Talk:Conservative Judaism

Early History

"The Seminary's brief affiliation with the traditional congregations that established the Orthodox Union of America in 1898 was severed due to the Orthodox rejection of the Seminary's academic approach to Jewish learning."

Would anyone care to comment on this? What is the source? The process of distinguishing JTS (and Conservative Judaism in general) from Orthodoxy was a slow and still ongoing one. See, for example, the entries for "Conservative Judaism" and "Jewish Theological Seminary" in the Encyclopedia Judaica. But, more specifically, Congregation Shearith Israel (H. Pereira Mendes) did not reject the Seminary with the arrival of Shechter. In fact despite being a founder of the Orthodox Union, it was served by clergy from both JTS and YU. In 1946, Rabbi Louis C. Gerstein, a musmakh of JTS, joined the rabbinate of Shearith Israel. He later became the senior rabbi and led the congregation until his retirement in 1988. To say that the affiliation of the founding congregations with JTS was brief - is not entirely accurate. More needs to written about foundation of the Rabbinical Assembly and United Synagogue as these organizational structures speak more to the development of a "Conservative Judaism" apart from "Orthodoxy" than does JTS on its own.Guedalia D'Montenegro 15:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition

I'm guessing this article was not written by a Conservative Jew.

Danny, please tell me why you disagree with my definition. Ezra Wax

It is not a definition in terms of itself. It is a definition in relationship to some other movement--Orthodoxy. Also Conservative Judaism has a very precise definition. It means something very specific and has a genuine history and ideology. It is not a matter of "level of observance." Finally, you are confusing Conservative and conservative. Danny

Ok. Suppose I change the first definition to a definition of conservative Judaism? Ezra Wax

There is no value to the second definition. Why do you feel a need to rank movements along your spectrum of values? Danny

Minor Edit, 2002

Not to butt in, guys, but... "Conservative Judaism refers to the unified movement of Conservative Judaism."

Does this sentence mean anything at all, or can it be deleted? Tokerboy 02:05 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)

delete away! Danny

Denomination vs. Sect

Conservative Judaism, like Reform Judaism and Orthodox Judaism, is a denomination, and is certainly not a sect. According to the ReligiousTolerance.Org website (which uses pretty mainstream definitions):

A Denomination is an established religious group, which has usually been in existence for many years and has geographically widespread membership. It typically unites a group of individual congregations into a single administrative body. Denominations differ greatly in the sharing of power between individual congregations and the central authority.

A Sect is a small religious group that is an offshoot of an established religion or denomination. It holds most beliefs in common with its religion of origin, but has a number of novel concepts which differentiate them from that religion.

By this definition, the only differences are size and possibly, age and geographic distribution. I think that is missing the point - as the terms are understood, theological legitimacy is at least as important a criteria. Of course, people aren't going to agree on that though...

Although this would make certain readers cringe, this would mean that both Ultra-Orthodox Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism may possibly be sects, and it is only Orthodox, Reform and Conservative that are denominations of rabbinic Judaism. RK

How interesting, you seem oblivious that perhaps the "Ultra-Orthodox" (considered a pejorative word by the way) consider themselves to be the actual "religion of origin". Ask yourself this question, if you could transport yourself back in time and observe the Jews throughout all the ages until the 1800's, what Judaism would you see them practicing ? We are all indeed entitled to live life with our own ideas, however let us not practice revisionism.

Use of "allegedly"

I agree with nearly all of Billfish's recent edits. The one exception is his addition of the word "allegedly" before a listing of Conservative Jewish beliefs about God. That word should only be used when someone is making an (as yet) unproven or controversial claim about someone. Conservative Jews are open about their monotheism, i.e. belief in one God, and open about the fact that the Conservative movement has never affirmed one specific form of monotheism. It has allowed, and many would say encouraged, members to read sacred Jewish texts and come up with their own views on this issue. (Of course, as the article states, the draw the line at trinitarianism and dualism. All forms of Judaism reject such beliefs as non-monotheistic.) Their own papers, journals, websites and sermons mention all of the stated forms of monotheistic belief. This range of beliefs is well documented in Rabbi Elliot N. Dorff's book, Conservative Judaism: From Our Ancestors To Our Descendants, and in the many articles on theology published in the Rabbinical Assembly's quarterly journal, Conservative Judaism. I can also provide additional references on any of these topics, per request. RK 23:01, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

Views of revelation

Orthodox Jews believe that God can and has revealed his will to man in essentially a verbal, quotable form. Rabbi Norman Lamm writes: "I believe the Torah is divine revelation in two ways: in that it is God-given and in that it is godly. By "God-given," I mean that He willed that man abide by his commandments and that will was communicated in discrete words and letters. Man apprehends in many ways: by intuition, inspiration, experience, deduction and by direct instruction. The divine will, if it is to be made known, is sufficiently important for it to be revealed in as direct, unequivocal, and unambiguous a manner as possible, so that it will be understood by the largest number of the people to whom this will is addressed. Language, though so faulty an instrument, is still the best means of communication to most human beings. Hence, I accept unapologetically the idea of the verbal revelation of the Torah." (The Condition of Jewish Belief, Macmillan 1966)

This point of view is allowable within Conservative Judaism, but the great majority of Conservative Jews do not accept this. Due to their beliefs about the nature of God, most Conservative Jews hold that revelation must be non-verbal and non-literal. However, many C Jews believe that the Jewish prophets were inspired by God, just not in a verbal-like fashion. Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel writes "As a report about Revelation, the Bible itself is a midrash. To convey what the prophets experienced, the Bible could either use terms of descriptions or terms of indication. Any description of the act of revelation in empirical categories would have produced a caricature. That is why all the Bible does is to state that revelation happened; How it happened is something they could only convey in words that are evocative and suggestive." [God in Search of Man, Heschel, p.194]

Similarly, Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser writes: "Man receives a divine communication when the divine spirit rests on him, but man must give form to that communication; He must express it in words, in images and in symbols which will make his message intelligible to other men. Out of this need to give form to the truth that is revealed to him, the prophet places the stamp of his own individuality upon that truth."

