Talk:Conservative Judaism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conservative Judaism article.
Article policies
This is not a forum for general discussion of Conservative Judaism.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
Judaism Portal
Conservative Judaism is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Early History

"The Seminary's brief affiliation with the traditional congregations that established the Orthodox Union of America in 1898 was severed due to the Orthodox rejection of the Seminary's academic approach to Jewish learning."

Would anyone care to comment on this? What is the source? The process of distinguishing JTS (and Conservative Judaism in general) from Orthodoxy was a slow and still ongoing one. See, for example, the entries for "Conservative Judaism" and "Jewish Theological Seminary" in the Encyclopedia Judaica. But, more specifically, Congregation Shearith Israel (H. Pereira Mendes) did not reject the Seminary with the arrival of Shechter. In fact despite being a founder of the Orthodox Union, it was served by clergy from both JTS and YU. In 1946, Rabbi Louis C. Gerstein, a musmakh of JTS, joined the rabbinate of Shearith Israel. He later became the senior rabbi and led the congregation until his retirement in 1988. To say that the affiliation of the founding congregations with JTS was brief - is not entirely accurate. More needs to written about foundation of the Rabbinical Assembly and United Synagogue as these organizational structures speak more to the development of a "Conservative Judaism" apart from "Orthodoxy" than does JTS on its own.Guedalia D'Montenegro 15:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

I'm guessing this article was not written by a Conservative Jew.


Danny, please tell me why you disagree with my definition. Ezra Wax

It is not a definition in terms of itself. It is a definition in relationship to some other movement--Orthodoxy. Also Conservative Judaism has a very precise definition. It means something very specific and has a genuine history and ideology. It is not a matter of "level of observance." Finally, you are confusing Conservative and conservative. Danny

Ok. Suppose I change the first definition to a definition of conservative Judaism? Ezra Wax

There is no value to the second definition. Why do you feel a need to rank movements along your spectrum of values? Danny

[edit] Minor Edit, 2002

Not to butt in, guys, but... "Conservative Judaism refers to the unified movement of Conservative Judaism."

Does this sentence mean anything at all, or can it be deleted? Tokerboy 02:05 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)

delete away! Danny

[edit] Denomination vs. Sect

Conservative Judaism, like Reform Judaism and Orthodox Judaism, is a denomination, and is certainly not a sect. According to the ReligiousTolerance.Org website (which uses pretty mainstream definitions):

A Denomination is an established religious group, which has usually been in existence for many years and has geographically widespread membership. It typically unites a group of individual congregations into a single administrative body. Denominations differ greatly in the sharing of power between individual congregations and the central authority.
A Sect is a small religious group that is an offshoot of an established religion or denomination. It holds most beliefs in common with its religion of origin, but has a number of novel concepts which differentiate them from that religion.
By this definition, the only differences are size and possibly, age and geographic distribution. I think that is missing the point - as the terms are understood, theological legitimacy is at least as important a criteria. Of course, people aren't going to agree on that though...

Although this would make certain readers cringe, this would mean that both Ultra-Orthodox Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism may possibly be sects, and it is only Orthodox, Reform and Conservative that are denominations of rabbinic Judaism. RK

How interesting, you seem oblivious that perhaps the "Ultra-Orthodox" (considered a pejorative word by the way) consider themselves to be the actual "religion of origin". Ask yourself this question, if you could transport yourself back in time and observe the Jews throughout all the ages until the 1800's, what Judaism would you see them practicing ? We are all indeed entitled to live life with our own ideas, however let us not practice revisionism.

[edit] Use of "allegedly"

I agree with nearly all of Billfish's recent edits. The one exception is his addition of the word "allegedly" before a listing of Conservative Jewish beliefs about God. That word should only be used when someone is making an (as yet) unproven or controversial claim about someone. Conservative Jews are open about their monotheism, i.e. belief in one God, and open about the fact that the Conservative movement has never affirmed one specific form of monotheism. It has allowed, and many would say encouraged, members to read sacred Jewish texts and come up with their own views on this issue. (Of course, as the article states, the draw the line at trinitarianism and dualism. All forms of Judaism reject such beliefs as non-monotheistic.) Their own papers, journals, websites and sermons mention all of the stated forms of monotheistic belief. This range of beliefs is well documented in Rabbi Elliot N. Dorff's book, Conservative Judaism: From Our Ancestors To Our Descendants, and in the many articles on theology published in the Rabbinical Assembly's quarterly journal, Conservative Judaism. I can also provide additional references on any of these topics, per request. RK 23:01, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Views of revelation

Orthodox Jews believe that God can and has revealed his will to man in essentially a verbal, quotable form. Rabbi Norman Lamm writes: "I believe the Torah is divine revelation in two ways: in that it is God-given and in that it is godly. By "God-given," I mean that He willed that man abide by his commandments and that will was communicated in discrete words and letters. Man apprehends in many ways: by intuition, inspiration, experience, deduction and by direct instruction. The divine will, if it is to be made known, is sufficiently important for it to be revealed in as direct, unequivocal, and unambiguous a manner as possible, so that it will be understood by the largest number of the people to whom this will is addressed. Language, though so faulty an instrument, is still the best means of communication to most human beings. Hence, I accept unapologetically the idea of the verbal revelation of the Torah." (The Condition of Jewish Belief, Macmillan 1966)

This point of view is allowable within Conservative Judaism, but the great majority of Conservative Jews do not accept this. Due to their beliefs about the nature of God, most Conservative Jews hold that revelation must be non-verbal and non-literal. However, many C Jews believe that the Jewish prophets were inspired by God, just not in a verbal-like fashion. Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel writes "As a report about Revelation, the Bible itself is a midrash. To convey what the prophets experienced, the Bible could either use terms of descriptions or terms of indication. Any description of the act of revelation in empirical categories would have produced a caricature. That is why all the Bible does is to state that revelation happened; How it happened is something they could only convey in words that are evocative and suggestive." [God in Search of Man, Heschel, p.194]

Similarly, Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser writes: "Man receives a divine communication when the divine spirit rests on him, but man must give form to that communication; He must express it in words, in images and in symbols which will make his message intelligible to other men. Out of this need to give form to the truth that is revealed to him, the prophet places the stamp of his own individuality upon that truth."

Many other Conservative Jews believe that God's will is revealed through the interaction of man and God throughout history. In this view, by viewing how the Jewish people have understood God's will throughout history, we see how God has influenced the development of Jewish law; it is this process that we should recognize as "revelation".

