Are you an observant Jew? The question itself is often a code for living an Orthodox Jewish Life. But is that what it really means? For a Conservative Jew what would that question mean? Conservative Judaism permits, in some circumstances, riding on Shabbat. It means that there are certain disagreements concerning keeping kosher between Conservative Judaism and Orthodox Judaism. Conservative Judaism claims you can be observant and still count women in a minyan or have a document witnessed by a woman of legal age. It also means that you don’t have to believe that the Torah as we have it today was handed to Moses at Mt. Sinai. So if you are a Conservative Jew, are you an observant Jew?
Of course you are!
We observe what we observe and we try and do what is right in our lives. Perhaps we are not perfect in our observance but then, who is really perfect in observance? Why do I have to believe that I must observe “everything” if I want to be considered observant? Does it have to be all or nothing? Of course not!
Are you an observant Jew? Do we really care about this question? We live our lives as best we can. We try to be fair, honest and earn a living. Do we care at all what Judaism says about our lives? Do we ever really stop and consider what Judaism would have to say about what we do every day and if we find that we could be living lives that are more observant, does that fact alone inspire us to try harder to be an “observant Jew”?
Thus there is a question behind the question. Why do we bother with any Jewish observance at all? Is it only nostalgia about what our parents or grandparents used to do? Do we feel, somewhere in our hearts, that living an observant life is somehow better, like the old Hebrew National slogan that we are living “according to a higher standard”? That rabbis in every age have argued and refined Jewish Law to give us this pure way of living a spiritual life; does that matter to us at all? Would we be motivated to keep kosher, go to shul on Shabbat or on weekdays, learn to pray, wear tephillin because ancient and/or modern sages tell us that we should be doing these things? Do we feel at all guilty that we are not doing them?
Are we all really “Jews by choice” – we do what we choose to do, and we choose not according to what rabbis say, but according to what make “sense” in our lives? Are we motivated to observe because the action is a mitzvah, a command from the Torah? Are we less motivated if we discover that it is only a command of the later Sages? If someone gave you a set of dishes to use in your kosher kitchen, would you refuse them if you discovered that the rabbis say there may be no way to make these dishes, used in a non-kosher home, fit for use in your own home? Would you ask your Rabbi to find a heter/permission to use the dishes? Would you even care to ask?
These are the kinds of questions that rabbis discuss all the time. Are we making laws and granting permission to people who care one whit about the nuances of our discussions? Certainly there are some for whom these issues are important, but will any of this help most Jews find their way back to Judaism? It is not an easy question. When a Jew wants to find his or her way back to an observant lifestyle, more often than not, they are looking for a very “traditional” life style, one that is somehow “pure” and not “tainted” by modernity. Perhaps this is why Chabad seems to do such a big business in people returning to Judaism. The strict observance of Chabad often strikes returning Jews as more “authentic” then the requirements of other liberal forms of Judaism.
Does the reason for performing a mitzvah matter more than the fact that it is a commandment of God? Do we want to know what God requires of us or do we want to know that our actions will make a difference in our lives and make a positive difference in the world? This question alone fuels rabbinic debate whenever rabbis get together and discuss the state of Judaism today. Philosophers and legal theorists defend their positions and all the while we cling to the latest sociological surveys to see what motivates Jews to bring more observance into their lives. Will it really make a difference if we have students spend less time in Hebrew School or would cutting Hebrew School hours only tell parents that a Jewish education is not really that valuable? Is learning Hebrew and teaching Hebrew prayers important in the life of a Jew? Is it more important that we teach about the State of Israel than teaching about the Holocaust? Than teaching student s how to read the Bible?
Perhaps every family is different and has its own unique approach to Judaism in family life. How will that affect the way synagogues provide Jewish services? How will that change the way we teach Judaic subjects to children and adults? How will it change the way we pray, the way we study, the way we relate to each other as Jews?
Are you an observant Jew? What does this question mean to you? What would motivate you and your family to seek an answer to this question? The future of Judaism depends on your answers. Does that motivate us to answer the questions? What would motivate you?
If I have made you think about these questions and if I you have begun to form some answers in your mind, how about writing them down, and attaching them as comments to this blog. Just click on the link below and share your answers.
Write your take on these answers today. “Rabbis are standing by to read your answers.”

