial of the old Jewish maxim, “The ignorant cannot be pious” [Avot 2:5]... A majority vote of a Board of Directors of a synagogue, is after all, a negligible quantity when it is in opposition to the vote of historical Judaism with its myriads of Saints and thousands of Sages. We have a vast inheritance but no inventory of our treasures transmitted to us by the past. The sorting, distributing, selecting, harmonizing and completing, can only be done by experienced hands.9
4. In our movement, there is a widespread perception that the halakhah and the mitzvot are primarily a public matter. In public, within the walls of the synagogue or in the four ells of Camp Ramah or USY, a Jew must observe the mitzvot, but at home — to use the biblical phrase — “every person does as he pleases” (Judges 17:6, 21:25). We have reached a situation which brings to mind the famous motto penned by the Hebrew poet Y.L. Gordon: “Heye adam b’tzeitekha vi’yi’hudi b’oholekhah” — “Be a human being in your going out, and a Jew in your home.”10 Many of our members aspire to be Jews in the synagogue and human beings in their going out! But that is not the way Judaism works! Judaism is a way of life, as we read in the Shema every day: “When you sit in your house, when you walk on the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up” (Deut. 6:7).
An ultra-Orthodox Jew once said: “The life of a modern-Orthodox Jew is punctuated by Torah and mitzvot; the life of an ultra-Orthodox Jew is permeated by Torah and mitzvot.” One can certainly argue with this assertion, but I like the imagery. We must set ourselves a goal of allowing the halakhah to permeate every area of our lives. There is hardly any topic which our Sages did not discuss in the Talmud 11 or in our vast halakhic literature.12 The halakhah can guide our steps at home and in the office, at the supermarket and in the stock market, in the hospital and in the lab — if we give it a chance to influence our lives.
To recap, there are four things we should avoid doing if we want to foster the study of the halakhah and its observance within the Conservative movement: we should avoid the overemphasis on our halakhic philosophy; we should avoid the overemphasis on the need to change halakhah; we should stop deciding halakhic issues by congregational vote; and we should stop viewing the halakhah as something to be observed in public rather than as a way of life.
Three Ways to Foster the Observance of Halakhah
Now let us pass from criticism to constructive suggestions. What practical steps can we take to help foster the study of halakhah and its observance within the Conservative movement? I believe that we must concentrate our efforts in three areas:
1. We must study and teach practical halakhah in every branch of the Conservative movement: in congregations, at Camp Ramah, in Solomon Schechter Day Schools, in Hebrew schools, in USY, in Women’s League, and in the Men’s Clubs. And what texts should we study? Needless to say, Rabbi Isaac Klein’s Guide to Jewish Religious Practice is an excellent place to start. Prof. Ismar Schorsch of the Jewish Theological Seminary has called the Guide “one of the most important books ever published by the Seminary”. He continues:
One need not agree with every judgment or detail to appreciate its extraordinary merits — its combination of theology and halakhah, its theological balance, its attention to the work of the Law Committee, not to speak of its sweep, learning, and clarity. It is an educational tool of immense potential for igniting the kind of halakhic discourse which should come to pervade the movement, if we have but the courage and imagination to use it.13
But our study of practical halakhah should not end with the Guide. We should also learn Rambam, Tur, Shulkhan Aruch, Hayyei Adam, Aruch Hashulkhan, Mekor Hayyim and other medieval and modern codes of Jewish law. In addition, we should study the Conservative responsa discussed below.
