[Avodah] Hypocrisy in halakhah

[Michael Makovi]

> RMM wrote:
>> I
>> know Rabbi Dr. J. H. Hertz refers to Jews' College as the sister of
>> JTS, but remember that this was during the Orthodox days of JTS when
>> there was thought of fusing JTS and YU.

> R' Arie Folger responded
>
> A lot earlier. The talk of the merger was in 1926 (though there is also a
> mention a 1906 proposal, but that is not what people talk about usually).
>
> At that time, JTS was out of O, as is evident, for example, from Rabbi Dr.
> Revel's opposition to the plan. I paraphrase from memory. In RIETS, they
> learn Talmud, in JTS only *about* Talmud. Same for other important subjects.
> The he writes that JTS is developing/has developed into another movement,
> incompatible with YU's commitment to Halakhah and Messorah.
>
> Rabbi Herz, however, left JTS in 1894 (from
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_H._Hertz ):

What about in 1915?

>From Affirmations of Judaism, the following was spoken by Rabbi Hertz
in Jews' College on December 19, 1915:

"Nearly thirty days have passed since Solomon Schechter has been laid
to rest, and many have been the strikingly affectionate and
reverential tributes that have on both sides of the Atlantic been paid
to his memory. Today, it is my solemn duty, as President of this
Rabbinical Seminary, to speak of him, who was the President and
Principal of the sister-institution in America and who at one time was
also a member of the Council of Jews' College. It is difficult to
essay an estimate of this great Teacher's influence for one who feels
his loss as a personal bereavement ..." Rabbi Hertz proceeds with a
very warm eulogy for Schechter. (One doesn't get the impression, as
some would have it, that Schechter publicly violated Shabbat. I don't
know much about Schechter, but at least according to Rabbi Hertz's
appraisal...)

I also cannot say I know much about the Conservative movement's
history or JTS's history. What little I know, however:

Evan Hoffman ("Factors of Traditionalism In Conservative Jewish Law",
JHI 9978, Doctoral Planning, Fall 2004) notes
"The above historical overview revealed that the Conservative
movement's first half century of halakhic activity was an era marked
by traditionalism.  Every leniency or measure of progress, even one
considered to be of absolute necessity, was only achieved after long
and difficult struggle.  Given the philosophy of Conservative Judaism,
it is not immediately clear why this should be the case." He goes on
to enumerate JTS's origins in Positive-Historical Judaism, etc.

Hoffman concludes that some while JTS/RA members were doctrinally and
practically Orthodox (he notes that Schechter's "Catholic Israel", as
the inviolability of whatever the Jewish laity desires or requests,
was formulated with observant Eastern European Jews in mind; Catholic
Israel was never applied in America by the early JTS leaders), others
simply lacked the courage to openly confront the Orthodox. So within
JTS, there was conflict between the right and left factions. On the
one hand, no particularly non-Orthodox rulings emanated from JTS, but
the internal dissension was certainly existent. This also stymied any
progress one way or the other.

Also, the students who came out of JTS were by and large not
halakhists nor Talmudics, and were more suited for pulpit and communal
positions; in fact, neither yadin yadin nor yore yore were offered. In
Ginzburg's words, "Hands off the law!". Even JTS's early leaders did
not want to innovate anything without the approval of the Orthodox;
when Epstein propose his agunah plan, he said "I have not come to rise
up against the tradition even slightly or to be lenient against the
decisions of any posek… I pray that my portion should be with those
who toil in sorrow of Agunot.", and Hoffman adds, "Epstein believed
that Jewish law should be decided by its leading scholars. He viewed
his proposal as an impetus, provided by a lesser scholar, for the
giants of Jewish learning to ponder and decide upon the Agunah issue.
Epstein was willing to abide by any learned decision of the gedolim,
not because he was intimidated by them or was assenting to their
political monopoly, but rather because his conception of halakhic
Judaism demanded it. The unfortunate turn of events was a general
unwillingness by the gedolim to analyze the proposal, instead choosing
to engage in polemics [including Le-Dor Aharon] at the request of
Agudat ha-Rabbanim."

And while JTS as a whole (and certainly its leaders and heads) was
more or less Orthodox, the rest of the Conservative rabbinut and RA
and such were FAR less so. As JTS's influence lessened and the RA's
increased, Conservative naturally took a sharp turn to the left. 1948
was a turning-point, when the Committee on Jewish Law (CJL) was
replaced by the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS). The
non-JTS factions of the RA gained more influence, and all emanating
opinions (majority and minority) were held to be equally binding.
Under the previous CJL, any halakhic "progess" had been stymied by the
right-wing, and the only leniences to emanate were eating broiled fish
in a treif restaurant (with so many conditions attached so as to make
the leniency a dead letter) and using a microphone on Shabbat. But
following 1948, in a span of less than a decade, such leniences as
using electricity on Shabbat, kohanim marrying divorcees, eating
kosher food in treif restaurants, shorter mourning periods all were
produced, and discussions of women counting in minyan began. And when
leniencies were desired, a ready tactic was found: excluding JTS
Talmud professors from taking part in the halakhic decision-making.

>From his analysis, it would seem that while many of the early JTS
leaders were more or less Modern Orthodox, they had to share the
reigns with less Orthodox peers. Outside of JTS, Conservative was
decidely not Orthodox at all. So in its early years, progress was
stymied by conflict between the Orthodox and not-Orthodox factions of
JTS, and once JTS and the RA became equals in leadership in 1948, any
possibilities or pretenses to Orthodoxy crumbled.

However, I'm not sure what particularly happened around 1906 or 1926
which would have affected JTS's Orthodox status. As for Rabbi Revel's
statement that in JTS they learn only about Talmud and not Talmud
itself, this does not seem to impugn JTS's Orthodoxy, as JTS itself
admitted its students were pulpit leaders and not halakhists; plenty
of Orthodox baalei batim do not learn Talmud, but this makes them
ignorant, not non-Orthodox!

While I certainly have PLENTY of more important things to learn, I
have found myself curious as to what exactly happened with JTS.
Certainly, it'd be important for us to know, insofar as if a
once-Orthodox institution could cease to be so, we'd be desirous to
know how and why, so that this phenomenon is not repeated.

Mikha'el Makovi

P. S. An interesting anecdote: I found a Conservative Rosh Hashanah
Mazhor in the Machon Meir library (I am the librarian), and was
worried about its reliability. I saw its publication date was from
somewhere in the 1940s or 50s (I forget exactly when), and I thought
that MAYBE it would kosher, since this was around the Conservative's
turn to the left, and so perhaps it was still kosher. I called up
Rabbi Henkin and asked if he knew anything; I told him the date and he
noted that it was published before the car-on-Shabbat decision, and
that PERHAPS the mazhor would indeed be kosher. I asked him if there
would be any particular telling section of the Mazhor which I could
use as a benchmark for its reliability, and he told me to see if it
preserved the Korbanot section. I checked, and in fact, there were no
Korbanot to be found. But Rabbi Henkin had indeed had the hava amina
that perhaps it could be kosher...