There has been a lot of ink spilled over the last month or so about what is wrong with Conservative Judaism. Some synagogues have rebelled against the United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism (USCJ) for its perceived inaction in these hard times. Some blame rabbis for the decline in membership and financial resources; others blame the “Movement” for not doing more to help. Some blame the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (JTSA) for not training better rabbis and some blame lay leadership and the members of our congregations for not demanding more from their spiritual leaders or for creating synagogues that cater to insuring that members remain members even if they have little or no interest in doing anything Jewish
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to go around. Rabbis can cite many examples of members who wanted a quick fix for a Bar or Bat Mitzvah with little or no preparation and then leave the congregation right after the last child has his or her ceremony. Lay leadership can tell stories of rabbis who don’t seem to understand “what congregants want these days”. Everyone wants to blame USCJ for not doing more to help congregations but there is very little specific that they want the USCJ to do (other than to stop charging dues when it’s perceived that they offer no services in exchange). Everyone wants change, but it seems that they want someone else to do the changing. In the end, as the song in this title, the more things change the more they stay the same.
My friend, Richard S. Moline, writing in the Jewish Week (5/21/09 “Conservatives must look in the mirror”)[ http://jta.org/news/article/2009/05/21/1005348/op-ed-owning-the-conservative-movements-challenges-and-its-successes ] writes the following:

“But it does trouble me that we have not successfully created Shabbat Communities in most of our congregations. It troubles me that most students do not find the level of commitment in their home communities that they do in USY or Ramah or Koach. It does trouble me that if they do find it, it‘s likely not in the Conservative movement, so they may become involved in other communities not by design but by default. And it does trouble me that our clergy and laity become more concerned about institutional viability than about motivating themselves and others to live fully Jewish lives. “
“What can we do about it? It’s easy to assign responsibility, but is courageous to shoulder it. If I were speaking to the key leaders of the movement, professional and lay, I would start by handing each of them a mirror and asking them to take a long hard look. “
“It’s easy to blame the institutions – and there is plenty of blame to be assigned to them all. But how many rabbis tell their president that in order to be a more effective leader, the two must study together for an hour every other week? How many presidents tell their rabbi the same thing? How much time do we spend teaching and encouraging people to observe Shabbat or to keep kosher, compared to the amount of time we spend making the bar or bat mitzvah schedule or collecting membership dues?”

Sometimes I feel that congregations don’t understand the Prado Principle and end up spending 80% of their time catering to the bottom 20% of our congregants, who may or may not appreciate all that a synagogue is doing for them. I believe that every Jew is important, but there clearly is a much larger community out there that is looking for something more than just a ceremony for their children. Perhaps what they want is only a feeling deep inside that they can’t really express very well, but they know that they need to address that feeling and that our synagogues can (and sometimes do) fulfill that need, at least partially, at least some of the time, at least a couple of times a year. We need to do better. National organizations cannot do this for us. It is not a Lay or Rabbinic problem. It is nothing less than a redefinition of what a synagogue is and what it does. It has nothing to do with Jewish Law or ritual questions, it has to do with the nature of an organization and how we answer basic questions about life and meaning.
There are rabbis who think that our members want to know the details of the laws of Judaism. They need this information in order to accept those laws into their lives. Every place I turn to, however, I see lay leaders and ordinary Jews saying, “just tell me what I need to do and I will try my best to live by Jewish Law”. They don’t want uncertainty; they get enough of that on the internet. They want honest truth to live by and a way of looking at the world upon which they can build a life in which they can be proud.
There are lay members of our congregations who want us to be more “spiritual” without any understanding about what that means. God is all around them and yet they think that they need to do something esoteric to acquire spirituality. Rabbis talk about Mitzvot and Social Action as ways into the spiritual realm but nobody seems to be listening. Social Action and Political Action in our congregations is anemic and half hearted. Let us create a menu of items which lay members can incorporate into their lives and let them see how by doing God’s work, they can find the spiritual fulfillment they seek. As they grow in deeds, we can then reframe their actions as Mitzvot and Tikun Olam. As their actions become more spiritual so will their need to study and pray as well.
There are lay leaders who think that if they change the service then people will flock to the synagogue. I think that they are partially correct. Conservative services are boring. People are expected to sit quietly for hours at a time while things happen on the bima that they don’t understand. Opera had this problem that was solved by putting a screen above the stage and having a simultaneous translation of the opera on the screen. That might help our services, even though we do have translations (and transliterations) in our siddurim. We have lost the drama of the Torah reading. We have lost what stirs the soul in prayer. Our music is old, our approach is old and our membership is old and getting older. Synagogues compete today with multiplex movie theaters, weekly concerts, special events and exciting sporting events (football, NASCAR, even hunting!!) for our members’ time on Friday night and on Saturday morning. The good people at Synagogue 3000 [synagogue3000.org] say we can get thousands of people in our congregations, just like our colleagues in the mega churches down the street, if we learn the lessons that they have learned. It is not about the liturgy, that does not change; it is the approach to the liturgy, it is the possibility to participate in the service, to be a part of something exciting, in an exciting place. My congregation here in NY ripped out the pews in the first ten rows of the sanctuary (and it is an old venerated synagogue and building), and replaced the seating with moveable chairs arranged in a semi circle. They got off the bima and put the action right there on the floor, no more than a foot or two in front of the first row of chairs. The members lead parts of the service and everyone takes part in what is going on. The liturgy and the siddur are the same as any other synagogue but the atmosphere is dynamic.
It is not, as the comic character Pogo once said, “We have met the enemy and he is us” rather we need to stop trying to maintain the status quo. I have seen congregations replace a rabbi looking for a new approach to Judaism, only to find that the new guy is the same as the old one. The problem is not just the rabbi; it is the congregation, the leadership, the members and the rabbi. Each one has expectations of the other and is not prepared for the kind of personal change needed to help our communities grow.
First, we need to change ourselves, to break out of our old Jewish habits and see our faith in a new and deeper way.
Second, we need to challenge our friends and members to a Judaism that does make demands on them, but they will quickly see the spiritual growth that arises when they confront those demands
Third, we need to build a community where study, prayer and community service are the backbone of what we stand for. This kind of synagogue can compete with the multitude of distractions and will make a synagogue a place worthy of our time and energy; a place where every Jew is welcome and a place to where we can go to find our way in life.
And finally, we need to demand from our institutions the kind of support that will help us along the way. The educative resources, the connections to national service projects, the advice and support we need to help us transform our own lives and the lives of those in our community. These institutions can’t transform others on our behalf; they only can and should supply the resources that we need to do the job ourselves.
It is time to stop looking in the mirror to find the problem and to start looking forward and creating new and innovative solutions. Let us go forward, professionals and laity as partners to get the work done.

