Reading Reform Responsa: Jewish Tradition, Reform Rabbis, and Today's Issues by Rabbi Mark Washofsky (CCAR Press, 2024)
This book could open your eyes to a Reform
Judaism you may not have realized existed – faithful to tradition, Jewishly learned,
and in its own way connected to Halacha. For there is an inclination – at least
in my neck of the woods – to denigrate the Reform as the stream that makes it up
as they go along.
Since its inception in 1873 by Rabbi Isaac
Mayer Wise in Cincinnati, American Reform has gone through massive changes, for
instance, from anti-Zionist to non-Zionist to staunchly pro-Zionist. Likewise,
in matters of ritual and observance. Reform has proceeded from willfully
anti-Orthodox – from davka not kosher, davka not Shabbat
observant, and davka universalism over Yiddishkeit to something
else entirely.
Today's Reform takes a measured approach to
kashrut. Many Reform Jews avoid overtly treif food; the
movement strongly encourages observing Shabbat, including candle
lighting, and it is explicitly committed to
Jewish peoplehood, Israel, and Zionism.
Politically, as the most assimilated of the
three remaining branches of organized US Judaism, Reform has been buffeted by
the winds of woke, and its idea of pro-Israelism is stretchy. But my impression
is that post-October 7th – and in the wake of the tsunami of anti-Israelism and
antisemitism that has swept America – Reform Jews, though still progressive at
the DNA level, may be rethinking some of their woke conceits.
I don't think anyone knows how many Reform pulpit rabbis are pro-Zionists (probably most) and how many recently ordained are unabashedly in the Palestinian Arab camp. Lately, there were headlines connecting Rabbis for a Ceasefire to the Reform movement. Yes, these business-class clerical activists include Reform rabbis, but the driving force behind what is a Jewish Voice for Peace front group are holy women associated with the Reconstructionists.
It is undeniable that Reform
and Conservative rabbis are active with J Street, whose raison d'etre is an
Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 Armistice Lines. This group brands itself as
pro-Israel but has been working to limit military aid to Israel and endorses
House Members who oppose funding the Iron Dome. Not long ago, J Street was shamed into
pulling its endorsement of Jamaal Bowman. But it continues to collaborate with a
cadre of other House members even as they work to undercut support for Israel in
Congress.
In fairness, Orthodoxy, too, began in
opposition to Zionism. Nowadays, the mainstream ultra-Orthodox in America are
mostly non-Zionist, not anti-Zionist. The responsa of the Orthodox sage Rabbi
Moshe Feinstein showed him to be less than keen on Zionism. For instance, he
opposed displaying an Israeli flag in synagogues. That said, today's Agudah
Israel of America (with which Feinstein was associated) is staunchly pro-Israel
even as it remains ideologically non-Zionist. Reb Moshe died in 1986, and as
far as I know, he never visited Israel. It is hard to predict how his thinking might
have evolved.
In Reading Reform Responsa, Rabbi Mark
Washofsky, the Solomon B. Freehof Professor of Jewish Law and Practice at
Hebrew Union College, makes the case that Reform is engaged with Halacha – to
be understood as the laws and guidelines for Jewish living – and that it is futile
to debate whether Reform is a "halachic" movement. For in the process
of developing their decisions, Washofsky and other Reform rabbis engage with Halacha.
And they have been doing so since the earliest days of the Central Conference
of American Rabbis, the movement's rabbinical body. Washofsky explains that the
"word [Halacha] is likely derived from the Hebrew root ה-ל-ך,
hei-lamed-chaf, 'to walk,' as in 'the way that one should walk, the path that
one should follow.'"
Washofsky is plainly on to something when
he explains that "responsa, like all texts, are products of a particular
time and place, displaying the influence of the social, political, and cultural
environment in which they are written."
For this book, he has selected a dozen or
so responsa, "a representative sample," which he uses to explain what
responsa is and how Reform and Orthodox responsa differ. He does not have much
to say about Conservative responsa. Parenthetically, the US Conservative Rabbinical Assembly ruled
in 2023 that "Use of an electric car per se is not a violation of Shabbat
as long as the driving is not for non-Shabbat purposes."
All responsa are "questions about
Jewish religious practice" that individuals and communities submit as inquiries
to a rabbi or, in this instance, to the Central Conference of American Rabbis. These
tend not to be easy problems, for if they had an obviously correct halachic
answer, they would have been resolved at the pulpit level. What makes the
responsa Reform in particular is that the replies are "composed by Reform
rabbis for an audience of progressive Jewish readers" who share the same
religious, social, and aesthetic sensibilities.
The responsa Washofsky selected reads like
a cross between tightly argued legal briefs and literary essays. The authors' goal
– and I think this is true across denominations – is to persuade, not dictate. We
may think of Reform as institutionally hierarchical, but it is theologically decentralized.
"The responsum is an 'opinion,' but it is almost always an advisory
opinion," Washofsky writes.
Rabbi Solomon Freehof (1892-1990) anchored
modern Reform in the responsa tradition. He chaired the movement's responsa committee (in effect serving as Reform's posek) and collated its work. Washofsky lauds him as a pathbreaker, even if he doesn't always agree with Freehof's conclusions.
For the Orthodox, Washofsky explains, "the meaning of the Torah does not evolve but is eternal and unchanging: the meaning of the text lies objectively (if implicitly) there, between its lines, and our task as students of Torah is to 'turn the Torah over and over again' (Mishnah Avot 5:22) until we discover it.'"