Many other Conservative Jews believe that God's will is revealed through the interaction of man and God throughout history. In this view, by viewing how the Jewish people have understood God's will throughout history, we see how God has influenced the development of Jewish law; it is this process that we should recognize as "revelation".

Rabbi Louis Jacobs writes "Revelation is an encounter between the divine and the human, so that there is a human as well as a divine factor in revelation, God revealing His will not alone to men, but _through_ men....The new knowledge need not in any way affect our reverence for the Bible and our loyalty to its teachings. God's Power is not lessened because God preferred to co-operate with His creatures in producing the Book of Books." [We Have Reason to Believe, p.81]

In the foreword to the fourth edition of this book (1995), Rabbi Jacobs writes notes that "for all their vast wisdom and knowledge, the Talmudic rabbis and mediaeval thinkers did not operate with the tools of modern historical research. How could they? They had no access to the historical methodology, which remained undeveloped until the post-mediaeval period....The task of the Jewish theologian is not to try to defend the mediaeval picture of how Judaism came about. Such a picture has gone, never to return. The modern Jewish theologian, true to tradition, has to try to understand how, now that Judaism is seen to have had a history...the traditional view of Torah Min Ha-Shamayim can be reinterpreted....The solution, as Zechariah Frankel saw in the last century, is to see the whole process in dynamic, rather than static, terms; that, in the words of Robert Gordis, God gave the Torah not only to the Jewish people, but through the Jewish people.....Such a position in no way involves any rejection of belief in the Torah and in the mitzvot as divine commands. The Torah is still God-given if the 'giving' is seen to take place through the historical experiences of the Jewish people in its long quest for God. [We Have Reason to Believe]

Some within Reform Judaism accept this view, with the added proviso that such a view of revelation implies that Jewish law is no longer binding. Rabbi Dorff summarizes this Reform view: "God reveals His will to human beings through the use of human reason and moral striving. Each individual can be the recipient of revelation (in that sense) if he or she will only pay attention to the evidences of God in the natural and moral orders of the universe, and deduce from that what God requires of him or her. Moreover, as humanity has more experience, human knowledge of what is and what ought to be grows, and so the scope and accuracy of revelation progresses as time goes on. This explains why Reform Jews believe that Jewish law of previous eras is not binding, and why it is the individual who decides what to observe in Reform Judaism." [Elliot Dorff Conservative Judaism: Our Ancestors to Our Descendants United Synagogue, 1996]

All I know is the "Revelation of Torah" section in this article is trash. Basically, it says, "Conservatives assume that Orthodox Jews believe something the latter actually doesn't believe in." I think the movement's been around long enough to understand Orthodoxy, if not in the emotional aspect (which Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik holds is fundamental. see Lonely Man of Faith), at least in the logical sense. --Yodamace1 16:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Gap in view and practice

I've left this in (not my text) but it should be cited appropriately:

"A number of studies have shown that there is a large gap between what the Conservative movement teaches and what most of its laypeople have incorporated into their daily lives. In practice, the majority of people who have come to join Conservative synagogues only follow all these laws rarely. Most do follow most of the laws some of the time, but only a minority follow most or all of the laws all of time. There is a substantial committed core, consisting of the lay leadership, rabbis, cantors, educators, and those who have graduated from the movement's religious day schools and summer camps, that do take Jewish law very seriously. Recent studies have shown an increase in the observance of members of the movement." Kaisershatner 14:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• "Eight Up: The College Years," a study which tracked Conservative Jews in the Bar and Bat Mitzvah class of 1994-1995, through high school and in college. Ariela Keysar and Barry Kosmin.

• Conservative Leader Takes Heat for Standards Stance, Forward, March 1, 2002

• Encouraging Trends Among Conservative Synagogue Members, Rabbi Alan Silverstein

Where Are The Non-Anglosaxon Jews?

I have noticed that in the articles concerning Conservative Judaism, Orthodox Judaism, Liberal Judaism, Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism, there is a heavy focus on the Jewish communities in Anglosaxon countries, while leaving the millions of Jews living in, for example, mainland Europe totally out of the question. How come? For what I am aware of, these Jewish streams are also represented in a lot of other parts of the world Rick86 21:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the short answer is that most of the editors on English Wikipedia are living in those 'Anglosaxon' countries. It's not an excuse, though. Nomist 11:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside Anglo-Saxon countries there is much less denominational diversity. There is Orthodox Judaism, and there are Jews who are less serious about Orthodox Judaism. Other denominations may be established but usually have small followings. Of course this doesn't answer the question in relation to the Orthodox Judaism article.

Merge articles?

It doesn't seem right that the main link to Conservative in the 'Jew' template goes here, rather than the more general Masorti article. In fact, I'm not sure that it needs to be a separate article at all. I propose merging this article and Masorti into one main article on Conservative/Masorti Judaism, with smaller individual articles about the Conservative/Masorti movement in each particular country. This would help address Rick86's question above, too. Any thoughts? Nomist 11:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I for one fullheartedly agree. Conservative Judaism is 'traditional' Judaism, and in that sense doesn't differ from Masorti Judaism, which is based on the same principles (with a few minor differences). In that sense I also find it a good idea to have smaller individual articles about the Conservative/Masorti movement in each particular country. I am willing to do my share in changing this and writing a few articles. Rick86 13:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have an objection to this proposed merge. Your argument, in theory, make sense. But in practice I believe that most English speaking Jews would describe "Conservative Judaism" as the more general movement, and use other terms - such as "Masorti" - for more regional specific movements of Conservative Judaism.

