By Cantor Ari Isenberg
2006

Ariel Sharon was one of the unwavering supporters of the settlement movement more than 30 years ago.  He supported and aided the development of Jewish settlements in Gaza.  Years ago it would have been hard to believe that this same individual would ultimately deliver a decree to abandon the very settlements he had worked hard to develop and maintain.  The realities in the region changed, however; retaining the settled areas seemed no longer to be a viable and realistic option.  Sharon made a philosophical and ideological change based on new realities, while still ensuring the overall survival and conservation of the State of Israel.

I bring up this sensitive issue not as a means to comment on the saddening events taking place in our Homeland; but rather, to illustrate a parallel of sorts between the actions of Mr. Sharon, changing his position as a result of new realities, and the actions of the Conservative movement which, also influenced by new realities, modifies its position on policy.

One key question would be: What is the ‘policy’ that Conservative Judaism evokes changes to?  If your guess is ‘Halacha’ then you are correct.  Halacha (a Hebrew term defined as meaning ‘the way’ or ‘the path’) is the name given to the compilation of books that makeup the Jewish code of Law.  It is fair to state that Halacha is actually the foundation of Judaism and provides all the necessary fundamentals needed to live a Jewish life.  Consequently, it is therefore the obligation and mission of Conservative Jews, as defined by the Conservative movement, to uphold and abide by Halacha, thereby conserving Judaism itself.

Makes sense so far? No, it does not!  On the one hand I have stated that Conservative Judaism is a movement that makes change to Halachic Law.  On the other hand, I have stated that the movement’s doctrine is to conserve Judaism, which effectively means to uphold Halacha.  Well, what is the true position of the Conservative movement?  It certainly can’t be both, can it?  Like Stephen Harper during the latest election campaign answering questions about Gay marriage and our new G.G.-Elect who most recently had to confront questions about her allegiances, the moment of truth is before us.  Our palates are moistened and ready to savour the verdict.

Conservative Judaism maintains that the Torah, and by extension this includes all related Sacred scripture whose basis is the Torah (i.e. Halacha), is a living document.  A living document is nourished and maintained by constant analysis, re-evaluation and re-interpretation.   Conservative Judaism is not alone in considering the Torah to be a living document.  When the Temple was destroyed, traditional Judaism made adaptations to the then new realities (the loss of a Temple and exile) by abolishing sacrificial offerings and replacing them with timely prayer services.

Thus far we have discovered that the movement’s dogma maintains that the goal is to preserve and conserve the religion by adhering to Halacha.  Evoking change, nevertheless, is still morally necessary under the right circumstances.   So, what are those circumstances and how does the process for change take effect?

When major social and global issues arise in the secular world, particularly when they evoke change, Conservative Judaism feels an obligation to respond.  Examples of these issues include the role of women, gender equality, discrimination based on class and assimilation.  Let us use the issue of gender equality as an example to help illustrate the process through which change is evoked within the movement.  The feminist movement first emerged on a national scale in the 1950s.  Through the 1970s the movement gained increased momentum.  By the mid-1970s, women in the secular world had fought for, and were finally beginning to receive, equal social status, equal job opportunity, equal pay and equal rights.  The Conservative movement, being one that is ideologically driven, felt it incumbent upon itself to respond to the changing times and the current context.  In the secular world, a woman could be the top executive of a large firm and have comparable status to that of her male counterparts.  Yet, in her very own religion, the essence of her faith and spirituality, she would be unable to count in a minyan, or actively participate in a prayer service.   In response, the conservative movement, acknowledging the social shift in the secular world, decided to evaluate Jewish Law pertaining to gender.  In 1973, the gender issue was brought to the Rabbinical Assembly for the first time.  Similar to the structure of proceedings in Talmudic times, members of the Rabbinical Assembly joined together for intense debate, analysis and dialogue.  After seemingly endless debate, an official Responsa was decided upon and released.  Since 1973, the Rabbinical Assembly has convened repeatedly to discuss the gender issue.  Acknowledging the positive social shifts in the secular world, the Rabbinical Assembly has followed suit by granting women more rights in their roles as Jewish women, and eventually established gender equality.

Ultimately, one can always be assured of intense debate and dialogue within the Rabbinical Assembly when any issue is on the table.  What can differ are the outcomes.  Sometimes a responsa will conclude that traditional Halachic Law on a given issue should remain intact.  Other times, such as what happened with the Responsa on Gender Equality, changes will be made.  Rest assured, these are changes made on the basis that proper research and study has taken place, and that there are legal boundaries for the change.  No law will be changed in the conservative movement unless the following questions are posed:

Will this change threaten the survival of Judaism?

Will this change threaten the conservation of Judaism?

If the answer if yes to either, the change will not be made.

Some of you reading this article might belong to conservative synagogues whose customs are not in-line with those of another conservative synagogue.  Fascinatingly, just because the Rabbinical Assembly publishes a responsa on a given issue, gender equality for instance, does not oblige any particular conservative synagogue to heed the change.  In other words, it is up to the discretion of each individual synagogue to follow the adapted responsa or to maintain the traditional custom.

Shomer Shabbat is one term used to define those who maintain a high level of observance.  Interesting to note is that there are many Shomer Shabbat individuals who consider themselves Conservative.   This furthers the notion that being a Conservative Jew does not compromise your level of observance.  Being a Conservative Jew is about trying to find ways within the religion to adopt positive change in response to social and contextual changes made in the secular world.

Cynics might ask “what about Divine Will?”.  Well, what about it!   Admittedly, I probably do not have an answer that will appease the cynics, nor have I ever attempted to seek that answer.  I feel privileged to be part of a pluralistic religion!   I strongly believe that having blind faith and a sense of trust in Divine will are both critical elements of living a Jewish life, but not if they come at the expense of my core values, beliefs and principles.   By being Conservative I am being true to my heart while not parting from my observant religious practices.  Judaism is a pluralistic religion, and as a result, most Jews can find customs, synagogues and milieus that are comfortable for them and will not intimidate or deter them away from the religion.

As a final point, we must remember that a conscientious Conservative Jew is one who acknowledges the movement’s motives for evoking change, while still keeping to mind and to action the foundation and core of the movement, Sacred Jewish Law.