by Rabbi Noah Gradofsky
Let
me state from the outset that I am not empowered to speak for the
UTJ,
though I am one of the musmakhim (ordainees) of the Institute for
Traditional Judaism (ITJ) and have served on the UTJ board for many years.
The UTJ has a diverse membership, and I dare say that many of the rabbis
who participate in the UTJ have very different perspectives on many of the
important questions about Judaism. Hopefully our diversity and our respect
for those different perspectives is part of our definition. But then
again, I guess there have to be some boundaries that make us who we are.
Given all this, much of what I say will be as much about me as about the
UTJ, but I will try to keep things as basic as possible to hopefully
provide a perspective that is shared by most of the members of UTJ. I’d
like to focus on how UTJ’s approach to Torah and halakha might compare and
contrast with the Conservative and Orthodox movements.
On study of Torah, I think UTJ represents a more spiritual version of the
mixture of academic and classic study of Torah that you might find in the
Conservative movement. I say this recognizing that this is probably mostly
based on my (our?) sense of what spirituality is. I attended JTS (the
Conservative movement flagship institution) for my undergraduate education
and learned a great deal. However, I often found the learning to be
antiseptically academic, to lack a sense of religious meaning, and to
relish tearing down religious beliefs (admittedly, this was my own sense,
and I imagine others feel differently). My studies and interactions at UTJ
have always affirmed and built up faith and treated all forms of learning
as a deeply religious act.
At the other end of the spectrum, Orthodoxy often imposes a very strict
dogmatic structure on the understanding of Torah. For instance, to me, the
introduction to the ArtScroll Chumash basically says that studying Torah
without holding a very narrow interpretation of Torah MiSinai is worthless,
and in the “*Torah u-Madda Journal” *(Volume 3) Rabbi Parnes declared that
Orthodox freedom of inquiry must be limited if such inquiry might undermine
Rambam’s faith dogmas. But if faith dogmas prevent us from considering
what may be the reality of God’s world and our record of God’s revelation,
then those dogmas really don’t speak of faith in God, but of faith in our
human constructs. In fact, to the contrary, the result is to impose our
own wishes on God and Torah. I imagine that many UTJ members take a more
narrow view of the necessary dogmas of Jewish faith. As Professor Marc
Shapiro (for clarity, Professor Shapiro is not a UTJ member) demonstrates
in “*The Limits of Orthodox Theology*,” Rambam’s view was anything but
universal. For instance, my teacher (ITJ faculty member) Rabbi Alan Yuter
paraphrases Rabbi Yosef Albo’s dogmas of faith as “God is real, God
commands, God holds accountable.” Based on the above, UTJ embraces academic
learning and all that it has to offer in shedding light on our sacred
texts. We see using every tool at our disposal to illuminate Torah and
help us understand God’s will, not as a threat to our faith, but as a
sacred imperative. At the same time, we reaffirm our faith in God, divine
revelation (Torah min hashamayim), and the authority of Torah and halakhah
as the expression of God’s will for the Jewish people. Our Reish Metivta,
Rabbi Halinvi coined the motto for our school, the ITJ, as “Emunah Tserufah
v’Yosher Da’at” – genuine faith and intellectual honesty – and that, I
think, is the UTJ’s clarion call.
As to halakhah, UTJ adopts a traditional approach to halakhah, one that I
would argue is more traditional than the approach taken by an Orthodox
Judaism moved to a reactionary approach by fear of the risks posed by more
liberal forms of Judaism. I think that by and large we believe the
Conservative movement evolved into a system of halakhah where halakhic
decisions often represent a combination of capitulation to a generally
non-observant lay community and an overemphasis of modern philosophy and
morality in the halakhic system. This is not to say that modern ideas and
ideals do not have a voice in the halakhic system. My teacher (ITJ faculty
member) Hakham Isaac Sassoon, for instance, speaks strongly of the
importance of incorporating values of fairness and human dignity into the
halakhic system. It is unfathomable to believe that a sense of morality
did not figure in the decisions of earlier rabbis, and it is illogical to
imagine that all new thoughts of morality should be isolated from the
halakhic process. However, for the most part we believe that morality
should have a voice and not a veto in the halakhic process and understand
that lending excessive weight to moral speculation can undermine the
halakhic system as a whole.