Rabbi Louis Jacobs writes "Revelation is an encounter between the divine and the human, so that there is a human as well as a divine factor in revelation, God revealing His will not alone to men, but _through_ men....The new knowledge need not in any way affect our reverence for the Bible and our loyalty to its teachings. God's Power is not lessened because God preferred to co-operate with His creatures in producing the Book of Books." [We Have Reason to Believe, p.81]

In the foreword to the fourth edition of this book (1995), Rabbi Jacobs writes notes that "for all their vast wisdom and knowledge, the Talmudic rabbis and mediaeval thinkers did not operate with the tools of modern historical research. How could they? They had no access to the historical methodology, which remained undeveloped until the post-mediaeval period....The task of the Jewish theologian is not to try to defend the mediaeval picture of how Judaism came about. Such a picture has gone, never to return. The modern Jewish theologian, true to tradition, has to try to understand how, now that Judaism is seen to have had a history...the traditional view of Torah Min Ha-Shamayim can be reinterpreted....The solution, as Zechariah Frankel saw in the last century, is to see the whole process in dynamic, rather than static, terms; that, in the words of Robert Gordis, God gave the Torah not only to the Jewish people, but through the Jewish people.....Such a position in no way involves any rejection of belief in the Torah and in the mitzvot as divine commands. The Torah is still God-given if the 'giving' is seen to take place through the historical experiences of the Jewish people in its long quest for God. [We Have Reason to Believe]

Some within Reform Judaism accept this view, with the added proviso that such a view of revelation implies that Jewish law is no longer binding. Rabbi Dorff summarizes this Reform view: "God reveals His will to human beings through the use of human reason and moral striving. Each individual can be the recipient of revelation (in that sense) if he or she will only pay attention to the evidences of God in the natural and moral orders of the universe, and deduce from that what God requires of him or her. Moreover, as humanity has more experience, human knowledge of what is and what ought to be grows, and so the scope and accuracy of revelation progresses as time goes on. This explains why Reform Jews believe that Jewish law of previous eras is not binding, and why it is the individual who decides what to observe in Reform Judaism." [Elliot Dorff Conservative Judaism: Our Ancestors to Our Descendants United Synagogue, 1996]

All I know is the "Revelation of Torah" section in this article is trash. Basically, it says, "Conservatives assume that Orthodox Jews believe something the latter actually doesn't believe in." I think the movement's been around long enough to understand Orthodoxy, if not in the emotional aspect (which Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik holds is fundamental. see Lonely Man of Faith), at least in the logical sense. --Yodamace1 16:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gap in view and practice

I've left this in (not my text) but it should be cited appropriately:

"A number of studies have shown that there is a large gap between what the Conservative movement teaches and what most of its laypeople have incorporated into their daily lives. In practice, the majority of people who have come to join Conservative synagogues only follow all these laws rarely. Most do follow most of the laws some of the time, but only a minority follow most or all of the laws all of time. There is a substantial committed core, consisting of the lay leadership, rabbis, cantors, educators, and those who have graduated from the movement's religious day schools and summer camps, that do take Jewish law very seriously. Recent studies have shown an increase in the observance of members of the movement." Kaisershatner 14:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • "Eight Up: The College Years," a study which tracked Conservative Jews in the Bar and Bat Mitzvah class of 1994-1995, through high school and in college. Ariela Keysar and Barry Kosmin.

[edit] Where Are The Non-Anglosaxon Jews?

I have noticed that in the articles concerning Conservative Judaism, Orthodox Judaism, Liberal Judaism, Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism, there is a heavy focus on the Jewish communities in Anglosaxon countries, while leaving the millions of Jews living in, for example, mainland Europe totally out of the question. How come? For what I am aware of, these Jewish streams are also represented in a lot of other parts of the world Rick86 21:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the short answer is that most of the editors on English Wikipedia are living in those 'Anglosaxon' countries. It's not an excuse, though. Nomist 11:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Outside Anglo-Saxon countries there is much less denominational diversity. There is Orthodox Judaism, and there are Jews who are less serious about Orthodox Judaism. Other denominations may be established but usually have small followings. Of course this doesn't answer the question in relation to the Orthodox Judaism article.

[edit] Merge articles?

It doesn't seem right that the main link to Conservative in the 'Jew' template goes here, rather than the more general Masorti article. In fact, I'm not sure that it needs to be a separate article at all. I propose merging this article and Masorti into one main article on Conservative/Masorti Judaism, with smaller individual articles about the Conservative/Masorti movement in each particular country. This would help address Rick86's question above, too. Any thoughts? Nomist 11:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I for one fullheartedly agree. Conservative Judaism is 'traditional' Judaism, and in that sense doesn't differ from Masorti Judaism, which is based on the same principles (with a few minor differences). In that sense I also find it a good idea to have smaller individual articles about the Conservative/Masorti movement in each particular country. I am willing to do my share in changing this and writing a few articles. Rick86 13:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I have an objection to this proposed merge. Your argument, in theory, make sense. But in practice I believe that most English speaking Jews would describe "Conservative Judaism" as the more general movement, and use other terms - such as "Masorti" - for more regional specific movements of Conservative Judaism.
If we wanted to strictly describe Conservative Judaism through its institutional structures, one would end up defining a little known and poorly funded group - Masorti Olami - as the main point, and everything else would be underneath it as sub-sections. To wit:
  • Masorti Olami - The World Council of Conservative/Masorti Synagogues
    • United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism (North America)
    • The Masorti Movement in Israel
    • The Assembly of Masorti Synagogues - Conservative Judaism in the United Kingdom
    • The Neolog Movement in Hungary
    • (Whatever the Conservative Jews in Argentina call themselves, I don't know.)
In practice, people use the term "Masorti" to refer speficially to the Conservative movement in Israel, and less often, in the UK. Now, many Conservative Jews believe that Conservative Judaism in North America should rename itself as Masorti. No less a figure than Rabbi Elliot N. Dorff holds this way. But these suggestions haven't taken hold.
Nonetheless, I do not disagree with your descriptions. I think the best of both worlds would be to slightly rewrite the introduction to make your points clear, e.g. "Conservative Judaism is 'traditional' Judaism, and in that sense doesn't differ from Masorti Judaism, which is based on the same principles (with a few minor differences)." RK 00:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USA Jewish history is not the same as Israeli society

This article and Masorti should not be merged. Conservative Judaism is well-known for about one hundred years by millions of Jews and the non-Jewish world -- who in America would know that all of a sudden Conservatives are now to be known as "Masortis"? No-one! So let's avoid serving as a de facto front for original research and violating Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Until such time as the Conservative movement in the USA changes it's name to "Masorti" only, the proposal to merge makes no sense and must be dropped. On the contrary, keep each article and expand them so that they reflect their own growing uniqueness. IZAK 09:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Section

Hello, I've added criticism by Haredi rabbi Avi Shafran to the page. This criticism is quite strong, too strong for my personal taste. The Orthodox Union, somewhat to the left of Agudath Israel of America, came out with a statement distancing itself from criticism of this type. But it is well-sourced and the article was notable when it came out. --Shirahadasha 04:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And not a single Conservative rabbi disagreed with either of these criticisms? I don't believe it. In fact, I know for a fact that every Conservative rabbi I have spoken to has strongly disputed these criticisms, and in fact many have called Rabbi AVi Shafran a liar. It should also be noted that Avi Shafran once publicly said that Conservative Jews are sinners and deserve be murdered. Not mentioning this kind of seems dishonest, right? But I frankly have lost any hope I once had the critics of Conservative Judaism has any honesty whatsoever.