There is a tendency in our movement to prefer the study of Jewish history, philosophy, midrash, and Talmud over the study of halakhah. There is no question that “Torah lishmah,” “Torah study for its own sake,” is extremely important, as we have learned in the tractate of Ta’anit (7a): “Whoever studies Torah for its own sake, his Torah becomes to him an elixer of life.” However, we must recall the famous discussion in the tractate of Kiddushin (40b):
Rabbi Tarfon and the Sages were reclining in the loft of the house of Natza in Lod. The following question was put to them: which is greater — study or action? Rabbi Tarfon replied: action is greater. Rabbi Akiva replied: study is greater. They all concluded and stated: study is greater because study leads to action.14
A similar point was made by Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka in Pirkei Avot 4:5:
He who learns in order to teach will be given the opportunity to learn and to teach; but he who learns in order to do will be given the opportunity to learn and to teach, to observe and to do.15
Lastly, the Tosefta (Sanhedrin 7:7, Zuckermandel edition, p. 426) tells us that if the Great Sanhedrin in the Temple was presented with a practical problem and a theoretical problem — they first attended to the practical problem. And if presented with a problem of halakhah and a problem of midrash — they first attended to the halakhah.
So we see that although Torah study is wonderful, it must not be pursued in a vacuum; it must influence our actions and permeate our lives. Therefore, in order to foster Conservative Jews who observe the mitzvot, we must learn practical halakhah for the sake of action.
2. We must increase our output of responsa literature. Our laymen must turn to their local rabbis with their halakhic questions, and the rabbis must turn to the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards and other Conservative poskim (halakhic authorities) with their halakhic questions. On the other hand, our rabbis must learn how to write responsa and how to publish them. Responsa are the best sign of vibrant halakhic life. They show that the questioner cares enough about halakhah to turn to a rabbi to ascertain what the halakhah requires of him, and that the rabbi responding cares enough about the halakhah to have spent the many hours required to research and write a formal teshuvah. With that thought in mind, let us note the following statistics:
Beginning in 1959, the late Rabbi Moshe Feinstein of New York published eight volumes of responsa entitled Igrot Moshe. Between 1945 and 1998 the late Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg of Jerusalem published 22 volumes of responsa entitled Tzitz Eliezer. Between 1954 and the present, Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef of Jerusalem has published 16 volumes of responsa entitled Yabia Omer and Yehaveh Da’at. Between 1976 and 1998 the late Rabbi Hayyim David Halevi of Tel Aviv published 12 volumes of responsa entitled Aseh Lekha Rav and Mayyim Hayyim. In other words, these four poskim published 58 volumes of responsa and they are only the most notable of the hundreds of volumes of responsa published by Orthodox rabbis in the past 65 years.16
And what about the Reform movement which is considered non-halachic? Between 1954 and 2010, the Reform movement has published 13 volumes of responsa by Rabbi Solomon Freehof, Rabbi Walter Jacobs, and the Responsa Committee of the Central Conference of American Rabbis.17
And what is the situation in the Conservative movement which prides itself on being halachic? It is improving but still not satisfactory. Between 1917 when Prof. Louis Ginzberg founded the Committtee for the Interpretation of Jewish Law until 1972 just two booklets of responsa were published by Conservative rabbis! Since 1972, the situation has improved greatly: 31 volumes of Conservative teshuvot have been published — six by the CJLS, six by the Va’ad Halakhah in Israel, and the rest by individual rabbis such as Isaac Klein, David Novak, David Golinkin, Wayne Allen, Monique Susskind Goldberg, Diana Villa and others. Nevertheless, all published volumes of Conservative reponsa can still be listed in one footnote.18
This is indeed a revolution in the history of the Conservative movement, but it is a revolution which must be expanded and strengthened if the Conservative movement is to be a vibrant halakhic movement.
