Rabbi Avi Weiss, Hebrew Institute of Riverdale
One could not think of more extreme opponents than Ismar Schorsch, chancellor of the Conservative Jewish Theological Seminary and David Hollander, spokesman of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of Canada and the US.
They are strong exponents of their
movement's ideologies, and, in recent days, have sprung onto the
scene fiercely advocating their positions in proclamations that
have received wide publicity. Although neither would be pleased
being identified with the other, as their views seem
antithetical, if one looks deeper they have much in common.
Both Schorsch and Hollander believe that a Jew who does not agree
with their fundamental core values is to be put down and cast
outside of the Jewish community.
In Hollander's case the core value is the belief in Torah
mi-Sinai (the belief that God gave the Torah at Sinai) and the
binding nature of halakha. From this perspective since
Conservative and Reform Judaism do not subscribe to these
positions, they are "not Judaism at all."
In Schorsch's case that core value is his understanding of
pluralism--the belief that all manifestations of Judaism are
legitimate. From his perspective, the Orthodox and their
supporters who do not profess pluralism are beyond the pale.
Toward this end, he has called for the barring of Knesset members
who support the Israeli anti-pluralism bill from appearances at
non-Orthodox institutions. Although Rabbi Schorsch did not state
overtly that anti-pluralists have no place in the Jewish
community, one is certainly left with that impression.
In discounting the other both are also using language that is
extremely volatile and divisive. Hollander, by calling Reform and
Conservative Judaism "another religion," Schorsch by
suggesting that Hollander is inciting violence against
Conservative and Reform Jews.
There is another area of commonalty between Hollander and
Schorsch. In their pronouncements each is unable to see any
positive value in the other's practise of Judaism. There is no
sense of the complexity, or the gray areas of the other side's
ideology.
Hollander, for example, shows no recognition of the positive
things that are happening in Conservative and Reform Judaism.
After all, there does exist a yearning for God amongst adherents
of these movements. When entering their rabbinic seminaries and
synagogues one does find people who are studying Torah, gathering
for prayer and observing the commandments-- even if the specific
ways in which these spiritual expressions are achieved do not
meet Orthodox standards.
Schorsch on the other hand, in his pronouncements fails to
recognize anything positive in an Orthodoxy that does not believe
in pluralism. He ignores the extraordinary involvement in Torah
and mitzvot--both between people and between human beings and
God--that followers of that brand of Orthodoxy manifest.
It's no wonder then, that both suggest that their opponents be
"banned". For Hollander it is manifested in his edict
that no Jew pray in a Reform or Conservative synagogue. For
Schorsch it is expressed through his proposition that no money be
given to Orthodox institutions that oppose his vision of
pluralism.
Although Schorsch does not explicitly say it, he is referring to
all of Orthodoxy. In his letter to the Conservative rabbinate he
writes that "Reform and Conservative Jews should stop
funding all ultra-Orthodox organizations and institutions for
whom religious pluralism is anathema." In fact, mainstream
Modern Orthodoxy opposes the state of Israel's recognition of
Conservative and Reform conversions performed in Israel.
What is needed here is for both sides to place themselves in the
other's shoes.
For Hollander this means to try to understand how Conservative and Reform Jews feel when their religious views and ideologies are delegitimized.
For Schorsch, it is to try to understand how offended Orthodox Jews are when their practises are assailed as medieval and how difficult and even impossible it is for an Orthodox Jew to part with traditional Jewish dogma which he/she believes goes back to Sinai. Through this process the two sides will not alter their views, but at least a spirit of goodwill may be achieved.
Beyond this, it is important for both sides to recognize that in the realm of the spirit there are serious consequences of going public with statements that serve to polarize our community. Such proclamations do not contribute to civility, but rather create ill will on both sides, and serve only to turn off those Jews who are as yet uncommitted.
Finally, it is crucial that both sides
face reality. The Orthodox must understand that Reform and
Conservative Judaism are not going to disappear with simple
pronouncements. And the Conservative and Reform must understand
that Orthodoxy is not going to declare tomorrow that non-Orthodox
Judaism is valid.
Acknowledging their common responsibility to the survival of the
Jewish people, both sides should find a way without compromising
their standards, of living together, toning down the rhetoric and
giving respect to the other.
Reform, Conservative and Orthodox leaders should recognize that
the other side is not the enemy. Rather, the challenge is to
impact upon the millions of unaffiliated Jews whose involvement
in Judaism must be our central focus.
A Taste of Torah in Honor of Shabbat
This opinion page was
created and is hosted courtesy of OU Online - The Cyber Home of
Torah
No responsibility for its contents may be implied or taken by the
OU
©1997. Rabbi
Avi Weiss, Hebrew Institute of Riverdale
All rights reserved.
Comments to Webmaster