More generally, I would mention that I think UTJ rabbis are generally more
willing to reconsider common practice in the face of the halakhic textual
evidence. Some of us (myself included, largely learned from Rabbi Yuter)
follow Rambam’s approach, as presented in the introduction to Mishneh
Torah, whereby we look to whatever opinion seems to fit the Talmudic
evidence best. Others of us, for example, my teacher Rabbi Richard Wolpoe
(ITJ faculty member), lend more weight to common practice. In large part
this owes perspective stems from Rabbi Wolpoe seeing halakhah more in the
frame of a common law system, such that the decisions of rabbis over time
can gain a level of halakhic canonicity, whereas Rabbi Yuter sees halakhah
more in the context of a positive law system, where the authority of
post-Talmudic decision making is based solely on the power of the arguments
behind the decision. However, I think we all in some sense are a bit more
willing to consider that common practice in the Orthodox community is not
necessarily the correct halakhah. I also think we are more apt to consider
whether modern situations require us to revisit some prior halakhic
standards (in the same way that Arukh haShulchan OCH 75:8, for instance,
says that the definition of ervah has changed in modern society). Along
the same lines, I think UTJ members are generally opposed to the idea that
anything new must be viewed with suspicion and presumptively be considered
outside halakhic boundaries. Most of us adopt the approach of ChaZa”L in
Mishnah Eduyot 2:2, that the fact that something has not been done in the
past is not proof that it may not be done today.
It is also worth noting that the UTJ has less of a taste for hierarchical
halakha than the Orthodox world does, in that the Orthodox world tends to
lend halakhic weight almost exclusively to its most renowned rabbis. I was
taught by my teachers at the ITJ that I had a responsibility and
prerogative to voice my own opinion, and I know that my teachers would be
universally disappointed in me were I to defer to their opinion where I saw
matters in a different light based on my textual or sociological judgment
(this is not to suggest that I don’t lend importance to the views of my
teachers).
Finally, I think it is significant that, for the most part, UTJ eschews
denominational labels and we believe that these labels obscure as much as
they enlighten. We believe that it is far more important to conform our
actions and beliefs to the will of the Almighty than to the consensus of
any political or sociological identity.
Returning to where I started, this is for the most part my personal
opinion. Painting with very broad strokes, hopefully I have given some
sense of what sets UTJ apart from the Conservative and Orthodox movements.
May we all merit from bringing klal Yisrael closer to God, Torah, and good
deeds.
though I am one of the musmakhim (ordainees) of the Institute for
Traditional Judaism (ITJ) and have served on the UTJ board for many years.
The UTJ has a diverse membership, and I dare say that many of the rabbis
who participate in the UTJ have very different perspectives on many of the
important questions about Judaism. Hopefully our diversity and our respect
for those different perspectives is part of our definition. But then
again, I guess there have to be some boundaries that make us who we are.
Given all this, much of what I say will be as much about me as about the
UTJ, but I will try to keep things as basic as possible to hopefully
provide a perspective that is shared by most of the members of UTJ. I’d
like to focus on how UTJ’s approach to Torah and halakha might compare and
contrast with the Conservative and Orthodox movements.
On study of Torah, I think UTJ represents a more spiritual version of the
mixture of academic and classic study of Torah that you might find in the
Conservative movement. I say this recognizing that this is probably mostly
based on my (our?) sense of what spirituality is. I attended JTS (the
Conservative movement flagship institution) for my undergraduate education
and learned a great deal. However, I often found the learning to be
antiseptically academic, to lack a sense of religious meaning, and to
relish tearing down religious beliefs (admittedly, this was my own sense,
and I imagine others feel differently). My studies and interactions at UTJ
have always affirmed and built up faith and treated all forms of learning
as a deeply religious act.
At the other end of the spectrum, Orthodoxy often imposes a very strict
dogmatic structure on the understanding of Torah. For instance, to me, the
introduction to the ArtScroll Chumash basically says that studying Torah
without holding a very narrow interpretation of Torah MiSinai is worthless,
and in the “*Torah u-Madda Journal” *(Volume 3) Rabbi Parnes declared that
Orthodox freedom of inquiry must be limited if such inquiry might undermine
Rambam’s faith dogmas. But if faith dogmas prevent us from considering
what may be the reality of God’s world and our record of God’s revelation,
then those dogmas really don’t speak of faith in God, but of faith in our
human constructs. In fact, to the contrary, the result is to impose our
own wishes on God and Torah. I imagine that many UTJ members take a more
narrow view of the necessary dogmas of Jewish faith. As Professor Marc
Shapiro (for clarity, Professor Shapiro is not a UTJ member) demonstrates
in “*The Limits of Orthodox Theology*,” Rambam’s view was anything but
universal. For instance, my teacher (ITJ faculty member) Rabbi Alan Yuter
paraphrases Rabbi Yosef Albo’s dogmas of faith as “God is real, God
commands, God holds accountable.” Based on the above, UTJ embraces academic
learning and all that it has to offer in shedding light on our sacred
texts. We see using every tool at our disposal to illuminate Torah and
help us understand God’s will, not as a threat to our faith, but as a
sacred imperative. At the same time, we reaffirm our faith in God, divine
revelation (Torah min hashamayim), and the authority of Torah and halakhah
as the expression of God’s will for the Jewish people. Our Reish Metivta,
Rabbi Halinvi coined the motto for our school, the ITJ, as “Emunah Tserufah
v’Yosher Da’at” – genuine faith and intellectual honesty – and that, I
think, is the UTJ’s clarion call.