RK, the community had decided that there would be a "criticism" section for each of the major denominations. A criticism section is exactly that, criticism. Content which is not critical does not belong there. Everybody gets one. Share the pain. --Shirahadasha 00:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? First off, your cry of "SHARE THE PAIN" is an indication that you may not be committed to our NPOV policy, but almost sounds as if you want to attack Conservative Judaism. That would not be appropriate. Secondly, I never claimed that this article should not have a section containing critical commentary. Where di you get such an idea? All I did was ask why the only person cited was one person who has a history of hateful speech. (His speech is so hysterically violent that the anti-defamation league and his own fellow Orthodox rabbis censured him.) RK
Also, someone keeps removing all the quotations and sources, and taking statements out of context. That is inappropriate. 00:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
RK, agree Avi Shafran uses some very strong language at times, but in this case his article captures the Orthodox Right's views reasonably well, and in terms appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. You were responding to the criticisms with pro-Conservative retorts, and I don't believe that's appropriate for the criticism section. You also wanted to put in some of Shafran's invective, but I believe an encyclopedia should prefer moderately-toned arguments to invective, the idea is to present different positions and let people choose. Conservative (and Reform) leaders have said some nasty things about Orthodoxy over the years; unfortunately practically everybody's been rude to everyone else at one time or another. Shafran, for reasons I can't fathom, is an official spokesperson for a leading Haredi organization and his criticism represents a POV that isn't his alone (You should see some of the things he's said about Modern Orthodoxy, by the way.). I used him to present the Haredi position in the Women Of The Wall article for similar reasons. Best Wishes, --Shirahadasha 04:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Shirahadasha is right here.

Hi there, I'm just curious why Conservative Judaism has/needs a criticism? I noticed that the orthodox judaism section doesnt have one? I'm not sure if I shold be offended by this, not that there criticism, but that its not equal across wikipedia. --Erasmosis 23:11 6 December 2006 (UTC)

See Modern Orthodox Judaism#Criticism. See also the criticism oin Chabad Lubavich#Controversies, Avi Weiss #Open Orthodoxy and Yeshivat Chovevei Torah#Criticism. There have been branches of Judaism which have inexplicably escaped a Criticism section and should have one given that other sections do, but such a section is not unique to Conservative Judaism. Critical content is encyclopedic, reliably sourced, and consistent with WP:NPOV as well as long-standing Wikipedia practice given the long-standing Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of Christianity, and Criticism of Islam articles among others. Best, --Shirahadasha 09:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

- Am I wrong to think that the section on Feminist criticism violates NPOV standards? It describes the belief that traditional Judaism is discriminatory against women as "mistaken". Maybe it is, but I think that's an opinion rather than a standard, commonly accepted truth. Quite the opposite, actually, since Reform Judaism seems to hold this "mistaken" belief and is the largest Jewish denomination in the United States.

If it's commonly accepted as fact, there should be a citation to prove it. Otherwise, we should delete the second half of the passage in accordance with WP:NPOV. Thoughts? --Gradient 07:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, it's unquestionable POV. I removed it. DanielC/T+ 13:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Driving and Using Electricity on Shabbat

As someone who identifies as being an observant Conservative Jew (Having attended Solomon Schechter schools from K-12th grade, attended and worked at several Ramah Camps, and being a member of a Beth Shalom synagogue), as well as someone who regularly interacts with high-ranking Rabbis within the Conservative movement, I must ask for a source for the claim that the conservative movement allows driving and the use of electricity on Shabbat. The justifications given for these supposed decisions have been argued on several occasions, but, as I understand it, where never widely accepted.

In my 13 years as a student at two different Solomon Schechter Schools, and 13 summers of spending Shabbat at 4 different Ramah Camps, all have taught that driving and the use of electricity on Shabbat is prohibited by the Conservative Movement, except in certain very specific circumstances (such as to save a life).

Hello, this CJLS responsum by Rabbi Arnold Goodman on videotaping on shabbat mentions the CJLS decision permitting electricity on shabbat. It's cited as source 3 in the article. And here's a source on driving on Shabbat. The permissions are limited but they do exist. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The article, as currently written, contains certain commonly accepted half-truths. The first is the implicit idea that a CJLS ruling universally alters the halakhic nature of the movement. In fact, a Conservative congregational rabbi is free to reject any leniency introduced by the CJLS if he or she sees fit.
Is it always a leniency? :-P --yonkeltron 08:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The second, more specific and more egregious, is the notion that the Conservative movement lifted any sort of ban on fire on Shabbat. The "driving teshuvah" contains no such thing. It is a document permitting Conservative rabbis not to reprimand their non-observant congregants who drive to shul on Shabbat, the logic being that only be attendance at synagogue are they likely to remain attached to Judaism and eventually to become Shabbat observant. It allows for this only in cases in which a congregant cannot possibly walk to and from the synagogue due to the distance, and only permits driving to the synagogue and back by the shortest route possible. It allows this based on a combination of biblical narrative analysis and an argument — unconvincing, in my opinion — that driving a car constitutes a number of shevuyot but not any melakhot.
The content of the original teshuvah, which is available from the Rabbinical Assembly, makes it clear that the authors never intended for self-described observant Jews to take advantage of this very limited heter, and certainly not rabbis. In fact, the teshuvah is explicitly presented as a temporary measure, and calls for the USCJ to enact an emergency program on Shabbat observance in order to alleviate the need for the ruling. Sadly, in the 50 years since then no such program has ever been initiated. InfiniteMonkeys 15:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, isn't it correct to say that a permissive opinion adopted by the CJLS means Conservative Judaism permits the practice? My understanding is that even though Conservative Rabbis may individually not regard it as permitted, the fact that the opinion was adopted means the Rabbinical Assembly through its Law Committee regards the yes-it-can position as a permissable one to take. If you believe there should be language clarifying this distinction, feel free to propose it. As to the Shabbat issue, feel free to add language clarifying the permission as limited to driving to Synagogue on Shabbat if not currently sufficiently clear. Would it be possible to quote the original Responsum language as a source for your other positions on this issue? This would seem to be an issue of controversy and might deserve its own subsection, The source I quoted -- and I would ordinarily expect the Shechter Institute could be trusted to represent Conservative Judaism -- described the ruling as a permission rather than a "we won't chastise" and advised the querier that it could be done.--Shirahadasha 00:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that the Conservative movement has allowed driving to Synagogue on Shabbat in an instance where there is no nearby Synagogue (although I live within walking distance so I don't have to). I have never heard, however, the claims about using electricty and certainly not videotaping. --דניאל - Dantheman531 03:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The official responsum on videotaping on shabbat is a relatively new one. It's a minority opinion -- not adopted by a majority, but by enough of a plurality to be considered a valid option for a congregational rabbi to choose under the CJLS's rules. Best, --Shirahadasha 12:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagged article as needing significant work

This article needs significant work.

  1. This article needs to be wikified according to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Entire sections need to be reformatted and possibly spun off into new articles. While lots of content is great, but it needs to be organized so that it's readable and easy to find things.
  2. This article seems to contain too few opinions. Many more viewpoints from within the movement need to be included before there is an accurate picture of things.
  3. This article needs to cite sources more effectively. Several sections have random block-quotes with no attribution or verifiable source. While there are some citations, many are incomplete or otherwise improper. Please consult the special page on Wikipedia:Citing Sources. In the meantime, when reading or browsing the article, make sure to make liberal use of the {{fact}} tag in order to let others know what needs to be cited or otherwise cleaned up in terms of Wikipedia:Verifiability yonkeltron 20:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting up and adding NavBoxes

This article can spin out at least one article (the section on Conservative Jewish Law should become" Conservative Halakha" and it might be worth merging it with Conservative Responsa and the CLJS articles) and we should consider designing a Conservative Judaism NavBox to sit on the bottom of pages. That way we can unify the articles a little bit better. Suggestions? Ideas? Comments, concerns or kvetching? --yonkeltron 07:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I couldn't sleep so I hacked together the following NavBox. I think grey is an appropriate color.
v • d • e
Major Articles in Conservative Judaism
. Let's try to make sure that this template contains the "Best Of" and not just the entire category. --yonkeltron 07:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