If we wanted to strictly describe Conservative Judaism through its institutional structures, one would end up defining a little known and poorly funded group - Masorti Olami - as the main point, and everything else would be underneath it as sub-sections. To wit:

• Masorti Olami - The World Council of Conservative/Masorti Synagogues
  • United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism (North America)
  • The Masorti Movement in Israel
  • The Assembly of Masorti Synagogues - Conservative Judaism in the United Kingdom
  • The Neolog Movement in Hungary
  • (Whatever the Conservative Jews in Argentina call themselves, I don't know.)

In practice, people use the term "Masorti" to refer speficially to the Conservative movement in Israel, and less often, in the UK. Now, many Conservative Jews believe that Conservative Judaism in North America should rename itself as Masorti. No less a figure than Rabbi Elliot N. Dorff holds this way. But these suggestions haven't taken hold.

Nonetheless, I do not disagree with your descriptions. I think the best of both worlds would be to slightly rewrite the introduction to make your points clear, e.g. "Conservative Judaism is 'traditional' Judaism, and in that sense doesn't differ from Masorti Judaism, which is based on the same principles (with a few minor differences)." RK 00:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

USA Jewish history is not the same as Israeli society

This article and Masorti should not be merged. Conservative Judaism is well-known for about one hundred years by millions of Jews and the non-Jewish world -- who in America would know that all of a sudden Conservatives are now to be known as "Masortis"? No-one! So let's avoid serving as a de facto front for original research and violating Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Until such time as the Conservative movement in the USA changes it's name to "Masorti" only, the proposal to merge makes no sense and must be dropped. On the contrary, keep each article and expand them so that they reflect their own growing uniqueness. IZAK 09:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Hello, I've added criticism by Haredi rabbi Avi Shafran to the page. This criticism is quite strong, too strong for my personal taste. The Orthodox Union, somewhat to the left of Agudath Israel of America, came out with a statement distancing itself from criticism of this type. But it is well-sourced and the article was notable when it came out. --Shirahadasha 04:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And not a single Conservative rabbi disagreed with either of these criticisms? I don't believe it. In fact, I know for a fact that every Conservative rabbi I have spoken to has strongly disputed these criticisms, and in fact many have called Rabbi AVi Shafran a liar. It should also be noted that Avi Shafran once publicly said that Conservative Jews are sinners and deserve be murdered. Not mentioning this kind of seems dishonest, right? But I frankly have lost any hope I once had the critics of Conservative Judaism has any honesty whatsoever.

RK, the community had decided that there would be a "criticism" section for each of the major denominations. A criticism section is exactly that, criticism. Content which is not critical does not belong there. Everybody gets one. Share the pain. --Shirahadasha 00:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? First off, your cry of "SHARE THE PAIN" is an indication that you may not be committed to our NPOV policy, but almost sounds as if you want to attack Conservative Judaism. That would not be appropriate. Secondly, I never claimed that this article should not have a section containing critical commentary. Where di you get such an idea? All I did was ask why the only person cited was one person who has a history of hateful speech. (His speech is so hysterically violent that the anti-defamation league and his own fellow Orthodox rabbis censured him.) RK

Also, someone keeps removing all the quotations and sources, and taking statements out of context. That is inappropriate. 00:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

RK, agree Avi Shafran uses some very strong language at times, but in this case his article captures the Orthodox Right's views reasonably well, and in terms appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. You were responding to the criticisms with pro-Conservative retorts, and I don't believe that's appropriate for the criticism section. You also wanted to put in some of Shafran's invective, but I believe an encyclopedia should prefer moderately-toned arguments to invective, the idea is to present different positions and let people choose. Conservative (and Reform) leaders have said some nasty things about Orthodoxy over the years; unfortunately practically everybody's been rude to everyone else at one time or another. Shafran, for reasons I can't fathom, is an official spokesperson for a leading Haredi organization and his criticism represents a POV that isn't his alone (You should see some of the things he's said about Modern Orthodoxy, by the way.). I used him to present the Haredi position in the Women Of The Wall article for similar reasons. Best Wishes, --Shirahadasha 04:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Shirahadasha is right here.

Hi there, I'm just curious why Conservative Judaism has/needs a criticism? I noticed that the orthodox judaism section doesnt have one? I'm not sure if I shold be offended by this, not that there criticism, but that its not equal across wikipedia. --Erasmosis 23:11 6 December 2006 (UTC)

See Modern Orthodox Judaism#Criticism. See also the criticism oin Chabad Lubavich#Controversies, Avi Weiss #Open Orthodoxy and Yeshivat Chovevei Torah#Criticism. There have been branches of Judaism which have inexplicably escaped a Criticism section and should have one given that other sections do, but such a section is not unique to Conservative Judaism. Critical content is encyclopedic, reliably sourced, and consistent with WP:NPOV as well as long-standing Wikipedia practice given the long-standing Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of Christianity, and Criticism of Islam articles among others. Best, --Shirahadasha 09:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

- Am I wrong to think that the section on Feminist criticism violates NPOV standards? It describes the belief that traditional Judaism is discriminatory against women as "mistaken". Maybe it is, but I think that's an opinion rather than a standard, commonly accepted truth. Quite the opposite, actually, since Reform Judaism seems to hold this "mistaken" belief and is the largest Jewish denomination in the United States.

