• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Factors of TraditionalismIn Conservative Jewish Law
Evan HoffmanJHI 9978Doctoral PlanningFall 2004
 
2
 
This paper contains four sections. The opening section is an introduction to thehistory of Conservative Jewish law, paying attention to key organizations, personalities,and decisions (1917-1972). The second section is an overview of historiography on thesubject of Conservative Jewish law. The third section contains my proposed thesis on thefactors of traditionalism in Conservative Jewish law. The final section of this paper introduces broad historical questions which could be answered by a thorough study of Conservative
halakhah
.The development of Conservative
halakhah
1
began in 1917.
2
Leaders of theUnited Synagogue of America believed that the creation of a central authority under recognized auspices could stem the tide of ritual deviancy becoming rampant inconstituent congregations. After much deliberation over the precise nature of rabbinicauthority and the possibility of interdenominational cooperation, the Committee for theInterpretation of Jewish Law was formed under the chairmanship of Professor LouisGinzberg.
3
 The committee consisted of five rabbis, but Ginzberg was the dominant forceand authored all of its responsa.
4
In 1927 responsibility for Jewish law in the Conservative movement shifted fromthe United Synagogue to the Rabbinical Assembly.
5
By establishing a Committee onJewish Law (CJL), the RA was creating a forum for its members to openly discusscontemporary
halakhic
problems amongst peers, as opposed to doing so in thedumbfounding presence of towering superiors. It was hoped that such discussion wouldclarify those positions which RA members held in common, a starting point for the
1
For the purposes of this paper, the term “Conservative
halakhah
” will incorporate the
halakhic
activitiesof any organization within the Conservative Movement (United Synagogue, Rabbinical Assembly, JewishTheological Seminary), or individual rabbi who self identifies as Conservative.
2
Prior to 1917 the nascent Conservative movement was devoid of 
halakhic
deliberation. Representing theSeminary, Solomon Schechter consciously avoided matters of practical
halakhah
. See David Golinkin,“The Influence of Seminary Professors on Halakha in the Conservative Movement,” in
Tradition Renewed 
Vol. II, ed. Jack Wertheimer (New York: JTSA, 1997), pp. 445-467. The Rabbinical Assembly, at thattime named the Alumni Association of the Jewish Theological Seminary, had yet to develop into a fullyfunctioning rabbinical organization. The United Synagogue of America, founded in 1913, originallyintended to avoid the complicated realm of 
halakhic
decision making. The preamble to its founding charter states, “It shall be the aim of The United Synagogue of America, while not endorsing the innovations byany of its constituent bodies, to embrace all elements essentially loyal to traditional Judaism.” AbrahamKarp,
 A History of the United Synagogue of America 1913-1963
(New York: United Synagogue, 1964), p.15.
3
See Herbert Parzen,
 Architects of Conservative Judaism
(New York: J. David, 1964), pp. 114, 143-146.Parzen argued that Louis Ginzberg was willing to be very progressive in matters of Jewish law by bothinterpreting and legislating, but that over time he had a change of heart. This position is not supported bythe evidence. My own understanding of Ginzberg’s approach to
halakhah
appears later in this paper. For documentary evidence of efforts at early interdenominational cooperation see the statement by Rabbi LouisEpstein in Karp, p. 25.
4
See David Golinkin ed.,
The Responsa of Louis Ginzberg 
(New York: JTSA, 1996) for a collection of Ginzberg’s
halakhic
writings from that era.
5
The cause of the law committee’s institutional jump is a disputed point. See Sidney Schwarz,
 Law and  Legitimacy: An Intellectual History of Conservative Judaism 1902-1973
(Ph.D. diss., Temple University,1982), p. 152, who argues that all debate over 
halakhah
and ideology shifted away from the UnitedSynagogue, because it was forced into passivity by the traditionalist and anti-sectarian Adler administrationat the Seminary. See Pamela S. Nadell,
Conservative Judaism in America: A Biographical Dictionary and Sourcebook 
(New York: Greenwood Press, 1988), p. 5, who attributed the demise of the UnitedSynagogue’s law committee to its lack of enforcement power. Louis Ginzberg refused to continueoperating a
halakhic
body which was not being obeyed by its constituency.
3
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...