I vote to SPLIT Strongly and to merge with Conservative Halakhah and CLJS. I also think that Belief should also be split, since it (1) breaks the article into two, (2) is the section that lacks the diversity (3) does not relate to the history (4) Will change the most under Arnie Eisen.--Jayrav 15:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I would put the section on Revelation on this talk page back into the new Belief page. And arrange the belief page in a spectrum from naturalistic to supernatural. Also the entire CJ entry lacks sources and should be fact checked. Anyone out there who owns Dorff, Siegal, and Waxman to add sources?--Jayrav 15:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Are we still down with spinning off the belief section into it's own section? --yonkeltron 07:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I second your rationale and am pleased you are on board with this. Do we do a vote or do we just move it? --yonkeltron 06:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is the vote. I think you should go ahead and do it. --Jayrav 03:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's wait a little bit and see what people have to say first. This move should happen in phases.
  1. Phase Aleph: Spinning out law sections into a new article.
  2. Phase Bet: Proposal to merge CLJS and Conservative responsa into Conservative Halakha.
  3. Phase Gimmel: Proposal for the creation of a Conservative Jewish Beliefs article.
  4. Phase Daled: ....

As much as we should be bold in editing, we need to give the opportunity for the input of others. --yonkeltron 06:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to make all of this better organized. For "Phase Bet", I think CLJS and Conservative responsa should remain separate because they are sufficiently distinct topics. CLJS should deal with the committee, current members, the history of the committee, the process of the committee, past members, etc., while Conservative responsa should deal with the theology, the topics, the rulings, etc. EqualsMCSquared 17:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Changes

Ok khevra, here we go! I have spun off the section on Conservative Halakha into a standalone article. It, like the rest of this article needs to be cleaned up significantly in order to meet standards and avoid deletion! Also, I have suggested that the Conservative Responsa article be merged into Conservative Halakha in order to keep things together. Let's get some discussion on this going in order to make sure that we are doing this responsibly. Lastly, can we maybe come up with a todo list on how to improve articles in this series? --yonkeltron 23:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spinning off Criticism sections

I move to spin off the criticisms section of the Conservative Judaism article into a separate article. This is both to make the main article smaller and also so that there is a place for the content to get a fair shake. Especially because there is so much of it. --yonkeltron 06:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Should be done now. Check it out and make sure that this article has a good enough lead paragraph in compliance with NPOV. The article is called Criticism of Conservative Judaism --yonkeltron 06:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting "dedication to Halakha" citation

My edits to Conservative Judaism deleting "A dedication to Halakha... [as a] guide for our lives." reflects CJLS ruling on marriage and ordination. The CJLS ruling violates Halakha as it has existed in the Law. Sincerely, Nkras 07:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (copied from EqualsMCSquared UserTalk)

OK. So in your opinion the CJLS ruling violates halakha, but this Wikipedia page is not about your opinion. To be NPOV, all views should be represented including (at the very least) the viewpoint of Conservative Judaism on what Conservative Judaism is. First, your own analysis of the ruling is Original Research, which is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Second, do not delete cited material, per policy. Thanks. EqualsMCSquared 15:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I concur. Interpretation of this kind has not place here. Apropos, you may wish to look at the Conservative Halakha article currently under heavy development. --yonkeltron 17:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Clarified section to indicate this is Conservative Judaism's own characterization of itself. Any criticism of that characterization would appear to better belong in the "Criticism" section. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I shorted up the phrasing to be more consistent with the way Wikipedia introductions are normally written. For instance, on the LDS/Mormon page it says, "LDS believe in X, Y, Z"; it doesn't say "LDS claim that they believe in...", or the "their own self-description of their principles is...". Or, on the United States page it just says that the U.S. "is a federal constitutional republic" even though someone who thinks elections are rigged and stolen might prefer to write, "The U.S. claims to be a representative democracy." Trying to weaken a basic statement about Conservative Judaism's principles, without citation, after a decision that an editor views as inconsistent with those principles is Original Research on behalf of the editor, and this is against Wikipedia policy. EqualsMCSquared 19:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I would cite my proof the CJLS ruling violates Halakha - therefore rendering Conservative Judaism in violation of the Law and not adhering to Halakha. I am skeptical about what you believe to be "original research" or POV. If the CJLS decided that eating pork does not violate Halakha, would that: 1. make their ruling ipso facto Halakhical because the CJLS issued the ruling, and 2. would my assertion that it violated Torah be a POV and not a restatement of fact? Nkras 23:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
First, your proof is a good one and suppose I even agree with it. Still, since the proof is from you and not from a reliable source it violates the No Original Research policy. Second, supposing that you found a reliable source documenting this; then, according the the NPOV policy you should fairly represent all points of view by including your POV instead of replacing the POV that you disagree with. Third, even if you think all points of view are represented, including the ones you disagree with, you should not delete cited material. Hope this helps. EqualsMCSquared 00:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
My proof - if I post it - is footnoted and cites multiple sources. That, it appears, would not be sufficient for you: no matter what facts I present, you would consider it a POV because I would not have presented "all sides". I will then ask you: what proof do you have that justifies keeping the assertion that "Th[e] principles of Conservative Judaism include...A "dedication to Halakha...[as a] guide for our lives"? Wouldn't your answer be a POV as well? 71.34.18.146 01:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Adding information that is relevant to this page and is from a reliable source (this means it is someone else's synthesis of ideas and conclusion, not yours) is different. You were previously trying to delete someone else's information from a reliable source because you didn't agree with it. This sort of deletion is against NPOV policy. EqualsMCSquared 04:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is best ended. Wikipedia has it's policies. Kindly direct your complaints regarding said policies to an administrator instead of violating those policies themselves. The talk page of this article is not for political debate it is for discussion relating to the improvement of the article. Thank you. --yonkeltron 17:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This is a halakhical debate not a political one, and addressing then properly editing factual information will improve the article. EqualsMCSquared is under the misguided view that my edit was based upon opinion. The information justifying my edit is based upon fact and is from a reliable source: The Torah. I refer you to Vayikra 18. This section of the Torah concerns immorality and forbidden relationships. Torah, post, pp. 648-655. Specifically, Vayikra 18:22 states “You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination”. The Torah is particularly harsh in condemning this practice. See footnotes for 18:22 and 18:23 in The Torah: The Chumash, Stone Edition, Mesorah Publications, 2001., commentary at page 653; see also Me’Am Lo’ez (1730), Rabbi Yaakov Culi, on 18:22 (homosexual acts) and 18:24-28 (defilement). Torah exists in fact and is authoritative. My edit stands. Nkras 00:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Nkras. You are not doing anyone any good here. Everyone is well aware that Orthodoxy and Conservative Jewry have different opinions about the nature of Halakha. The definition of Halakha is in debate not the categorization of Conservative Jewry as adhering to Halakha. It's hot potato and you know it. Let it go.Guedalia D'Montenegro