If it's commonly accepted as fact, there should be a citation to prove it. Otherwise, we should delete the second half of the passage in accordance with WP:NPOV. Thoughts? --Gradient 07:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, it's unquestionable POV. I removed it. Daniel^C/_T+ 13:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Driving and Using Electricity on Shabbat

As someone who identifies as being an observant Conservative Jew (Having attended Solomon Schechter schools from K-12th grade, attended and worked at several Ramah Camps, and being a member of a Beth Shalom synagogue), as well as someone who regularly interacts with high-ranking Rabbis within the Conservative movement, I must ask for a source for the claim that the conservative movement allows driving and the use of electricity on Shabbat. The justifications given for these supposed decisions have been argued on several occasions, but, as I understand it, where never widely accepted.

In my 13 years as a student at two different Solomon Schechter Schools, and 13 summers of spending Shabbat at 4 different Ramah Camps, all have taught that driving and the use of electricity on Shabbat is prohibited by the Conservative Movement, except in certain very specific circumstances (such as to save a life).

Hello, this CJLS responsum by Rabbi Arnold Goodman on videotaping on shabbat mentions the CJLS decision permitting electricity on shabbat. It's cited as source 3 in the article. And here's a source on driving on Shabbat. The permissions are limited but they do exist. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The article, as currently written, contains certain commonly accepted half-truths. The first is the implicit idea that a CJLS ruling universally alters the halakhic nature of the movement. In fact, a Conservative congregational rabbi is free to reject any leniency introduced by the CJLS if he or she sees fit.

Is it always a leniency? :-P --yonkeltron 08:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The second, more specific and more egregious, is the notion that the Conservative movement lifted any sort of ban on fire on Shabbat. The "driving teshuvah" contains no such thing. It is a document permitting Conservative rabbis not to reprimand their non-observant congregants who drive to shul on Shabbat, the logic being that only be attendance at synagogue are they likely to remain attached to Judaism and eventually to become Shabbat observant. It allows for this only in cases in which a congregant cannot possibly walk to and from the synagogue due to the distance, and only permits driving to the synagogue and back by the shortest route possible. It allows this based on a combination of biblical narrative analysis and an argument — unconvincing, in my opinion — that driving a car constitutes a number of shevuyot but not any melakhot.

The content of the original teshuvah, which is available from the Rabbinical Assembly, makes it clear that the authors never intended for self-described observant Jews to take advantage of this very limited heter, and certainly not rabbis. In fact, the teshuvah is explicitly presented as a temporary measure, and calls for the USCJ to enact an emergency program on Shabbat observance in order to alleviate the need for the ruling. Sadly, in the 50 years since then no such program has ever been initiated. InfiniteMonkeys 15:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, isn't it correct to say that a permissive opinion adopted by the CJLS means Conservative Judaism permits the practice? My understanding is that even though Conservative Rabbis may individually not regard it as permitted, the fact that the opinion was adopted means the Rabbinical Assembly through its Law Committee regards the yes-it-can position as a permissable one to take. If you believe there should be language clarifying this distinction, feel free to propose it. As to the Shabbat issue, feel free to add language clarifying the permission as limited to driving to Synagogue on Shabbat if not currently sufficiently clear. Would it be possible to quote the original Responsum language as a source for your other positions on this issue? This would seem to be an issue of controversy and might deserve its own subsection, The source I quoted -- and I would ordinarily expect the Shechter Institute could be trusted to represent Conservative Judaism -- described the ruling as a permission rather than a "we won't chastise" and advised the querier that it could be done.--Shirahadasha 00:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Conservative movement has allowed driving to Synagogue on Shabbat in an instance where there is no nearby Synagogue (although I live within walking distance so I don't have to). I have never heard, however, the claims about using electricty and certainly not videotaping. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 03:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The official responsum on videotaping on shabbat is a relatively new one. It's a minority opinion -- not adopted by a majority, but by enough of a plurality to be considered a valid option for a congregational rabbi to choose under the CJLS's rules. Best, --Shirahadasha 12:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Tagged article as needing significant work

This article needs significant work.

1. This article needs to be wikified according to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Entire sections need to be reformatted and possibly spun off into new articles. While lots of content is great, but it needs to be organized so that it's readable and easy to find things.
2. This article seems to contain too few opinions. Many more viewpoints from within the movement need to be included before there is an accurate picture of things.
3. This article needs to cite sources more effectively. Several sections have random block-quotes with no attribution or verifiable source. While there are some citations, many are incomplete or otherwise improper. Please consult the special page on Wikipedia:Citing Sources. In the meantime, when reading or browsing the article, make sure to make liberal use of the {{fact}} tag in order to let others know what needs to be cited or otherwise cleaned up in terms of Wikipedia:Verifiability yonkeltron 20:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Splitting up and adding NavBoxes

This article can spin out at least one article (the section on Conservative Jewish Law should become" Conservative Halakha" and it might be worth merging it with Conservative Responsa and the CLJS articles) and we should consider designing a Conservative Judaism NavBox to sit on the bottom of pages. That way we can unify the articles a little bit better. Suggestions? Ideas? Comments, concerns or kvetching? --yonkeltron 07:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I couldn't sleep so I hacked together the following NavBox. I think grey is an appropriate color.