Newsweek [4/13/2009] editor, Jon Meacham writes about “The End of Christian America”. He writes; “While we remain a nation decisively shaped by religious faith, our politics and our culture are, in the main, less influenced by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character than they were even five years ago. I think this is a good thing, good for our political culture, which, as the American Founders saw, is complex and charged enough without attempting to compel or coerce religious belief or observance. It is good for Christianity, too, in that many Christians are rediscovering the virtues of a separation of church and state that protects what Roger Williams … called, “the garden of the church” from the “wilderness of the world.”
I think that Jon Meacham could write similar words about Judaism in the State of Israel. In Israel, which has no separation of “church” and state, the fight over the role that the governmental Rabbanut plays is getting larger and more contentious every day. Rabbis who are part of the Rabbanut find themselves involved in political intrigues and often entangled in the same kind of corruption that all too often ensnares the politicians. More and more Israeli citizens find they can be spiritual without the kind of Orthodox Judaism that is being forced upon them by the Rabbanut.
I agree. When religion becomes political, it begins to undermine the very values that it is trying to impose on others. Religion is not meant to exist in the political sphere. The point is that a coercive religion will eventually undermine itself. The teaching of religion to adults and children depends less on coercing a person to believe, and more upon showing that what we believe is better taught through actions rather than words. A spiritual person is one who teaches through the example of his life. What we say or do in our personal lives is far more important in spreading the words of faith than all the political power in the world. For example, right wing Christians insisted that Public schools should begin the day with a prayer, one that more often than not included references to Jesus, prayers that were inappropriate to the non Christians who may also be attending the class. The members of the Christian Right believed that we could become a more prayerful, spiritual nation if we could only force our children into a moment of prayer. Forget for a moment that such prayer is illegal in our country where church and state are separate, consider the fact that public schools do not have the mission to teach about prayer and reinforce praying. By requiring a prayerful moment at the beginning of every day, the effect on students eventually would be to rebel against this kind of mandated prayer.
On the other hand, as I have often said, any prayer recited daily, 20 minutes earlier with the family at the kitchen table in the student’s home, that prayer will have a lasting effect in that child’s life.
The most important way a faith can change the course of a nation is to teach that faith through word and deed. When a person lives the faith he or she holds, such a person is an inspiration to others. When that person tries to pass legislation that will require society to hold a principle of faith, the society will eventually reject the attempt at religious coercion. The religious right in America has tried for many years to ban abortion, limit divorce and forbid gay marriage. In state after state such laws have been defeated. Similarly in Israel, the Rabbanut has struggled to maintain their grip on marriage, conversion and the money that the state pays to religious schools. The evidence grows each day about how corrupt the rabbis of the Rabbanut have become and the resentment that is rising in Israeli society. Without state sanctioned civil marriages which are opposed by the rabbis of the Rabbanut, Israelis go to the island of Cyprus to get married and avoiding the need to jump through the hoops required by the Rabbanut. The leaders of the Orthodox parties that control the Rabbanut have so soured citizens on Judaism, Israelis now visit India seeking spirituality rather than finding it in the holy land. A large majority of Israelis have nothing but contempt for the Rabbanut and all that they stand for.
A Religious leader who would want seminary students to have an impact in the world, should be steering them away from politics and into a ministry that will go out and live the very morality that they wish to bring to the world. Faith is best taught by example. People aspire to religious leadership because they themselves were inspired by the faith of a mentor. There is a famous story about a boy whose parents wanted him to be a student in the great yeshiva of the Hafetz Hayim. The boy had other ideas about what he wanted to do with his life. He went to the school and failed the entrance exam. The problem was, he needed to stay overnight so he could leave the next morning. The school had a policy that non-students could not stay overnight in the dorms. So the Hafez Hayim had the boy sleep over his own house. In the middle of the night, the sage came into the boy’s room, and noticing how cold the room was, took off his own coat and placed it over the boy. The boy became a successful businessman who always gave generously to charity. Why? He was impressed that the great Sage took the time to care about the welfare of a young boy. “That coat still keeps me warm.” The man would say.