I find it amazing that you would classify a statement of fact as "vandalism". I didn't realize that Wikipedia was that deconstructionist. I suspect those who disagree with me are projecting. It is they who are basing their opposition not upon fact, but upon their political views. By opposing my edit, my opposition is asserting that Conservative Judaism adheres to Halakha, which is <their> POV. I have stated my facts and my sources. I dispute your assertion this debate is about "opinions about the nature of Halakha". It is the denial of fact by my opposition and their substitution of <their> POV as fact. Nkras 01:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nkras, a lot of people have criticized Conservative Judaism's recent actions, including Avi Shafran of Agudat Yisrael as well as the four people who resigned from its committee. If you can find critical comments, you're welcome to add them. However, religions in Wikipedia are generally entitled to describe their own beliefs in their own way, and if outsiders think they're being incorrect or inconsistent, there's a separate criticism section or article, and that's the place to add critical comments. I defend Orthodox Jewish views all the time from Biblical criticism folks and others who say traditional Jewish beliefs are wrong and shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article. I point out that Orthodox Jews are entitled to express their own beliefs in their own way in articles about their own beliefs and practices. For better or for worse, Conservative views are entitled to the same treatment in an article about Conservative Judaism. Please source any criticism you add. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Compromise edit. See history for details. Nkras 05:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess my edit was ok. No one's complained. :-) Nkras 23:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed the reference for the direct quote ("dedication to Halakha... [as a] guide for our lives") to be simply the reference for this direct quote about Conservative Judaism. Text in this reference that was not a citation for the direct quote was removed. For instance, if the quote is "Total abstinence is so excellent a thing... [I even] abstain from total abstinence itself" the proper reference citation is,
"<r e f>Mark Twain, Inscription to Mrs. Rutherford B. Hayes, reported in The Washington Post, June 11, 1881</r e f>"
not,
"<r e f>Inscription to Mrs. Rutherford B. Hayes, reported in The Washington Post, June 11, 1881. Some people thought Mark Twain was a racist. See www.cnn.com/racist. Other people thought Mark Twain was not a racist. See www.fox.com/not-a-racist</r e f>"
-EqualsMCSquared 06:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
After reading Shirahadasha's comment I then understood the proper way to edit this article. My compromise edit - with a reference in a FOOTNOTE - would inform readers there is a major disagreement in Judaism concerning the legitimacy Conservative Judaism's claim to be following Halakha, and that Conservative Judaism is not the sole artbiter of Halakha. This is a very important contextual element. Therefore, I'm reversing your deletion. nkras 15:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • First, it is not appropriate to add commentary to a footnote citation that sources a direct quote. (See above.)
  • Second, the Prouser article is already referenced twice on this page.
  • Third, the Prouser article does not claim that Conservative Judaism does or does not follow halakha; it argues for one specific side of a halakhic question.
  • Fourth, the OU article does not even mention Conservative Judaism and, therefore, does not belong on this page; it belongs on a page about Orthodox Judaism or Judaism and Homosexuality, etc.
  • Fifth, "Whether the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism follows Halakha is in dispute." is your opinion. Neither of the two links provided makes this claim. Being "Original Research", this is prohibited by Wikipedia policy.
  • Sixth, there is no disagreement that the reference "Emet Ve-Emunah..." does contain that quote "dedication to Halakha... [as] a guide for our lives." Therefore, the citation/reference should be left as is.
-EqualsMCSquared 17:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • First, it is proper to inform the researcher of a fundamental difference in Judaism when the researcher may not know there are fundamental differences in Judaism.
  • Second, referencing an article more than once is standard practice in footnoting.
  • Third, I assent to the criticism of the Prouser article for the sake of reaching an agreement.
  • Fourth, the OU article is prima facie evidence there is a fundamental disagreement concerning Halakha. The Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist Movements are noted by implication.
  • Fifth, "Whether the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism follows Halakha is in dispute" is BASED UPON FACT. The presentation of FACT is NOT prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Your reverse was your POV.
The article will be edited to reflect the above points. 18:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Edited Criticism section for clarity, and replaced redundant cites with standard Ibid. Nkras 22:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks better, but the Criticism section needs more cited references. -EqualsMCSquared 00:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove previous edit for Ibid. with full cite. Didn't work. Nkras 22:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything in Rabbinic literature indicating that one who is not 100% observant cannot become a rabbi? I think that's the main question here. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Kari's question. Yes, there are such discussions. Although this depends on what "Rabbi" means. There is much discussion in rabbinic literature regarding who may serve as a judge or act as a witness. A person who openly violates a rule of the torah - is probably inneligible to serve as a witness, or judge. See generally, Maimonides, Mishneh Torah - Hilchot Sanhedrin Chapters 3 and 4. Although many of the duties of a modern rabbi are unrelated to serving as witnesses or judges, still rabbi's are called on from time to time - to answer questions of Jewish law, perform conversions, act as witnesses to marriage ceremonies and even to act as judges. So the question as to who may serve as a witness or judge is directly at issue. Unfortunately, we are getting away from the matter in question. The question is - whether Conservative Jewry can be defined by a dedication to "Halakha" or not. We should not be so naive as to assume that "Halkha" has one meaning acceptable to all. That is why wikipedia has an article on Halakha and a seperate article for Conservative Halakha. Accordingly, in my opinion, there is no reason not to describe Conservative Judaism as maintaining a dedication to Halakha. The recent footnotes by Nkrass, while much more acceptible than deleting the section entirely, are, in my opinion, still not on point. The debate regarding homosexual ordination/marriage and halakha is better dealt with in other sections (Namely, the sections for Jewish Law, Criticism, or in the article about Conservative Halakha. Guedalia D'Montenegro 17:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G-d vs -o-

I am questioning the logic behind using a word other than "God" to refer to God. The prohibition against writing the Tetragrammaton applies only to writing the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew. Writing the word "God" is perfectly fine and is certainly more precise than writing "G-d". Perhaps, we should replace "G-d" with "-o-" because according to the faulty logic, they seem to be functionally equivalent. --yonkeltron 09:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to Devarim 12:3-4[1]. Nkras 13:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The question we should be asking here is not whether Judaism encourages writing "God" as "G-d", but which way encyclopedia article on Conservative Judaism should handle it. In my view, it's informative to link to G-d and to mention the significance of that spelling, but the article should be written from a neutral perspective, which means using the common term for the concept, in other words, using "God" most of the time. Mangojuicetalk 15:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Excellent it's settled then. --yonkeltron 17:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
An article should accurately describe its subject matter. Religious terms have connotations that may not be applicable in a particular case. If the majority of the population commonly uses the terms "Zeus" or "Jesus Christ" to refer to the concept of the divinity in English, but Conservative Jews do not do so, then an article on Conservative Judaism should not use the terms "Zeus" or "Jesus Christ" because doing so would not accurately describe the subject. Same here. I doubt that most Conservative Jews use the hyphenated form or that Conservative Judaism officially requires it. But if someone can come up with a reliable source that they do, that should control. --Shirahadasha 17:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is accurately describing the subject matter by the use of "G-d". Trying to justify your usage of G-d with out the hyphen by NPOV is quite a stretch. Both are the same word, but the usage of "G-d" shows respect. "HaShem" is an alternative. Nkras 23:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, introducing ambiguity to the English language does not implicitly and expressly connote respect. Secondly, "God" refers to the concept of deity whereas "G-d" refers to the name of God in a distinctly Jewish sense. Perhaps the question to ask is whether we are referring to God the holy one blessed be he or the name of God in a Jewish context. --yonkeltron 01:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
This is about referring to G-d in both senses, in an article about Conservative Judaism. You answered your own question. Nkras 02:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I answered no question. I only established that "G-d" refers to the name of God while the word "God" refers to Hashem. This is a silly argument. Please stop changing things based on personal preference. We don't want an edit war among friends. :-) --yonkeltron 03:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I refer you to comments made to my class a few years ago by Rabbi Neil Gillman, one of the g'dolei hador in the Conservative Movement. He disagrees with hyphenating because English is not a holy language. He finds it hypocritical when someone hyphenates in English and proceeds to spell out a Name of God in Hebrew. I used to use the "G dash d" until that class and now I spell it out. New question of the day: is there an issue of making an edit on an article that contains the Tetragrammaton? Valley2city 02:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. What I learned as Orthodox was that it is in no way a requirement to write G-d (or Gd). Many Jews do it this way as a sign of respect, but the same prohibitions used for the Hebrew names don't apply to English. I don't see it as a problem in articles on wikipedia - some editors will choose to use the hyphenated version, but if others choose to replace the hyphen with an 'o' it doesn't in any way change the meaning or take away the respect of the original editor. It's a non-issue. Dbratton 12:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I asked my rabbis the same question awhile back. Computer media (specifically ferro-magnetic storage devices) is, by-nature, transient and therefore one should not be held responsible for what is written on a computer screen any more than a chalk board. Obviously, for reasons of respect, it doesn't hurt to avoid it. --yonkeltron 03:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
"God" is the correct usage in the Judaism articles in deference to "G-d", for the same reason as "Jesus" is used in the Messianic Judaism articles in deference to "Yeshua"--It's the most commonly used and understood name and therefore the one that is appropriate according to WP:MOS. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 05:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, ok. :-s :-/ Nkras 02:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orthodox view of Conservative conversations