. Let's try to make sure that this template contains the "Best Of" and not just the entire category. --yonkeltron 07:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I vote to SPLIT Strongly and to merge with Conservative Halakhah and CLJS. I also think that Belief should also be split, since it (1) breaks the article into two, (2) is the section that lacks the diversity (3) does not relate to the history (4) Will change the most under Arnie Eisen.--Jayrav 15:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I would put the section on Revelation on this talk page back into the new Belief page. And arrange the belief page in a spectrum from naturalistic to supernatural. Also the entire CJ entry lacks sources and should be fact checked. Anyone out there who owns Dorff, Siegal, and Waxman to add sources?--Jayrav 15:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Are we still down with spinning off the belief section into it's own section? --yonkeltron 07:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I second your rationale and am pleased you are on board with this. Do we do a vote or do we just move it? --yonkeltron 06:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is the vote. I think you should go ahead and do it. --Jayrav 03:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's wait a little bit and see what people have to say first. This move should happen in phases.

1. Phase Aleph: Spinning out law sections into a new article.
2. Phase Bet: Proposal to merge CLJS and Conservative responsa into Conservative Halakha.
3. Phase Gimmel: Proposal for the creation of a Conservative Jewish Beliefs article.
4. Phase Daled: ....

As much as we should be bold in editing, we need to give the opportunity for the input of others. --yonkeltron 06:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to make all of this better organized. For "Phase Bet", I think CLJS and Conservative responsa should remain separate because they are sufficiently distinct topics. CLJS should deal with the committee, current members, the history of the committee, the process of the committee, past members, etc., while Conservative responsa should deal with the theology, the topics, the rulings, etc. EqualsMCSquared 17:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Big Changes

Ok khevra, here we go! I have spun off the section on Conservative Halakha into a standalone article. It, like the rest of this article needs to be cleaned up significantly in order to meet standards and avoid deletion! Also, I have suggested that the Conservative Responsa article be merged into Conservative Halakha in order to keep things together. Let's get some discussion on this going in order to make sure that we are doing this responsibly. Lastly, can we maybe come up with a todo list on how to improve articles in this series? --yonkeltron 23:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Spinning off Criticism sections

I move to spin off the criticisms section of the Conservative Judaism article into a separate article. This is both to make the main article smaller and also so that there is a place for the content to get a fair shake. Especially because there is so much of it. --yonkeltron 06:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Should be done now. Check it out and make sure that this article has a good enough lead paragraph in compliance with NPOV. The article is called Criticism of Conservative Judaism --yonkeltron 06:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting "dedication to Halakha" citation

My edits to Conservative Judaism deleting "A dedication to Halakha... [as a] guide for our lives." reflects CJLS ruling on marriage and ordination. The CJLS ruling violates Halakha as it has existed in the Law. Sincerely, Nkras 07:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (copied from EqualsMCSquared UserTalk)

OK. So in your opinion the CJLS ruling violates halakha, but this Wikipedia page is not about your opinion. To be NPOV, all views should be represented including (at the very least) the viewpoint of Conservative Judaism on what Conservative Judaism is. First, your own analysis of the ruling is Original Research, which is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Second, do not delete cited material, per policy. Thanks. EqualsMCSquared 15:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Interpretation of this kind has not place here. Apropos, you may wish to look at the Conservative Halakha article currently under heavy development. --yonkeltron 17:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarified section to indicate this is Conservative Judaism's own characterization of itself. Any criticism of that characterization would appear to better belong in the "Criticism" section. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I shorted up the phrasing to be more consistent with the way Wikipedia introductions are normally written. For instance, on the LDS/Mormon page it says, "LDS believe in X, Y, Z"; it doesn't say "LDS claim that they believe in...", or the "their own self-description of their principles is...". Or, on the United States page it just says that the U.S. "is a federal constitutional republic" even though someone who thinks elections are rigged and stolen might prefer to write, "The U.S. claims to be a representative democracy." Trying to weaken a basic statement about Conservative Judaism's principles, without citation, after a decision that an editor views as inconsistent with those principles is Original Research on behalf of the editor, and this is against Wikipedia policy. EqualsMCSquared 19:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I would cite my proof the CJLS ruling violates Halakha - therefore rendering Conservative Judaism in violation of the Law and not adhering to Halakha. I am skeptical about what you believe to be "original research" or POV. If the CJLS decided that eating pork does not violate Halakha, would that: 1. make their ruling ipso facto Halakhical because the CJLS issued the ruling, and 2. would my assertion that it violated Torah be a POV and not a restatement of fact? Nkras 23:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

First, your proof is a good one and suppose I even agree with it. Still, since the proof is from you and not from a reliable source it violates the No Original Research policy. Second, supposing that you found a reliable source documenting this; then, according the the NPOV policy you should fairly represent all points of view by including your POV instead of replacing the POV that you disagree with. Third, even if you think all points of view are represented, including the ones you disagree with, you should not delete cited material. Hope this helps. EqualsMCSquared 00:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My proof - if I post it - is footnoted and cites multiple sources. That, it appears, would not be sufficient for you: no matter what facts I present, you would consider it a POV because I would not have presented "all sides". I will then ask you: what proof do you have that justifies keeping the assertion that "Th[e] principles of Conservative Judaism include...A "dedication to Halakha...[as a] guide for our lives"? Wouldn't your answer be a POV as well? 71.34.18.146 01:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding information that is relevant to this page and is from a reliable source (this means it is someone else's synthesis of ideas and conclusion, not yours) is different. You were previously trying to delete someone else's information from a reliable source because you didn't agree with it. This sort of deletion is against NPOV policy. EqualsMCSquared 04:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is best ended. Wikipedia has it's policies. Kindly direct your complaints regarding said policies to an administrator instead of violating those policies themselves. The talk page of this article is not for political debate it is for discussion relating to the improvement of the article. Thank you. --yonkeltron 17:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a halakhical debate not a political one, and addressing then properly editing factual information will improve the article. EqualsMCSquared is under the misguided view that my edit was based upon opinion. The information justifying my edit is based upon fact and is from a reliable source: The Torah. I refer you to Vayikra 18. This section of the Torah concerns immorality and forbidden relationships. Torah, post, pp. 648-655. Specifically, Vayikra 18:22 states “You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination”. The Torah is particularly harsh in condemning this practice. See footnotes for 18:22 and 18:23 in The Torah: The Chumash, Stone Edition, Mesorah Publications, 2001., commentary at page 653; see also Me’Am Lo’ez (1730), Rabbi Yaakov Culi, on 18:22 (homosexual acts) and 18:24-28 (defilement). Torah exists in fact and is authoritative. My edit stands. Nkras 00:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Nkras. You are not doing anyone any good here. Everyone is well aware that Orthodoxy and Conservative Jewry have different opinions about the nature of Halakha. The definition of Halakha is in debate not the categorization of Conservative Jewry as adhering to Halakha. It's hot potato and you know it. Let it go.Guedalia D'Montenegro