In Judaism, religious leaders are “rabbis”. The word means “teacher”. We teach best when we teach by the example of our lives. Let us influence the politicians through our actions. If we believe in Justice, let us teach what our faith says about justice and judges and if enough people like what we say, they will create the support for better judicial qualifications. If we believe in education, let us teach what a school should instill in a child and if enough agree with us, they will create the support needed to evaluate curriculum or start a private school that teaches those values. If we despise Hate, let us bring people together to understand each other’s needs. If we feel for the homeless, let us teach others to develop a program to find the way to bring the destitute off the streets. Religious people can do this by teaching the fundamentals of their faith. When that faith speaks to enough of society, when that faith offers a solution to a problem that speaks to the needs of all citizens, then that faith can move mountains and make a real change in the world.
On a cold December night in 1983, 11-year-old Trevor Ferrell saw a TV newscast about people living on the streets of Philadelphia. Those images stirred Trevor and he pleaded with his parents to take him to downtown Philadelphia so he could give his blanket and pillow to the first homeless person he met. In ensuing weeks, with the help of his family, classmates and neighbors, Trevor made regular trips into Philadelphia to distribute food, clothing and blankets to those in need. Inspiring hundreds of generous citizens and businesses, this little “campaign” soon grew into shelters and an entire array of services for the homeless. The compassion of one small boy took on a life of its own and become a part of the vital services offered to the 24,000 homeless of Philadelphia. The Campaign has grown over the years in its approach and sophistication to best enable the homeless to become self-sufficient.
This is the kind of change that religions can perform when taken out of the political realm and into the real work of making a difference. Religious leaders can inspire in our country the commitment to make a real difference. Our country is filled with churches and synagogues that sponsor homeless shelters, provide food for the hungry, who extend a hand to those who are sick and support those who have suffered a loss. Religion provided the moral underpinnings of the Civil Rights Movement in this country. Religious leaders who oppose hate have created an atmosphere where those who spread hate are no longer welcome in our communities. I know that there are faith communities that do not welcome gays and lesbians into their communities, but it is also religious teachings about the equality of all humans under God that pushes acceptance of civil rights for homosexuals forward.
As for a religious agenda, Religious leaders need to stop speaking for the entire nation and start speaking for their own communities. Abortion may be legal in the United States, but a community that believes in adoption rather than abortion should teach that value so the members of that community will make good choices. Prayer may not be allowed in public schools, but a faith community that believes in prayer should teach that each family should begin each day with a prayer. No law could be passed in this country that could force a religious leader to perform a same sex marriage if that is not a teaching of his or her faith. Not everything that is legal is necessarily right. We cannot and should not try and coerce members of other faiths and beliefs to do what they hold to be wrong or to give up that which their community allows. Only when we teach our own faith community our religious tenets of what is right and what is wrong, can we hope to instill in them the faith to make good choices. And I should also point out that clergy should be the first to set the example. Clergy, who wish to be taken seriously, should be sure to always practice what they preach. The landscape is already littered with religious leaders who thought they were above and beyond the “divine” rules that they insisted others must obey.
This separation of church and state is not always easy. There are issues of public policy that challenge the wall of separation. What happens when a religious community says it is OK to batter a wife or a child? What should happen if a faith relies on prayer rather than medicine to cure someone afflicted with disease? Can the state force someone to have a blood transfusion that is against the teachings of his faith? Can the state forbid female circumcision, or even male circumcision as cruel in spite of teachings that make such surgery a religious ritual? That these remain difficult issues is testimony to the living faith that drives our country.
That religion has something to say about government is a given. That religion should change the world one soul at a time should be dogma. When we dabble in passing laws that will force others to obey our understanding of God’s will, we will drive people far away from a life of faith. Let us teach love and not coercion. For only when we live humbly according to teachings of our faith, we will draw others to our side.