Can somebody please provide source(s) for our text on this matter? To what extent might there be a makhloqet (debate) within the more modern/liberal side of Orthodoxy about rejecting Conservative converts? (Then the text should be qualified.) Also, isn't this a le-chatkhila (a priori) opinion, but be-de'eved (a posteriori, after the fact) many Orthodox rabbis would not nullify a marriage to a Conservative Jew? HG | Talk 17:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Orthodoxy rejects all non-Orthodox conversions. This is an objectively definitive statement resulting from the status that non-Orthodox groups possess within the Orthodox community as stated by its doctrine. Converstions must be for the sake of becoming a Jew who follows the Torah in completion. There is no half baked membership, and there is no such thing as being half-Jewish. Judaism is a religion, and although it might have evolved into a culture, it is first and foremost a religion. Unlike being Italian or Klingon, being Jewish is defined and governed by strict regulation such that an individual is either entirely Jewish or entirely non-Jewish. A debate about lechatchila and b'dieved is also a frivolous issue, because one has to A: define those words and B: define their context. They might not mean the same thing in Conservatism as they mean in Orthodoxy, but I am not sure. In Orthodoxy, lechatchilah refers to the situation prior to something occurring, and b'dieved refers to a situation after it has already occurred. While the gist might be captured using the Latin words used above, the sentiments behind might not be fully appreciated by the Conservative Jew, and they are surely, in personal experience, often not fully understood even by members of Orthodox Judaism. A marraige to a conservative Jew is a non-binding marriage not because the officiating rabbi was Conservative; in fact, rabbis need play no part in marriage ceremonies in Orthodoxy. The problem involved is that the transfers and agreements are very technical and, without the proper rabbinic oversight, one is bound to err and thus invalidate the marriage ceremony. When marriages are conducted under the auspices of Conservative Judaism, they are in effect conducted without heed to proper protocol as defined by Orthodox Judaism. Whether or not certain rabbis who claim to be Orthodox, albeit liberal, will recognize these marriages, or a conversion, or anything for that matter that is of a non-Orthodox nature, does not alter the Orthodox response, but rather sheds a light of uncertainty upon that rabbi or individual in particular. As explained in the article Modern Orthodox (near the bottom, in Criticism), there are (at least) two types of Modern Orthodoxy: philosophically modern and behaviorly modern. Those who are behaviorly modern are actually not practicing Orthodoxy. They may claim whatever they wish, but for those who do not follow normative halacha, their claims of Orthodoxy are baseless. Unlike the rules of some governing body who can alter the rules as they see fit (such as the US Legislature, or any of the non-Orthodox factions), Orthodoxy is not defined by its members but rather by the Torah. While it is the Sages of the past and the present who define exactly what and how the Torah is to be explained, this is an entirely different discussion, but taking it at face value for the time being, Orthodoxy is a doctrine that is followed by its followers, while non-Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy that has been put on a conveyor belt and siften, filtered and transformed into whatever remains after the workers on the line have decided to alter and modify and remove whatever it was that they decided to alter modify and remove. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 16:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I want to once again remind editors to please supply sources for content which they wish to include in the encyclopedia, and please not to use talk pages to present or discuss content that isn't suitable for inclusion. See the talk page guidelines. This is not a debating forum or bulletin board. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Describing the level of Ortho rejection