I find it amazing that you would classify a statement of fact as "vandalism". I didn't realize that Wikipedia was that deconstructionist. I suspect those who disagree with me are projecting. It is they who are basing their opposition not upon fact, but upon their political views. By opposing my edit, my opposition is asserting that Conservative Judaism adheres to Halakha, which is <their> POV. I have stated my facts and my sources. I dispute your assertion this debate is about "opinions about the nature of Halakha". It is the denial of fact by my opposition and their substitution of <their> POV as fact. Nkras 01:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nkras, a lot of people have criticized Conservative Judaism's recent actions, including Avi Shafran of Agudat Yisrael as well as the four people who resigned from its committee. If you can find critical comments, you're welcome to add them. However, religions in Wikipedia are generally entitled to describe their own beliefs in their own way, and if outsiders think they're being incorrect or inconsistent, there's a separate criticism section or article, and that's the place to add critical comments. I defend Orthodox Jewish views all the time from Biblical criticism folks and others who say traditional Jewish beliefs are wrong and shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article. I point out that Orthodox Jews are entitled to express their own beliefs in their own way in articles about their own beliefs and practices. For better or for worse, Conservative views are entitled to the same treatment in an article about Conservative Judaism. Please source any criticism you add. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Compromise edit. See history for details. Nkras 05:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess my edit was ok. No one's complained. :-) Nkras 23:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed the reference for the direct quote ("dedication to Halakha... [as a] guide for our lives") to be simply the reference for this direct quote about Conservative Judaism. Text in this reference that was not a citation for the direct quote was removed. For instance, if the quote is "Total abstinence is so excellent a thing... [I even] abstain from total abstinence itself" the proper reference citation is,

"<r e f>Mark Twain, Inscription to Mrs. Rutherford B. Hayes, reported in The Washington Post, June 11, 1881</r e f>"

not,

"<r e f>Inscription to Mrs. Rutherford B. Hayes, reported in The Washington Post, June 11, 1881. Some people thought Mark Twain was a racist. See www.cnn.com/racist. Other people thought Mark Twain was not a racist. See www.fox.com/not-a-racist</r e f>"

-EqualsMCSquared 06:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

After reading Shirahadasha's comment I then understood the proper way to edit this article. My compromise edit - with a reference in a FOOTNOTE - would inform readers there is a major disagreement in Judaism concerning the legitimacy Conservative Judaism's claim to be following Halakha, and that Conservative Judaism is not the sole artbiter of Halakha. This is a very important contextual element. Therefore, I'm reversing your deletion. nkras 15:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• First, it is not appropriate to add commentary to a footnote citation that sources a direct quote. (See above.)
• Second, the Prouser article is already referenced twice on this page.
• Third, the Prouser article does not claim that Conservative Judaism does or does not follow halakha; it argues for one specific side of a halakhic question.
• Fourth, the OU article does not even mention Conservative Judaism and, therefore, does not belong on this page; it belongs on a page about Orthodox Judaism or Judaism and Homosexuality, etc.
• Fifth, "Whether the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism follows Halakha is in dispute." is your opinion. Neither of the two links provided makes this claim. Being "Original Research", this is prohibited by Wikipedia policy.
• Sixth, there is no disagreement that the reference "Emet Ve-Emunah..." does contain that quote "dedication to Halakha... [as] a guide for our lives." Therefore, the citation/reference should be left as is.

-EqualsMCSquared 17:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• First, it is proper to inform the researcher of a fundamental difference in Judaism when the researcher may not know there are fundamental differences in Judaism.
• Second, referencing an article more than once is standard practice in footnoting.
• Third, I assent to the criticism of the Prouser article for the sake of reaching an agreement.
• Fourth, the OU article is prima facie evidence there is a fundamental disagreement concerning Halakha. The Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist Movements are noted by implication.
• Fifth, "Whether the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism follows Halakha is in dispute" is BASED UPON FACT. The presentation of FACT is NOT prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Your reverse was your POV.