My colleague Rabbi Jerry Sussman recently wrote:

Many of our struggles have to do with the disconnect between us as Rabbis and the members of our congregations. I think that Conservative Jews … like traditional ritual but do not want to be told what to do. While many of our members like services in Hebrew and traditional practices; they want to maintain their autonomy as to what they consider obligatory and what they do not. Which means that they do not accept Halacha as something they are obligated to do. They are thus ideologically Reform Jews who like tradition. The amount of tradition they can tolerate is however getting less and less with the generations (with more than a few exceptions). In this way we can regard our movement as a partial failure in that we have been trying to develop a laity committed to the Conservative approach to Halacha for close to a hundred years and have not succeeded. That’s a pretty big failure.

There are many directions we can go in. Founding a real community is one. Maybe we can consider the Chabad type of organization in which the Chabad houses are essentially franchises and the shelichim the franchisees who do not have to contend with our contentious structure where the Rabbi serves at the pleasure of the congregation.

What it all means is that we have to rethink some of our fundamentals including the question of whether or not a religious movement based on the Wissenschaft approach to Judaism can work. Until we clarify our own beliefs and approaches we won’t be able to change the picture.

I don’t want anyone to think that I am picking on my colleague. I am not. He is expressing an opinion that I hear a lot when I am around other rabbis. I have trouble believing that he really feels that way about lay people in Conservative Judaism. I think my other colleagues who repeat these accusations are also not really anti-lay people; they are only reflecting the frustration they feel when they realize the differences between themselves and the people in the congregations they serve.

Rabbis are unhappy these days; they are unhappy because our congregations are shrinking, our members don’t seem to want to hear what we have to teach and there is a big world out there that is doing a better job in reaching our members than we in the pulpit are doing.

The lay people in our movement are unhappy too. They look at Orthodox congregations and feel that the worship there is more “authentic” than what we have in our congregations. They look at Reform congregations and see that there some really important things are happening that don’t happen in our congregations. The other congregations seem to be filled with happy people and members of Conservative congregations seem to be so unhappy.

The reaction to all of this is to asses blame. Congregations go looking for “new, young rabbis” who may have new ideas and casting out the older rabbis who seem so, well, old. Rabbis go blaming congregations who don’t know what they want and they blame the “movement” for not helping them figure out what they want and they blame their training for not having the skill to figure it out for themselves.

So it is time to stop the blaming and begin to change fundamentally what our rabbis and congregations are all about.

First of all, it is time Rabbis challenged our lay leadership. Rabbis need to ask our board members to write a statement about what Judaism means to them and something about their own Jewish journey. If they can’t write it, Rabbis should give them the background and vocabulary to write a spiritual statement that belongs on the synagogue website.

Next, Rabbis should look at the entire congregation and find the spiritual stories that get to the heart of what it means to be a Jew, especially a Conservative Jew, today. Those stories should be told in public at services (Shabbat and/or Holiday) and then put on the website and published in the bulletin. Rabbis may need to edit these stories to keep them focused and to help the authors find the right words that will not lead to ridicule or embarrassment by others. Conservative Jews need to see the faces of those who are just like them but who have made good spiritual decisions.

Every Conservative congregation needs to have a social action/political action program that the leadership not only supports but participates in. The track to leadership needs to go through work on/with this committee. There should be a long list of projects going on all the time and lots of ways to get involved. It should become the most important work our congregations do. Services are important and so is education, but I believe that they are only really effective if there is a social action program that backs them up so we can practice what we preach.

Synagogues need to train as many members as we can in synagogue skills and in writing/delivering a d’var Torah. Adult Education should be as important as Religious School and have similar funding. The road to synagogue leadership should pass through education as well.

Rabbis should save the sermon for a really important event/topic/holiday. Otherwise there should be more discussion with the congregation and stories that relate to everyday life. If a rabbi feels a need to comment on what is going on in the news, the rabbi should use the website, email or bulletin. Rabbis cannot compete with news pundits and cable television to comment on the news. Rabbis should stick to teaching our members how to live life better, a topic that you can’t get from the secular media.

Congregations need to invest in technology. Websites need to be better; filled with pictures of people having fun, not only pictures of the building. It should have a list serve or social networking site so members can chat and share day to day information with each other. The synagogue should have a “virtual office” that is open 24 hours a day so members can sign up and pay for upcoming events when they finally get to go online after the kids are asleep or they are home from evening meetings. Save postage and send out an online weekly bulletin. The Rabbi and Cantor and other staff members should write a blog linked to the website. The school, social action groups, and the board (at least the President) should be updating their webpage at least weekly.

Synagogues need to be more user friendly. Think about your facility. Does a newcomer know which door is used during the week for the office and which door is used on Shabbat for services? Can a visitor find the office, Rabbi’s study, restrooms and chapel once they are inside? Is there someone, with a nametag, that will find a visitor and help them find their way once they are inside the building? If a new person shows up for services will someone welcome them and help them get settled in their seat, offering those not familiar with the service to sit with someone who can help them or will the visitor be told to sit somewhere else because “that is MY seat”?