I don't think it's accurate to say "it is as though they [Conservative Jews] are following a different religion." The comparison is imprecise, especially problematic in a situation where the poskim are trying to be precise and the distinctions are important. Individuals Conservative Jews are not treated as non-Jewish. For instance, Orthodox Jews never count non-Jews for a minyan but this is not a problem for individual Conservative Jews (e.g., who go to an Orthodox minyan to say kaddish). A Conservative Jew may get an honor at (some) Ortho shuls, but non-Jews never would. The child of a Conservative Jew may be welcome in various Orthodox programs, but not of non-Jews. Etc. Even heretics (apikorsim) are not treated as if they belong to a different religion. Perhaps somebody will cite specific poskim or shul policies and the halakhic categories applied to the Conservatives. HG | Talk 22:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It is entirely accurate and there could be no better precision than to state that Conservative Judaism is a foreign religion. While not at all attempting to mock your thoughtful comments above, each one of your aforementioned issues with my statements would be very apropos would I be asserting that Conservative Jews are either not Jewish or considered to be not Jewish. However, I have asserted an entirely different position of Orthodoxy: that, while being Jewish, Conservative Jews practice a foreign religion, perhaps under the delusion that it is a left-wing, liberalized sort of Judaism. That may very well be how it is perceived in Conservatism, or it may be something entirely different, but the fact is that Judaism, at its core, states that all laws are sacred and cannot be tinkered with in order to improvise it into a modernized religion that molds to the users' needs at any given time period.
I think an analogous concept would be the members of a little treehouse club who make 5 rules of conduct for all members to follow, the fifth rule being that there can never be any more or less than these 5 rules. If someone in the treehouse club, we'll call him Bob, decides that rule #2, for instance, is no longer applicable for some sort of a reason, there are two things that can happen. The members of the treehouse club may rethink their initial constitution, express their collected sentiments that their initial '5 rule' rule was drafted too hastily, and perhaps rescind their doctrine(s) and allow Bob to be a part of the new constitution, or, they can be fundamentalist and expel Bob, who no longer desires to follow rule #2, and, in doing so, is transgressing rule #5 as well. Now, should Bob decide that he doesn't mind being expelled because his family has their own tree in which to build a treehouse and now he can make the rules for his own treehouse club, that doesn't mean that Bob's club has anything to do with the original club to which he belonged. Although he might perceive his new club (possessing rules #1, #3 and #4) as a liberalized offshoot of the orignal treehouse club, the members of the original club, when asked about their perception of this new Club of Bob, may take the stance that the Club of Bob is an entirely different entity, notwithstanding the fact that the two clubs share rules #1, #3 and #4.
Now one might consider all of the above as mere rhetoric, but no one but the official members and spokesmen of the first club have the right to determine the stance it will take towards the new Club of Bob.
Although it might sound silly, especially when compared with the above analogy, the religion of Judaism is an all or nothing religion. Sure, people err and no one is perfect. But when individuals go out and create a community that establishes itself on the basis of its strict adherance to all of the many, many commandments, customs, rituals and nuances of Judaism but is entirely and totally against one rule, such as the ban on homosexuality, or of driving on shabbos, or anything else for that matter, the Orthodox view of such an organized defiance of particular rules of Judaism is that it is not Judaism.
What is the answer to the following question? A hassidic rabbi, with a long beard and payos, who has a wife and 11 children and has never worked a day in his life because he learns in a kollel, comes home one day clean-shaven. His wife is shocked, and before she has a chance to faint, the man gathers his wife and children into the living room to explain that he just doesn't have the will to continue anymore, and he is sick and tired of Judaism. He wants to cross the country with a motorcycle gang he just met and he even thinks that a biker babe named Roz and he might be able to hit it off. Is he still Jewish? The answer is, 'Yes.' If he also said that he's converting to Christianity, or Hinduism, is he still Jewish then? Yes, because the rule in Judaism is that one may perhaps convert in, but no one can ever convert out. Does this matter to the man? He may not like this rule, and he may not care about this rule. But it is a rule, and he will forever be Jewish. If two years later, he rethinks things, misses his wife and children and found out that Roz already has a boyfriend, and decides to return to his previous way of life after some serious soul searching, he will require no conversion, because he has never left. He was always a Jew, merely following whatever religion he decided to follow in his failed quest to 'convert' out of Judaism.
So, I completely agree with your comments above about using Conservative Jews for a minyan (in certain circumstances) and whatever else you might feel or say about Conservative Jews, but they are in fact following a religion other than Judaism. The fact that they refer to it as Judaism doesn't make it Judaism. The Orthodox stance is that Conservative Judaism, together with the other Judaisms (Reform, Karaite, etc.) are not Judaisms. There is only one Judaism. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 23:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

DRosenbach, that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever stumbled across while browsing Wiki. Sure, it would be entirely accurate - from an Orthodox perspective. Unfortunately, there's that pesky NPOV rule. If the sentence went something like, "to the Orthodox community, it is as if Conservative Jews are practicing a different religion," that would be acceptable. Chaiya 14:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, HG. My family belongs to a Conservative synagogue, and I grew up in one, but when we daven, no Orthodox shul or minyan has ever asked which movement we're associated with. I suppose it might be a problem for somebody who doesn't know Hebrew or isn't familiar with a siddur, and it's certainly a problem for a woman, who is unwelcome in an Orthodox minyan.
But in general, I think the paragraph is vague, and if it can be improved it probably belongs at Criticism of Conservative Judaism, not here. Here are some more problems:
- What does it mean that "haredi ("ultra-Orthodox") Jews tend to eschew contact with Conservative Judaism, or at least its rabbinate"? Do they cross the street when they see a Conservative rabbi walking toward them? Do they refuse to shake hands?
- "Orthodoxy is concerned partly with Conservative Judaism's interest in socio-historical approaches to changing halakhah (Jewish law) and partly to its rejection of Orthodox rabbinic authority as binding." This repeats the bullet item earlier in the section.
- "Orthodox rabbis have taken several different tacks in gauging the status of individual Conservative Jews, who are deemed no less Jewish than Orthodox Jews but possibly assumed to be misguided, consistent violators of halakhah" Who? Why? How? This sentence is full of weasel words. In the end, it doesn't actually say anything.
In any event, if this paragraph can be salvaged, it probably belongs in Criticism of Conservative Judaism, and not here — unless the two are merged. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 23:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't object to merging, whether there or here. Before you/we decide, do look at the Mod Ortho article with its critique. Ideally, it would be nice if the Judaisms had parallel structures. In the long run, I think it would be more fruitful to have an article on something like "Relations among Judaisms" and describe cross-criticisms, cooperation, technical halakhah, etc.
On this paragraph -- note that it deals partly with the specific treatment of Conservatives under Orthodoxy halakhah and actual practice. This is different than the sweeping critiques of the movement in the other article. See what I mean? HG | Talk 23:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
On reflection, perhaps it might be better to have a more general paragraph summarizing criticism and pointing to the Criticism of Conservative Judaism article, with more specific criticism in that article. Perhaps the Who is a Jew article should be pointed to as well, since that article discusses the status of Conservative conversions etc. vis-a-vis Orthodox rabbis in more detail. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd encourage editors to use this talk page to discuss the article, and please not to debate the merits or accuracy of Orthodox v. Conservative Judaism here. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

HG wrote: "In the long run, I think it would be more fruitful to have an article on something like "Relations among Judaisms" and describe cross-criticisms, cooperation, technical halakhah, etc." Relationships between Jewish religious movements could be that article. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 04:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
LOL, wikipedia has it all! So now we have a mishmash of criticisms in several articles. (The "Relationships" deals with some other stuff, such as cooperation and attitude to pluralism.) Wouldn't it be better to try to keep all this in one place? Otherwise we end up w/POV forks each w/a different slant. HG | Talk 16:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "it is as though they are following a different religion"

"Orthodoxy is concerned partly with Conservative Judaism's interest in socio-historical approaches to changing halakhah (Jewish law) and partly to its rejection of Orthodox rabbinic authority as binding. Orthodox rabbis have taken several different tacks in gauging the status of individual Conservative Jews, who are deemed no less Jewish than Orthodox Jews but possibly assumed to be misguided, consistent violators of halakhah; it is as though they are following a different religion."

Awkward phrasing aside, how is this considered NPOV?

Chaiya 09:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This phrase is discussed in the previous section, perhaps you/we could add to the thread there if we have new points to make. HG | Talk 11:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
In order to be included in the encyclopedia, statements of this nature need to be sourced and the source must be clearly notable Wikipedia cannot include statements of this nature unless it is very clear that this is not simply some editor's opinion or based on some unknown person or private website. I would also strongly suggest using direct quotes or making summaries of the sources that are very close to the original to ensure that this is really what the source says and not an editor's own slant. Copies of quotes already appearing in the Criticism of Conservative Judaism article might be better since the intention of the section is to summarize that article. --Shirahadasha 13:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not a forum

Hi! Just wanted to put folks on general notice that I've put up Wikipedia's "not a forum" notice at the top of this page, and that I plan to start enforcing Wikipedia's rule that posts which attempt to debate the article's subject rather than discuss how to write the article will be deleted. Thanks again for your cooperation. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orthodox Criticism

I'd like to repeat and summarize my earlier comments, since the editor who added this paragraph chose to ignore them. I've also added my most recent criticism, which I've made in edit summaries, and a new item.

- These points, if they're valid, belong in Criticism of Conservative Judaism, not here.

- Orthodox minyans and shuls do not ask men who arrive to pray whether they are Conservative Jews.