The article will be edited to reflect the above points. 18:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Edited Criticism section for clarity, and replaced redundant cites with standard Ibid. Nkras 22:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks better, but the Criticism section needs more cited references. -EqualsMCSquared 00:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove previous edit for Ibid. with full cite. Didn't work. Nkras 22:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything in Rabbinic literature indicating that one who is not 100% observant cannot become a rabbi? I think that's the main question here. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Kari's question. Yes, there are such discussions. Although this depends on what "Rabbi" means. There is much discussion in rabbinic literature regarding who may serve as a judge or act as a witness. A person who openly violates a rule of the torah - is probably inneligible to serve as a witness, or judge. See generally, Maimonides, Mishneh Torah - Hilchot Sanhedrin Chapters 3 and 4. Although many of the duties of a modern rabbi are unrelated to serving as witnesses or judges, still rabbi's are called on from time to time - to answer questions of Jewish law, perform conversions, act as witnesses to marriage ceremonies and even to act as judges. So the question as to who may serve as a witness or judge is directly at issue. Unfortunately, we are getting away from the matter in question. The question is - whether Conservative Jewry can be defined by a dedication to "Halakha" or not. We should not be so naive as to assume that "Halkha" has one meaning acceptable to all. That is why wikipedia has an article on Halakha and a seperate article for Conservative Halakha. Accordingly, in my opinion, there is no reason not to describe Conservative Judaism as maintaining a dedication to Halakha. The recent footnotes by Nkrass, while much more acceptible than deleting the section entirely, are, in my opinion, still not on point. The debate regarding homosexual ordination/marriage and halakha is better dealt with in other sections (Namely, the sections for Jewish Law, Criticism, or in the article about Conservative Halakha. Guedalia D'Montenegro 17:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

G-d vs -o-

I am questioning the logic behind using a word other than "God" to refer to God. The prohibition against writing the Tetragrammaton applies only to writing the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew. Writing the word "God" is perfectly fine and is certainly more precise than writing "G-d". Perhaps, we should replace "G-d" with "-o-" because according to the faulty logic, they seem to be functionally equivalent. --yonkeltron 09:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to Devarim 12:3-4[1]. Nkras 13:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The question we should be asking here is not whether Judaism encourages writing "God" as "G-d", but which way encyclopedia article on Conservative Judaism should handle it. In my view, it's informative to link to G-d and to mention the significance of that spelling, but the article should be written from a neutral perspective, which means using the common term for the concept, in other words, using "God" most of the time. Mangojuice^talk 15:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent it's settled then. --yonkeltron 17:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

An article should accurately describe its subject matter. Religious terms have connotations that may not be applicable in a particular case. If the majority of the population commonly uses the terms "Zeus" or "Jesus Christ" to refer to the concept of the divinity in English, but Conservative Jews do not do so, then an article on Conservative Judaism should not use the terms "Zeus" or "Jesus Christ" because doing so would not accurately describe the subject. Same here. I doubt that most Conservative Jews use the hyphenated form or that Conservative Judaism officially requires it. But if someone can come up with a reliable source that they do, that should control. --Shirahadasha 17:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is accurately describing the subject matter by the use of "G-d". Trying to justify your usage of G-d with out the hyphen by NPOV is quite a stretch. Both are the same word, but the usage of "G-d" shows respect. "HaShem" is an alternative. Nkras 23:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, introducing ambiguity to the English language does not implicitly and expressly connote respect. Secondly, "God" refers to the concept of deity whereas "G-d" refers to the name of God in a distinctly Jewish sense. Perhaps the question to ask is whether we are referring to God the holy one blessed be he or the name of God in a Jewish context. --yonkeltron 01:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This is about referring to G-d in both senses, in an article about Conservative Judaism. You answered your own question. Nkras 02:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I answered no question. I only established that "G-d" refers to the name of God while the word "God" refers to Hashem. This is a silly argument. Please stop changing things based on personal preference. We don't want an edit war among friends. :-) --yonkeltron 03:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to comments made to my class a few years ago by Rabbi Neil Gillman, one of the g'dolei hador in the Conservative Movement. He disagrees with hyphenating because English is not a holy language. He finds it hypocritical when someone hyphenates in English and proceeds to spell out a Name of God in Hebrew. I used to use the "G dash d" until that class and now I spell it out. New question of the day: is there an issue of making an edit on an article that contains the Tetragrammaton? Valley2city 02:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. What I learned as Orthodox was that it is in no way a requirement to write G-d (or Gd). Many Jews do it this way as a sign of respect, but the same prohibitions used for the Hebrew names don't apply to English. I don't see it as a problem in articles on wikipedia - some editors will choose to use the hyphenated version, but if others choose to replace the hyphen with an 'o' it doesn't in any way change the meaning or take away the respect of the original editor. It's a non-issue. Dbratton 12:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I asked my rabbis the same question awhile back. Computer media (specifically ferro-magnetic storage devices) is, by-nature, transient and therefore one should not be held responsible for what is written on a computer screen any more than a chalk board. Obviously, for reasons of respect, it doesn't hurt to avoid it. --yonkeltron 03:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"God" is the correct usage in the Judaism articles in deference to "G-d", for the same reason as "Jesus" is used in the Messianic Judaism articles in deference to "Yeshua"--It's the most commonly used and understood name and therefore the one that is appropriate according to WP:MOS. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 05:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. :-s :-/ Nkras 02:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Orthodox view of Conservative conversations

Can somebody please provide source(s) for our text on this matter? To what extent might there be a makhloqet (debate) within the more modern/liberal side of Orthodoxy about rejecting Conservative converts? (Then the text should be qualified.) Also, isn't this a le-chatkhila (a priori) opinion, but be-de'eved (a posteriori, after the fact) many Orthodox rabbis would not nullify a marriage to a Conservative Jew? HG | Talk 17:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Describing the level of Ortho rejection