3. The four Conservative/Masorti Rabbinical Seminaries — JTS, Ziegler, the Seminario and the Schechter Rabbinical Seminary — must give our rabbinical students a thorough grounding in practical halakhah, a thorough grounding in the medieval and modern responsa literature, and teach our rabbis how to write modern, Conservative responsa. The rabbis and professors at our seminaries must emulate the definition of the ideal rabbi as defined by Rabbi Moshe Isserles in his glosses to the Shulhan Arukh from the 16th century:
These days the real rabbi or teacher is not the person who teaches his students pilpul or hairsplitting as is customary in our day; rather he is the person who teaches him pesak halakhah [halakhic decision-making] and the method of arriving at practical halakhah in a truthful and intellectually honest fashion.19
For many years, it was assumed that the Talmud professors at JTS were only interested in Torah Lishmah and Wissenschaft, not in pesak halakhah. We now know that this is not true. Beginning in 1917, there were poskim in every generation of Seminary professors who wrote responsa even though they did not publish most of their responsa.20 This is a tragedy because their published responsa would undoubtedly have had a lasting impact on Conservative halakhah. In addition, practical halakhah and responsa were not emphasized in the rabbinical school curriculum at JTS for many decades.21
There is, of course, a simple solution to this problem: our rabbinical seminaries must put a heavy emphasis on practical halakhah and responsa in their curricula. This was suggested as long ago as 1956 by Rabbi Arthur Neulander, Chairman of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards at that time. He said:
We feel confident that we should be able to enlist the faculty of our Seminary in this enterprise... the Seminary faculty should encourage and urge a greater interest in the study of Jewish law. Unless the Seminary will be able to produce masters of Jewish law, our movement will not be able to make its contribution to the development of Jewish law in the spirit which we should like to promote.22
An additional practical suggestion was made by Rabbi Kassel Abelson in 1983. He said:
How can the movement encourage rabbis to study the Halakhah and to write Responsa? The Seminary is the place to begin. The founder of the Conservative movement, Zechariah Frankel, was among the first to publish a paper describing the Responsa literature as a rich source for the study of Jewish history.23 Surely our Conservative Responsa literature is no less a valuable source for understanding the history of the American Jewish community, and its contemporary trends. Beyond history and sociology, there should be a systematic training in the “Responsa of Modern Judaism”, Conservative, Orthodox, and Reform, with examinations taking the form of writing a Responsum. One result will be graduates experienced in reading contemporary Halakhic literature. A second will be providing a rich source of future members for the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards.24
As far as I know, no one has undertaken a survey of the way that practical halakhah and the responsa literature have been taught at our four rabbinical seminaries throughout the years of their existence. I do know that at the Schechter Rabbinical Seminary in Jerusalem every rabbinical student for many years has taken at least four courses in Jewish law: Introduction to Poskim, a survey of Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayyim and Yoreh Deah, one course in medieval or modern responsa and one workshop in writing responsa. This type of curriculum is the only way in which our movement will produce Conservative halachic authorities who cannot only learn a page of Talmud, but also know how to teach practical halakhah and to write a modern Conservative responsum.
In conclusion, there are three things we should do if we want to foster the study of the halakhah and its observance within the Conservative movement: we should teach practical halakhah in every branch of the movement; we should encourage our laypeople to ask halakhic questions and our rabbis to write responsa and publish them; and our rabbinical seminaries should emphasize practical halakhah and responsa in their curricula and thereby prepare our rabbis to teach practical halakhah and to write responsa.
This then is the halakhic agenda I would like to propose for the Conservative Movement. I hope it will lead to discussion and debate and — most of all — to action.
Notes
1. This article is based on a lecture I delivered in Hebrew at the Third Annual Convention of the Masorti Movement on Rosh Chodesh Kislev 5749 at Kfar Hamakabia in Ramat Gan. A revised version of that lecture was subsequently published in Hebrew in Eit La’asot 2 (Summer 1989), pp. 33-39. An English version was published in Conservative Judaism 46/3 (Spring 1994), pp. 29-39. It has been revised and updated for this volume in 2011 at the request of Rabbi Prof. Elliot Dorff. For an oblique reaction to my article in Conservative Judaism, see Joshua Gutoff, Conservative Judaism 47/3 (Spring 1995), pp. 28-36.