Where did I learn all of this? I assure you they don’t teach it at any seminary. But all of this information is out there if we take the time to look for it. My friend Dr. Ron Wolfson has a rule that any congregation of any religion that has hundreds of people coming every week must be doing something right. We need to find those congregations and just do what they do. We all know about these congregations like Hadar, B’nai Jeshurun, IKAR, Anshe Chesed, (even the mega Christian churches with thousands of members have something to teach us.) We know about STAR and Synagogue 3000. The information is right there on the internet and so many rabbis and congregations just close their eyes to it and expect someone else to tell them what they need to do/change to be successful when, all too often, rabbis and congregations are too comfortable with the way things are or too scared that someone will be unhappy to try something new.

This is not about Halacha. Our members will follow us with Halacha if we give them a reason to follow us. If people see our congregations as irrelevant, then Halacha will be seen as irrelevant. If people see us as dynamic and we are an important part of their life, then the Halacha will also become an important part of their lives. The issue today is not if we have musical instruments on Shabbat or not, nor is it if we include imahot or not; the real issues are if our congregations are relevant to the lives of our members. The world out there is filled with dangerous ideas and a culture where “the one who dies with the most toys wins”. Our Jewish people don’t buy that philosophy but don’t know what their own religion has to say about it. Synagogues that don’t address this need will find themselves aging and shrinking. If that describes our Movement, then we know what the movement needs to be addressing as well. Chancellor Eisen at the Jewish Theological Seminary gets it. He is creating a Mitzvah project for the movement. USCJ and the RA now have new leadership. We will see if they get it or not soon. But why wait?

There is no point in crying that everything is pretty bad. We know what we need to do. We know where we can go for answers. What we need now is the will to get it all done.

I should warn you, this is a long comment!

Matthew Housman, a commentator from Arutz Sheva, wrote a column called, “Whither Conservative Judaism” on March 9 of this year (here is the link to the whole article): http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/8639 ) I am tired of this kind of rant that Conservative Jews get all the time from Orthodox Jews who seem to think that we are an enemy as their Rabbis lead them down a path that separates one Jew from another. Below is the end of his article and my response.

Mr. Housman starts off with a brief history of Zehariah Frankel and the Positive Historical School in Breslau Germany in the 19th Century. He seems to think that the early history of Conservative Judaism was the reason for all the issues he lists at the end of the article. I have included below only this part of his article in bold italics and add my comments and defense in regular type in between.

Mr. Housman writes: As a consequence, and in response to the demands of an increasingly uneducated and acculturated constituency, the movement’s Committee on Law and Standards over the years has sanctioned many sweeping departures from normative halacha, issuing responsa that have strained the parameters of the law, all the while claiming to be guided by it. The conceit of this process is that it purports to be guided by halacha while clearly ignoring the law when deemed politically expedient, socially desirable or simply convenient.

The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS), is the committee that rabbis turn to for guidance on questions that may be too complicated or too difficult for the local rabbi to address. Lay leadership is not allowed to send questions to the committee, such requests are given back to the local rabbi for a rabbinic ruling. (Disclosure here: My daughter is currently the Secretary of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards.) I believe that they started to meet in 1927. They are NOT the final rule in Conservative Judaism, only a guide to local rabbis who need help in making a decision. Over the years the composition and role of the committee has changed but not its mandate. It is more inclusive of the different streams in our pluralistic movement and reflects the wide range of ages of rabbis. Just as the Congress of the United States took years to find the limits of their office and the proper track for this country, the CJLS also has a history of struggling to find the proper balance between tradition and change. The key here is “normative Halacha”. Halacha over the centuries has grown and changed in certain ways. Orthodox Halacha is an approach. The Positive-Historical school proposed a different approach, where Halacha can be decided by how it was applied in certain historical contexts. In different places, at different times, Halacha has been decided differently. Orthodox Halacha is determined by rabbis who are accepted Sages. Historical Halacha is determined by the rabbi who was faced with a local issue. Sometimes the larger Halacha validated this interpretation, sometimes it did not. The CJLS is indeed guided by “normative Halacha” but not always in the same way as Orthodox rabbis would apply it. I also should add that there are some rabbis in Conservative Judaism who think that we should ONLY use “normative Halacha”. We will see more about this later in the article.

Although the Conservative Movement still claims to be guided by halacha, it is difficult to see how its myriad of changes – starting with the official endorsement of driving on Shabbat to its recent conflicting responsa on homosexuality and the ordination of gay rabbis – can be justified or even rationalized on halachic grounds. Indeed, many of these changes fall so far outside the boundaries of the law that they are clearly motivated by external concerns and values, not halachic logic or precedent.