I don't think it's accurate to say "it is as though they [Conservative Jews] are following a different religion." The comparison is imprecise, especially problematic in a situation where the poskim are trying to be precise and the distinctions are important. Individuals Conservative Jews are not treated as non-Jewish. For instance, Orthodox Jews never count non-Jews for a minyan but this is not a problem for individual Conservative Jews (e.g., who go to an Orthodox minyan to say kaddish). A Conservative Jew may get an honor at (some) Ortho shuls, but non-Jews never would. The child of a Conservative Jew may be welcome in various Orthodox programs, but not of non-Jews. Etc. Even heretics (apikorsim) are not treated as if they belong to a different religion. Perhaps somebody will cite specific poskim or shul policies and the halakhic categories applied to the Conservatives. HG | Talk 22:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It is entirely accurate and there could be no better precision than to state that Conservative Judaism is a foreign religion. While not at all attempting to mock your thoughtful comments above, each one of your aforementioned issues with my statements would be very apropos would I be asserting that Conservative Jews are either not Jewish or considered to be not Jewish. However, I have asserted an entirely different position of Orthodoxy: that, while being Jewish, Conservative Jews practice a foreign religion, perhaps under the delusion that it is a left-wing, liberalized sort of Judaism. That may very well be how it is perceived in Conservatism, or it may be something entirely different, but the fact is that Judaism, at its core, states that all laws are sacred and cannot be tinkered with in order to improvise it into a modernized religion that molds to the users' needs at any given time period.

I think an analogous concept would be the members of a little treehouse club who make 5 rules of conduct for all members to follow, the fifth rule being that there can never be any more or less than these 5 rules. If someone in the treehouse club, we'll call him Bob, decides that rule #2, for instance, is no longer applicable for some sort of a reason, there are two things that can happen. The members of the treehouse club may rethink their initial constitution, express their collected sentiments that their initial '5 rule' rule was drafted too hastily, and perhaps rescind their doctrine(s) and allow Bob to be a part of the new constitution, or, they can be fundamentalist and expel Bob, who no longer desires to follow rule #2, and, in doing so, is transgressing rule #5 as well. Now, should Bob decide that he doesn't mind being expelled because his family has their own tree in which to build a treehouse and now he can make the rules for his own treehouse club, that doesn't mean that Bob's club has anything to do with the original club to which he belonged. Although he might perceive his new club (possessing rules #1, #3 and #4) as a liberalized offshoot of the orignal treehouse club, the members of the original club, when asked about their perception of this new Club of Bob, may take the stance that the Club of Bob is an entirely different entity, notwithstanding the fact that the two clubs share rules #1, #3 and #4.

Now one might consider all of the above as mere rhetoric, but no one but the official members and spokesmen of the first club have the right to determine the stance it will take towards the new Club of Bob.

Although it might sound silly, especially when compared with the above analogy, the religion of Judaism is an all or nothing religion. Sure, people err and no one is perfect. But when individuals go out and create a community that establishes itself on the basis of its strict adherance to all of the many, many commandments, customs, rituals and nuances of Judaism but is entirely and totally against one rule, such as the ban on homosexuality, or of driving on shabbos, or anything else for that matter, the Orthodox view of such an organized defiance of particular rules of Judaism is that it is not Judaism.

What is the answer to the following question? A hassidic rabbi, with a long beard and payos, who has a wife and 11 children and has never worked a day in his life because he learns in a kollel, comes home one day clean-shaven. His wife is shocked, and before she has a chance to faint, the man gathers his wife and children into the living room to explain that he just doesn't have the will to continue anymore, and he is sick and tired of Judaism. He wants to cross the country with a motorcycle gang he just met and he even thinks that a biker babe named Roz and he might be able to hit it off. Is he still Jewish? The answer is, 'Yes.' If he also said that he's converting to Christianity, or Hinduism, is he still Jewish then? Yes, because the rule in Judaism is that one may perhaps convert in, but no one can ever convert out. Does this matter to the man? He may not like this rule, and he may not care about this rule. But it is a rule, and he will forever be Jewish. If two years later, he rethinks things, misses his wife and children and found out that Roz already has a boyfriend, and decides to return to his previous way of life after some serious soul searching, he will require no conversion, because he has never left. He was always a Jew, merely following whatever religion he decided to follow in his failed quest to 'convert' out of Judaism.

So, I completely agree with your comments above about using Conservative Jews for a minyan (in certain circumstances) and whatever else you might feel or say about Conservative Jews, but they are in fact following a religion other than Judaism. The fact that they refer to it as Judaism doesn't make it Judaism. The Orthodox stance is that Conservative Judaism, together with the other Judaisms (Reform, Karaite, etc.) are not Judaisms. There is only one Judaism. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, HG. My family belongs to a Conservative synagogue, and I grew up in one, but when we daven, no Orthodox shul or minyan has ever asked which movement we're associated with. I suppose it might be a problem for somebody who doesn't know Hebrew or isn't familiar with a siddur, and it's certainly a problem for a woman, who is unwelcome in an Orthodox minyan.

But in general, I think the paragraph is vague, and if it can be improved it probably belongs at Criticism of Conservative Judaism, not here. Here are some more problems:

- What does it mean that "haredi ("ultra-Orthodox") Jews tend to eschew contact with Conservative Judaism, or at least its rabbinate"? Do they cross the street when they see a Conservative rabbi walking toward them? Do they refuse to shake hands?

- "Orthodoxy is concerned partly with Conservative Judaism's interest in socio-historical approaches to changing halakhah (Jewish law) and partly to its rejection of Orthodox rabbinic authority as binding." This repeats the bullet item earlier in the section.

- "Orthodox rabbis have taken several different tacks in gauging the status of individual Conservative Jews, who are deemed no less Jewish than Orthodox Jews but possibly assumed to be misguided, consistent violators of halakhah" Who? Why? How? This sentence is full of weasel words. In the end, it doesn't actually say anything.

In any event, if this paragraph can be salvaged, it probably belongs in Criticism of Conservative Judaism, and not here — unless the two are merged. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 23:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)