2. Regarding the first two questions, see, for example, my books, Halakhah for Our Time: A Conservative Approach to Jewish Law, New York, 1991 (which has also appeared in Hebrew, Spanish, French and Russian) and Responsa in a Moment, Jerusalem, 2000, pp. 11-21 and my introductions to the Responsa of the Vaad Halakhah of the Rabbinical Assembly of Israel (Hebrew), volumes 3-6. Regarding women in Jewish law, see my book The Status of Women in Jewish Law: Responsa (Hebrew), Jerusalem, 2001, which is now being translated into English.
3. See Charles Liebman, Conservative Judaism 56 (2004), Special Supplement, p. 49; the results of the National Jewish Population Survey vis-à-vis Conservative Judaism at www.ujc.org/njps; and the summary of that survey by Rabbi Joel Meyers in the Rabbinical Assembly Newsletter 64/4 (February 2004), pp. 1-2, 7.
4. I am referring to books such as: Mordechai Waxman, Tradition and Change, New York, 1958; Boaz Cohen, Law and Tradition in Judaism, New York, 1959; Elliot Dorff, Conservative Judaism: Our Ancestors to Our Descendants, New York, 1977; Seymour Siegel and Elliot Gertel, Conservative Judaism and Jewish Law, New York, 1977; Robert Gordis, Understanding Conservative Judaism, New York, 1978; Louis Jacobs, A Tree of Life: Diversity, Flexibility and Creativity in Jewish Law, Oxford, 1984 (second edition, Portland, Oregon, 2000); Joel Roth, The Halakhic Process: A Systemic Analysis, New York, 1986; Emet Ve-emunah: Statement of Principles of Conservative Judaism, New York, 1988; Elliot Dorff, Mitzvah Means Commandment, New York, 1989; Golinkin, Halakhah for Our Time (above, note 2); Elliot Dorff, The Unfolding Tradition: Jewish Law After Sinai, New York, 2005; idem, For the Love God and People: A Philosophy of Jewish Law, Philadelphia, 2007.
There is nothing inherently wrong with these books. But they must be balanced by books of practical halakhah and responsa as I shall explain below. For a similar preference for Conservative responsa over Conservative halakhic philosophy, see Rabbis Aaron Blumenthal and Benjamin Kreitman in Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly 34 (1970), pp. 207-208.
5. Conservative Judaism 45/4 (Summer 1993), pp. 5-13.
6. See Tradition and Change (above, note 4), pp. 351-400; David Golinkin, editor, Proceedings of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Conservative Movement 1927-1970, Jerusalem, 1997, pp. 1109-1190; my responsum in Responsa of the Va’ad Halakhah of the Rabbinical Assembly of Israel 4 (5750-5752), Jerusalem, 5752, pp. 17-30 (Hebrew) which is also available at www.reponsafortoday.com and the symposium in Conservative Judaism 56/3 (Spring 2004), pp. 21-50.
7. Above, note 5, p. 19 and Conservative Judaism 46/2 (Winter 1994), p. 24.
8. Rabbi Susan Grossman, “Edut Nashim K’edut Anashim,” adopted by the CJLS in 2001 and available on the RA website; Rabbi Elie Spitz, “Mamzerut” in: Kassel Abelson and David Fine, eds. Responsa 1991-2000, New York, 2002, pp. 558-586; Rabbis Elliot Dorff, Daniel Nevins and Avrum Reisner, “Homosexuality, Human Dignity and Halakhah,” adopted by the CJLS in 2007 and available on the RA website; Rabbi Elliot Dorff, This is My Beloved, This is My Friend, [New York], 1996, pp. 30-36 = idem, Love Your Neighbor and Yourself, Philadelphia, 2003, pp. 111-119. My point here is not to take issue with a specific ruling but to point out a trend in Conservative halakhah.
9. Louis Ginzberg, “Address of the Acting President,” The United Synagogue of America, Sixth Annual Report, New York, 1919, p. 24 = David Golinkin, editor, The Responsa of Professor Louis Ginzberg, New York and Jerusalem, 1996, p. 44. Also see the remarks of Boaz Cohen in the Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly 11 (1947), pp. 60-61 = Golinkin, Proceedings (above, note 6), pp. 193-194. For a typical example of the democratization of the halakhic process within our movement, see Melvin Dow, Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly 40 (1978), pp. 20-23 along with the critique of David Resnick in Conservative Judaism 42/2 (Winter 1989-90), pp. 50-51.