The CJLS is guided by Halacha. It just does not use the same guides that Orthodox Judaism uses. When appropriate, a minority opinion may be used to validate a practice. Sometimes there is disagreement over the definitions in a decision. Concerning riding on Shabbat, one of the first times the CJLS varied from Orthodox Halacha, one difference was in the definition of “riding.” The CJLS felt that cars were not the same as horses and the rules should be different. Since that ruling (which was a minority opinion) there have been Conservative rabbis who have disagreed and not held by it. Some say they would like it changed; but an opinion of the CJLS is not binding on all rabbis. It is only an opinion. There have been, actually very few CJLS opinions that vary from normative Halacha and most, at least, give halachic reasoning for the change. (There is no reason a rabbi can’t use a more liberal position rather than a strict one). One such change was the recent ruling on Homosexuality. It took years to create the position and many positions were suggested and rejected. In the end, Halacha could not help Conservative Judaism become more inclusive, and in a very rare moment, the CJLS accepted positions that were outside normal halachic processes. It was very controversial, as one might expect, and some rabbis on the committee quit the committee because of it. But in this case, opinions that said that human dignity trumps Halacha won.



Alarmingly, when attempting to justify changes in practice and observance that clearly contravene halacha, today’s Conservative rabbis often seem unfamiliar with the traditional rabbinic sources; and when discussing their movement’s evolving positions they are informed more by inter-movement politics than substantive halacha. Thus, in response to the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism’s continuing claims to be a halachic movement, many of its critics now refer to it as “halachic style.” That is, just as “kosher style” restaurants are not truly kosher, neither is a “halachic-style movement” truly guided or constrained by Jewish law.



Conservative Judaism has never held by the opinion that the Halacha is “all or nothing”. We believe that just because we disagree on certain halachic definitions and processes that we use occasionally, does not make us non-halachic. The CJLS is very aware of traditional Rabbinic sources and also of the needs of Jews living in North America (there are different committees that rule in South America and Israel/Europe). The only people who call Conservative Judaism “halachic style” are those who disagree with our interpretation of Jewish law. We believe that Orthodox rabbis do not have a “lock” on what is “normative Halacha” and that, as we see in Israel, they too are all too often ruling based on inter-movement politics. (I would ask the Rabbanut in Israel about their recent rulings on Conversion.) Mr. Housman here reveals his Orthodox bias.



So, what are the practical consequences of this evolution? Perhaps most significant is the sense of alienation felt by people who grew up in “traditional” Conservative synagogues. Because of their observant orientation, they could not reconcile themselves with the relaxation of standards that came with the liberalization of ritual and practice – from the wholesale disregard of family purity laws to the relaxation of standards of kashrut, conversion, divorce and education. Indeed, one need only look to the small and shrinking percentage of Conservative congregants who actually keep kosher, attend services regularly or observe Shabbat to see that even the most minimal tokens of observance are no longer a priority for the vast majority of the movement’s constituents.



Unlike the Orthodox who “drum out” anyone who disagrees with their rulings (for example Rabbi Druckman of the Conversion court and Rabbi Emmanuel Rackman z’l who ruled on Agunot) Conservative Judaism has never abandoned a rabbi or lay person for being “too strict” or “too traditional”. Our movement has never ruled to “disregard” family purity laws, and as for the “relaxation of standards” referred to above, what he is talking about are standards imposed by Orthodox rabbis with whom we disagree. If an Orthodox rabbi says that it is OK for autopsy rules to be relaxed in cases of transplant, that is “normative Halacha” but if a Conservative rabbi says that a convert who is sincere and willing to learn and grow in their practice of Jewish law, should be accepted as a convert, then we are “disregarding standards”. If our laypeople are not practicing as strictly as Orthodox rabbis, that is not a flaw. There are plenty of Orthodox Jews who ride to shul on Shabbat and park around the corner where no one will see. There are plenty who do not always eat up to Orthodox Kashrut standards. Conversion and Divorce in Orthodox ritual courts is more often than not politically motivated (a member of the congregation or a child of a big donor) than based on halachic considerations. I am not saying that Conservative Judaism does not have challenges to face with our members, only that we are willing to face the challenges where Orthodox rabbis tend to ignore them.



Paradoxically, for many people born in the 1960s and later who are not personally observant, but who received more traditional education (i.e., those who came of age during the most extreme period of liberalization from the 1970s to 1990s), the intellectual disconnect between the halachic process and the movement’s evolution is difficult to reconcile; and the nagging inconsistency between many of the movement’s changes and the halacha by which it claims still to be guided is viewed even by many non-observant people as intellectually dishonest. Moreover, the concomitant rise in intermarriage amongst people reared within the Conservative fold has provided a stark realization of where less observance and education ultimately leads. And this realization has stimulated a return to observance by many, albeit in varying forms and degrees.

