My mother always used to say, “If you have two Jews, you need three Synagogues.”
I always thought this was a funny saying for two reasons, first being that it is an obvious exaggeration and second, because Judaism to me is very straight forward in what is permitted and what is not permitted.
So why should two Jews need three Synagogues? The answer is simple.
Jewish people always argue over what should be permitted and what should not be, even when it is clearly stated.
This is certainly the case with Schechter and his disciples. They tired to unify Jews by what each group was similar about and neglected each ones differences. That was there mistake. It is easy to connect people based on there similarities, but extremely difficult to connect people over differences.
Dr. Cohen made great points and was very enthusiastic about his lecture; however, being an orthodox Jew, at least in ideology, I have a hard time understanding why people took it upon themselves to try modernizing Judaism. Modernizing Judaism has led to intermarriage and other practices that are shrinking our religion. I do not mean to offend anyone by this post; it is just my personal feelings on the matter.
1 comment:
An accurate historical tradition is the keystone of Judaism. Yehuda Ha Levi argues that Historical proof is the strongest evidence one has for G-d’s existence. The Jewish people exist, they have unique customs and rituals, those customs and rituals are a direct result of G-d’s relationship and covenant with the Jewish people that occurs at Sinai. He would say that, barring strong evidence to the contrary one must accept the Torah as one would accept any historical document. In fact, one of the strengths of the torah is that it often operates as an historical document more than a religious text. All of the Biblical figures have apparent flaws, feet of clay so to speak. Truth is valued over inspiration. Compare that to the possibility of criticism for figures in other religious traditions.
Given the importance of History, Dr. Michael Cohen’s work takes on an extra significance. If the accounts and narratives that Jewish movements have today are suspect, our whole foundation as a people can be called into question.
All of the denominations in Judaism are trying to answer the same basic question of how to deal with modernity. How does one relate to and accommodate the secular culture? Yet, many within the denominations themselves seem to lack this awareness of history. Each movement claims to be “the” authentic expression of Jewish tradition. However, if one listens to the narratives of these movements they take on almost soviet overtones of historiography. The first week’s lecture was a case in point. R.Reisner argued that the conservative movement was an authentic continuation of the traditions of Hillel. Homosexuality in Judaism? Don’t worry about the explicit prohibition in the Torah one can change the interpretation of the text to fit the time. This is an expression of Hillel.
Not only is it not an expression of Hillel, it is not an expression of Schechter. The genesis of the conservative movement was not about transforming Jewish expression, the desire was to conserve tradition. Dr. Cohen’s research points to the initial “innovations” of the conservative movement, English Sermon’s, order and decorum in the synagogue, and modern educational techniques. Changes that pull the movement away from the tent of Orthodoxy do not occur until after WWII.
I have nothing personal against change. We live in a society where the whole idea of religion is voluntary and one can pick and choose those elements that one intends to follow. What seems suspect is the need to clothe revolutionary change in the emperor’s clothes of authenticity.
Post a Comment