10. In his poem “Hakitza Ami,” Kitvei Yehudah Leib Gordon: Shirah, Tel Aviv, 5713, p. 17.
11. Sometimes what seems like a totally theoretical question turns out to be based on an actual case. See, for example, the discussion in Menahot 37a regarding tefillin and pidyon haben for a person who has two heads. Five scholars have shown that these questions were not mere klutz kashes. There are many documented cases both ancient and modern of people with two and even three heads. See S.Y. Rapoport, Kerem Hemed 6 (1841), pp. 131-132; Saul Lieberman, “Tana Heikha Kaey,” Kovetz Madaee Lezekher Moshe Shor, New York, 5705, pp. 184-185 = idem, Mehkarim B’torat Eretz Yisrael, Jerusalem, 1991, pp. 111-112; Y.L. Zlotnick, “Anashim Ba’alei Shenei Rashim,” Sinai 19 (5706), pp. 17-25; Daniel Sperber, “Varia Midrashica,” REJ 129 (1970), pp. 87-89; Aharon Ben Zion Shurin, “Vegn a Mentsch mit Zvei Kep,” Forvertz, March 4, 1980, p. 7.
12. For some good examples, see my article “Richard Cohen and the Talmud”, The Washington Post, February 17, 1990, p. A29. For good anthologies of the responsa literature, see Solomon Freehof, The Responsa Literature, Philadelphia, 1955 and idem, A Treasury of Responsa, Philadelphia, 1963.
13. Ismar Schorsch, “Centenary Thoughts: Conservatism Revisited,” Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly 48 (1986), p. 84. For a balanced review of Rabbi Klein’s Guide, see Martin Lokshin, Tradition 18/2 (Summer 1980), pp. 227-230.
14. Cf. Sifrei Devarim, Ekev, Piska 41, Finkelstein edition, p. 85 and the parallels cited there.
15. The passages from Kiddushin and Avot were stressed by Rabbi Yair Hayyim Bachrach in the seventeenth century (Responsa Havot Yair, No. 124) in his outline of the ideal curriculum, which lays a heavy stress on practical halakhah such as Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayyim and Yoreh Deah.
16. Needless to say, quantity does not guarantee quality but it does indicate interest and commitment. For a complete bibliography of the responsa literature from the invention of printing until 2000, see Shmuel Glick, Kuntress Hateshuvot Hehadash, Vols. 1-4, Jerusalem and Ramat Gan, 2006-2010.
17. Eight volumes by Rabbi Solomon Freehof; two volumes by Rabbi Walter Jacob; two volumes by The Responsa Committee; one volume by Rabbi Moshe Zemer (in both Hebrew and English). For evaluations of Reform responsa, see Walter Jacob, editor, Liberal Judaism and Halakhah, Pittsburgh, 1988 and Alan Yuter in Tradition 24/3 (Spring 1989), pp. 87-98.
18. For indices of Conservative responsa, see David Golinkin, An Index of Conservative Responsa and Practical Halakhic Studies 1917-1990, New York, 1992; Summary Index: Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, New York, 1994 and ff.
The volumes of responsa published by Conservative law committees are: Proceedings of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, 1927-2000, various editors and titles, 6 volumes, Jerusalem and New York, 1988-2000; Responsa of the Va’ad Halakhah of the Rabbinical Assembly of Israel, Volumes 1-6, 5746-5798 (Hebrew); Tomeikh Kehalakhah: Responsa of the Panel of Halakhic Enquiry, Volume 1, The Union for Traditional Conservative Judaism, Mt. Vernon, New York, 1986 (after which the Union left the Conservative movement).