As to halakhah, UTJ adopts a traditional approach to halakhah, one that I
would argue is more traditional than the approach taken by an Orthodox
Judaism moved to a reactionary approach by fear of the risks posed by more
liberal forms of Judaism. I think that by and large we believe the
Conservative movement evolved into a system of halakhah where halakhic
decisions often represent a combination of capitulation to a generally
non-observant lay community and an overemphasis of modern philosophy and
morality in the halakhic system. This is not to say that modern ideas and
ideals do not have a voice in the halakhic system. My teacher (ITJ faculty
member) Hakham Isaac Sassoon, for instance, speaks strongly of the
importance of incorporating values of fairness and human dignity into the
halakhic system. It is unfathomable to believe that a sense of morality
did not figure in the decisions of earlier rabbis, and it is illogical to
imagine that all new thoughts of morality should be isolated from the
halakhic process. However, for the most part we believe that morality
should have a voice and not a veto in the halakhic process and understand
that lending excessive weight to moral speculation can undermine the
halakhic system as a whole.
More generally, I would mention that I think UTJ rabbis are generally more
willing to reconsider common practice in the face of the halakhic textual
evidence. Some of us (myself included, largely learned from Rabbi Yuter)
follow Rambam’s approach, as presented in the introduction to Mishneh
Torah, whereby we look to whatever opinion seems to fit the Talmudic
evidence best. Others of us, for example, my teacher Rabbi Richard Wolpoe
(ITJ faculty member), lend more weight to common practice. In large part
this owes perspective stems from Rabbi Wolpoe seeing halakhah more in the
frame of a common law system, such that the decisions of rabbis over time
can gain a level of halakhic canonicity, whereas Rabbi Yuter sees halakhah
more in the context of a positive law system, where the authority of
post-Talmudic decision making is based solely on the power of the arguments
behind the decision. However, I think we all in some sense are a bit more
willing to consider that common practice in the Orthodox community is not
necessarily the correct halakhah. I also think we are more apt to consider
whether modern situations require us to revisit some prior halakhic
standards (in the same way that Arukh haShulchan OCH 75:8, for instance,
says that the definition of ervah has changed in modern society). Along
the same lines, I think UTJ members are generally opposed to the idea that
anything new must be viewed with suspicion and presumptively be considered
outside halakhic boundaries. Most of us adopt the approach of ChaZa”L in
Mishnah Eduyot 2:2, that the fact that something has not been done in the
past is not proof that it may not be done today.
It is also worth noting that the UTJ has less of a taste for hierarchical
halakha than the Orthodox world does, in that the Orthodox world tends to
lend halakhic weight almost exclusively to its most renowned rabbis. I was
taught by my teachers at the ITJ that I had a responsibility and
prerogative to voice my own opinion, and I know that my teachers would be
universally disappointed in me were I to defer to their opinion where I saw
matters in a different light based on my textual or sociological judgment
(this is not to suggest that I don’t lend importance to the views of my
teachers).
Finally, I think it is significant that, for the most part, UTJ eschews
denominational labels and we believe that these labels obscure as much as
they enlighten. We believe that it is far more important to conform our
actions and beliefs to the will of the Almighty than to the consensus of
any political or sociological identity.
Returning to where I started, this is for the most part my personal
opinion. Painting with very broad strokes, hopefully I have given some
sense of what sets UTJ apart from the Conservative and Orthodox movements.
May we all merit from bringing klal Yisrael closer to God, Torah, and good
deeds.
___
You can reach Noah at noah@e-ark.net
You can reach Noah at noah@e-ark.net
No comments:
Post a Comment