Observance has indeed experienced many twists and turns over the past 50 years, as it has had over the past 1000 years. The Halacha of Dutch Jews were different than eastern European Jews. Hasidim had different standards from Mitnagdim. Sephardic practice is very different from Ashkenazic practice. Orthodox Judaism before 1960 was more liberal than it is now, 50 years later. The 19th century saw three halachic guides, the “Kitzur Shulchan Aruch” which was strict, the “Mishna Berura” which was more moderate, and the “Aruch HaShulchan” the most liberal of the three. I find it intellectually dishonest that the most liberal opinions are the ones excluded from halachic discussions. The only people who claim that Conservative Jews are intellectually dishonest are those who disagree with our positions. I can’t say, any more than any other halachic authority can say, that the system is perfect. We have our problems like any other movement. Is it intellectually dishonest to say that we disagree with a ruling by an Orthodox rabbi? I think it is intellectually dishonest for a person who has no connection with Orthodox Halacha, someone who disregards Shabbat, Kashrut and family purity laws, but insists that the only “real” law in Judaism is Orthodox law, THAT person is intellectually dishonest. Someone who chooses the strictest interpretation of the Law and then says they will not follow it; such a person is no more representative of Orthodox Judaism than is the person, who has a traditional education and thinks that we are intellectually dishonest, a Conservative Jew.

In an increasingly common pattern, those who aspire to greater observance often find that they cannot live more committed lifestyles within the culture of today’s Conservative Movement. Although the movement’s hierarchy routinely trumpets the beauty of diversity in belief and practice, and claims that there is room in the tent for all levels of observance, those who hold more traditional beliefs and values are generally marginalized, made to feel unwelcome and ultimately excluded. The usual litmus test for whether one’s ritual orientation is outside of the movement’s mainstream is the acceptance or rejection of “egalitarian minyanim”, with those who do not accept the practice usually being branded as misogynists, reactionaries or extremists.



As I mentioned before, there are some, after the difficult deliberations over homosexuality in the CJLS who have removed themselves from the committee. They have not left Conservative Judaism. Far more people have been made to feel there is no room for them in Orthodox Judaism than those who feel that way in Conservative Judaism; the Orthodox have shut them out, we have not. Our ranks are filled with those who have been told there is no place for them in their Orthodox synagogue. We don’t ask anyone at any door if they are misogynists, reactionary or extremists. Our tent remains open to all. There are some who find that Orthodoxy speaks to their religious feelings and some who feel that Reform Judaism is better for their family; in the same way that there are Orthodox Jews and Reform Jews who have found a home in Conservative Judaism. The real difference here is that the leadership of Orthodox Judaism does not accept anything less than an Orthodox interpretation of Judaism. Conservative Judaism is happy to help people find their place in the Jewish spectrum; it is Orthodox Judaism that has litmus tests for its Jews (even looking in the windows of people’s homes to make sure that, behind closed doors, they are not watching TV on Shabbat).



As a consequence, many congregants have left their Conservative synagogues to search for spiritual meaning within a more traditional institutional framework. Interestingly, while many emigres from the movement still believe that level of observance is a personal matter between them and the Almighty, they are also increasingly guided by a sense of the vitality of halacha and a belief in revelation, both of which set goals to which they can aspire and by which they can measure their achievement and growth as Jews. It is difficult, if not impossible, to do that when the law is treated merely as tradition or simply as a sociological construct. It is then subject to drastic change even outside the logical boundary of its own structure, particularly when the engine for change is fueled by external considerations rather than internal process and consistency.



A legal system has its routine ways of growing and changing, and when those routines no longer work, a secular system will amend the law. Religious law, coming from God, clearly can’t be amended. Rabbis in every generation have struggled to find ways to keep the law growing and relevant within the routine of the law, but have not hesitated to make changes when needed. The logical structure of the law is not divine, it is a human construction. All changes in the law are fueled by external considerations. The Prozbul was fueled by the change from agricultural to urban settlements. The ruling by Rabbenu Gershon ending polygamy was fueled by the politics of Christian Europe. The rulings of the Hatam Sofer on the minimum standards of wine, matzah and maror in the 19th and early 20th century were fueled by the rise of Reform and Conservative Judaism. The ruling by the CJLS on homosexuality was fueled by scientific changes in the way we understand the nature of homosexuality. Yes there are Jews who prefer the Orthodox style of Jewish Law, but those who do not accept Orthodox law and who feel that Orthodoxy has nothing to say to them, and who find intellectual honesty and support in the Conservative movement are also Jews who do not hold as Mr. Housman. What is striking is that we are willing to admit that there are positions in Jewish Law that sometimes are stricter than those discussed at the CJLS. Orthodox authorities do not offer us the same consideration. I ask you, my readers, who do you think is really intellectually dishonest?