The volumes of responsa by individual rabbis are (in chronological order): Phillip Sigal, New Dimensions in Judaism, Jericho, New York, 1972; Isaac Klein, Responsa and Halakhic Studies, New York, 1975 (second expanded edition, Jerusalem, 2005); David Novak, Law and Theology in Judaism, 2 volumes, New York, 1974-1976; idem, Halakhah in a Theological Dimension, Chico, California, 1985; David Blumenthal, editor, And Bring Them Closer to Torah: the Life and Work of Rabbi Aaron Blumenthal, Hoboken, New Jersey, 1986; Simon Greenberg, editor, The Ordination of Women as Rabbis, New York, 1988; Byron Sherwin, In Partnership with God: Contemporary Jewish Law and Ethics, Syracuse, New York, 1990; David Lincoln, Mizmor Le-david: Responsa, Studies and Texts, New York, 1991; David Golinkin, editor, The Responsa of Profesor Louis Ginzberg, New York and Jerusalem, 1996; Louis Jacobs, Ask the Rabbi: Questions and Answers on Judaism, Portland, Oregon, 1999; Byron Sherwin, In Partnership With God: Contemporary Jewish Law and Ethics, Syracuse, 2000; Aaron Mackler, editor, Life and Death Responsibilities in Jewish Biomedical Ethics, New York, 2000; David Golinkin, Responsa in a Moment, Jerusalem, 2000; idem, The Status of Women in Jewish Law: Responsa, Jerusalem, 2001 (Hebrew); Wayne Allen, Perspectives on Jewish Law and Contemporary Issues, Jerusalem, 2009; Monique Susskind Goldberg and Diana Villa, Ask the Rabbi: Women Rabbis Respond to Modern Halakhic Questions, Jerusalem, 2010.
Responsa online include the responsa of the CJLS on the RA website; all the responsa of the Va’ad Halakhah at www.responsafortoday.com; David Golinkin, “Responsa in a Moment” at www.schechter.edu; Monique Suskind Goldberg and Diana Villa, “Ask the Rabbi” at www.schechter.edu.
19. Yoreh Deah 242:30. My translation is based on the explanation of Boaz Cohen, “On Rendering Legal Decisions”, Conservative Judaism 3/3 (May 1947), pp. 1-2 = Law and Tradition in Judaism, New York, 1959, p. 121.
20. For the old assumption, see the original version of this article from 1994 (above, note 1), pp. 37-38. For the correct facts, see David Golinkin in The Responsa of Profesor Louis Ginzberg, New York and Jerusalem, 1996, pp. 22-24 and idem, “The Influence of Seminary Professors on Halakha in the Conservative Movement: 1902-1968” in Jack Wertheimer, editor, Tradition Renewed: A History of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York, 1997, pp. 443-482.
21. I lamented this fact when I completed Rabbinical School at JTS in 1980 — see David Golinkin, “The Rabbinical School and the Seminary: Some Suggestions for Improvement”, Ikka D’amrei: A Student Journal of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America II/2 (April 1980), pp. 49-50.
22. Arthur Neulander, “Committee on Jewish Law and Standards”, Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly 20 (1956), p. 31.
23. He is referring to Zechariah Frankel‘s pioneering study „Etwurf einer Geschichte der Literatur der nachtalmudischen Responsen“, Jahresbericht des Judisch-Theologischen Seminars, Breslau, 1865, pp. 1-96.
24. Kassel Abelson, “The Rabbinical Assembly and the Development of Halakhah”, Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly 45 (1983), p. 81.
Rabbi Prof. David Golinkin is President Emeritus and Professor of Jewish Law at the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem where he also directs the The Institute of Applied Halakhah and the Center for Women in Jewish Law. He chaired the Vaad Halakhah of the Rabbinical Assembly of Israel for twenty years. His latest books are Aseh Lekha Rav: She’elot U’teshuvot, Vol. 2, Jerusalem, 2024, and Responsa in a Moment, Vol. VI, Jerusalem, 2024.