Take, for instance, whether it is permissible to ride an elevator on Shabbat and under what circumstances. For the Orthodox, the answer would have been hovering about in the holy texts even before electricity had been harnessed. The Halacha turns out to be…less than clear-cut. Some Shabbat lifts meet the guidelines set by some Orthodox decisors. Others do not.
In contradistinction, Washofsky writes: "We
Reform Jews do not consider ourselves bound to the authority of Jewish law, a
corpus of writings mostly composed by an all-male ancient and medieval
scholarly elite who did not share the modern and progressive commitments that
define our religious outlook." That said, "the practice of Reform,
the way we have lived out Judaism on a daily, weekly, and seasonal basis,
remains firmly rooted in the Rabbinic (that is to say the halachic) tradition."
Washofsky allows that "This sweeping insight may be surprising to many
readers."
I came away from reading this book with the
sense that Reform rabbis in the Washofsky mold care very much that their
Judaism rings authentic. They have moved light years from the 1885 Pittsburgh
Platform, which staked out a combatively anti-Orthodox stance. That may have catalyzed
Orthodoxy in a more reactionary direction. It stirred the Chatam Sofer (Rabbi
Moshe Sofer) to declare, "Everything new is forbidden by the Torah." I
attended an elementary school on the Lower East Side jointly named after him
and Rabbi Shlomo Kluger, who was a proponent of insularity in the face of modernity. And here I am blogging about Reform responsa!
In any case, successive Reform platforms
Columbus (1937), San Francisco (1976), and Pittsburgh II (1999) have made
Reform more traditional and conventionally observant while American Orthodoxy
has arguably, though not uniformly, moved in a more inward-looking and
ultra-Orthodox direction.
In October 1983, CCAR made an irreparable break
with convention by embracing patrilineal descent.
I get why they did it – rampant out-marriage and a new generation that understood
its Jewish identity as a matter of choice and lifestyle. Yet the consequences have
been as shattering as when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in 2022.
Whatever the technical, historical, or sociological justifications of the patrilineal
descent determination, it undermined the peoplehood that Jewish civilization
needs to embrace. Washofsky doesn't address this controversial and uncomfortable
decision in Reading Reform Responsa.
Instead, the book synthesizes more recent responsa.
The appendix contains the full text of all the responsa and a helpful glossary.
The issues here include: May the Torah portion be read on a Friday night if
there is no minyan on Shabbat? May an Orthodox minyan be granted space in a
Reform synagogue? Does one honor a parent's request for cremation? Is it
permissible for a bar or bat mitzvah to read from a defective and irreparable Holocaust-era
Torah Scroll for its important symbolism? How should we understand what constitutes
Sabbath observance and Sabbath desecration? Should congregations display Israeli
and or American flags on the Bimah? May they sing Hatikvah? Can a Reform Jew mark
Valentine's Day and other secular holidays? Has Christmas become an essentially
secular holiday? May one withhold medical information in a job interview? Is it
permissible to employ non-union labor in renovating a Reform Temple? May hunger-striking
Islamist prisoners in Guantanamo Bay be force-fed?
More than the answers, Washofsky is
interested in showing us the process of Reform responsa. Bear in mind that while
Reform Judaism is not bound by Jewish law, it does not willy-nilly disregard
it. Take the question of honoring a parent's request for cremation. "Reform
Judaism does not regard cremation as a violation of Jewish law," writes
Washofsky. Classical rabbinic sources were not explicit on the issue, perhaps
because cremation wasn't an issue. After the Shoah, cremation became associated
with the Nazis. Reform theologians have historically come down on both sides of
the issue. The responsa here decides that children are "entitled to uphold
their own religious standards against their father's request" to be cremated.
Reform responsa often cites the kind of sources
you'd find in Orthodox responsa – Torah, Talmud, Rambam's Mishneh Torah,
Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Dei-ah), and 20th-century decisors like Rabbi
Moshe Feinstein (for example on displaying the Israeli flag). Citing is not
following, but it is contextualizing and acknowledging.
Take Shabbat. Unlike the Orthodox, Reform
Jews are not constrained on Shabbat from carrying an umbrella on a rainy
morning, ripping toilet tissue, or taking a shower. Washofsky reminds us, "We
[Reform] have found it more useful to concentrate upon the positive, ritual
elements of Shabbat that do strike us as meaningful rather than upon the
negative ones that are devoid of significance to us."
What does that mean in practice? For one, the
synagogue gift shop should be closed on Shabbat. An already delayed Brit milah
should not be held on Shabbat. One responsum found: "The fact that Shabbat'
conflicts' with another mitzvah or worthy cause does not mean that it is
Shabbat that must give way. Indeed, the reverse is often the case." The
Reform rabbis recognize that beyond abstaining from work on Shabbat, there is
also a positive obligation to rest. In the final analysis, Reform rabbis like Washofsky
want their Shabbat to share commonalities with the Shabbes of other observant
Jews. "What does sh'mirat Shabbat even mean in our Reform context?"
The answer begins with creating a "Sabbath mood."
This accessible book's principle idea is that Reform responsa are halachic texts. They strive with precedents even if they do not hesitate to overturn them (in how to define "work" on Shabbat, for instance). Their starting premise and aesthetic are non-Orthodox. And they are "Reform" because they are drafted
by Reform clergy and aimed at a Reform audience.
If, like me, you are interested in what still binds our tribal people together, you will enjoy - as much as I did - reading this erudite introduction
to the place of Halacha in Reform Judaism.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I am open to running your criticism if it is not ad hominem. I prefer praise, though.