- What does it mean that "haredi Jews tend to eschew contact with Conservative Judaism, or at least its rabbinate"? Do they cross the street when they see a Conservative rabbi walking toward them? Do they refuse to shake hands?

- It is repetitive and unnecessary to say that "Orthodoxy is concerned partly with Conservative Judaism's ... approaches to changing halakhah". It's already a bullet item in this article, and it's explained at great length in Criticism of Conservative Judaism.

- The sentence about Orthodox rabbis and their dealings with individual Conservative Jews is full of weasel words. It is so vague that it doesn't actually say anything.

- Orthodox Judaism is not a person. It does not "vary in its approach" nor "is it concerned". Orthodox rabbis or Orthodox Jews may take actions or have thoughts; a religious movement cannot.

Finally, the addition of a sub-header to a two-paragraph section is an attempt by an editor to highlight his criticism of Conservative Judaism. Until the article was protected, the editor in question reverted every edit to the paragraph. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In reponse --

These points, if they're valid, belong in Criticism of Conservative Judaism, not here.

When viewing an article, it is imperitive that viewers do not leave possessing a blatant misunderstanding of the sunject material. Merely because the majority opinion in America is not that of Orthodoxy does not serve as a basis for Conservative Judaism being the voice of Judaism as a whole. And while this may serve as a warning against Orthodox Judaism as leading to the same misunderstanding, it should be evident from history that the Orthodox view was the original view, while Conservatism was an upstart meant to, albeit bring Reform Judaism back from its excessive liberalism, move practice and ritual adherance to the left of Orthodoxy in an attempt to modify that which is inalterable according to original doctrine. The excessive following of the Conservative and Reform movements is not evidence for their justification, but rather for their ease of commitment in light of their lackluster dedication to following halacha.

Orthodox minyans and shuls do not ask men who arrive to pray whether they are Conservative Jews.

You are correct, Orthodox shuls do not have a survey box at the door ensuring that attendees are Orthodox, or even Jewish. I suppose it is assumed that anyone coming to pray wishes to do so in the proper manner according to Orthodox traditions. However, it is rare for large shuls to be dependant on only 10 people (there are more often than not multiple groups of 10 attending each minyan), and small shuls tend to know their constituents better, being that there are only 10 or 12 people in the community. This should not be seen as a nod towards the conservative movement, as Orthodox shuls also don't walk around making sure all of the men are actually men and not transexuals or non-Jews.

What does it mean that "haredi Jews tend to eschew contact with Conservative Judaism, or at least its rabbinate"? Do they cross the street when they see a Conservative rabbi walking toward them? Do they refuse to shake hands?

I don't know what this means, necessarily, as I did not put it into the article. But my guess is that it refers to their hesitation in dealing with the rabbinate as they fear contact of any sort with those who practice foreign devotion will perhaps lead them to question and contradict their own values. This is more so when the individual claims to be practicing Judaism, when in fact, they practice a shell of Judaism, lacking critical components such as strict adherance to halacha.

It is repetitive and unnecessary to say that "Orthodoxy is concerned partly with Conservative Judaism's ... approaches to changing halakhah". It's already a bullet item in this article, and it's explained at great length in Criticism of Conservative Judaism.

While there may be an another article on this topic, it is entirely relevant in this article because viewers may not be able to discern the mainstream from the offshoot. However, I did not write this either.

The sentence about Orthodox rabbis and their dealings with individual Conservative Jews is full of weasel words. It is so vague that it doesn't actually say anything.

I am unfamiliar with the complaint you are making, and I will return to respond to it after reviewing it.

Orthodox Judaism is not a person. It does not "vary in its approach" nor "is it concerned". Orthodox rabbis or Orthodox Jews may take actions or have thoughts; a religious movement cannot.

I would say this is a silly argument, because there are numerous, no, almost countless instances in which articles cite that, for example, "The Mayor's office feels that crime is not dependant on such-and-such," or "The FDNY, after reviewing the crime scene, has implicated the arsonist in such-and-such." Now, clearly, there are numerous people who are employed by the FDNY, and there was probably even some contention among the investigators of the fabricated crime mentioned in the above statement. Nonetheless, the official position of the FDNY was XYZ. That is not to say that everyone agrees. When the US constructs any legislation, there are abstainers and opposition, but the bill may still be passed and now it is that, "the Federal government declared such-and-such." How can the government talk? It is not a person?
I understand quite well that this is a contentious discussion about contentious facts and opinions and that, whenever there are multiple opinions, each necessaily belonging to the members of the opposing groups, there can be little they agree on in terms of the facts and opinions surrounding the argument. However, I feel as though it should not be the case that the Orthodox article be authored by the Orthodox, and the Conservative article be written by the Conservative, and so on and so forth. We are not discussing NASCAR here, where, I agree, it would be ridiculous to include comparisons and contrasts of Formula 1 racing at every bend and turn. Although not intending to mock, Conservative Judaism would not exist if not for Orthodox Judaism, and although not vice versa, Orthodoxy is considerably affected by the presence of Conservative Judaism. This relatoinship makes it imperitive that the articles of both reflect the idea that the opionions of one are entirely inherant into the comprehensive coverage of the other. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. (1) I think I wrote the phrase about "tend to eschew" and put in R. Feinstein as a ref. Malik, I don't think I've ignored your comments. If you'd like to reword this notion with more specificity, that's fine with me. I was trying to generalize about Orthodoxy, which happens to be somewhat divided betw MO and Haredi responses. But it is true, for instance, that both MO/Haredi tend not to cooperate with Conservative Judaism on religious matters, both at the policy level and in observance (e.g., weddings). Perhaps they don't cross the street, but they might not sit on the same dais and they prefer not to call them rabbis. How the Orthodox implement their criticisms is not found in the Criticism article, though some of it is in Relationships between Jewish religious movements. (2) Orthodoxy does differentiate in its implementation betw dealing w/Conservative Rabbis and laypeople. Rewrite this point in a less vague way, but please don't claim that I'm ignoring you if I haven't rewritten it. This is a notable point, handled somewhat (though not clearly enough) in Relationships between Jewish religious movements, and useful for a summary paragraph that would mesh with a main article on the subject. The problem currently is that there are 2 main articles, Relationships and Criticism, with the latter already needing improvement.(3) The sentence "Orthodoxy is concerned..." expands upon the bullet point by explicating 2 issues, both elaborated in the Criticisms article. I did this as a summarizing bridge for people who wonder what the bullet means but don't go to the Criticism article (which needs work anyway). You or I can change it from "Orthodoxy" to human agents, but this type of reference isn't stylistically unusual in wikipedia. (4) It feels to me that you're blaming me and you're writing in an unnecessarily harsh tone. Also, while WP harshly criticizes "weasel" words, that term sounds unkind to me and, if looking again at WP:AWW, ambiguous since it has different meanings. Better to specify, are you concerned that the sentence is too general, unverified, POV, etc? I would benefit from a more civil tone and perhaps you'd like to propose here a reworded paragraph to summarize the (to-be-improved) Criticism and Relationships articles. Thanks. HG | Talk 14:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Two brief comments: First, a reminder that sources need to be supplied for all article content, and Wikipedia can't accept an editor's unsourced opinion on what e.g. the Orthodox point of view is. Controversial opinions should be attributed to their source (e.g. "According to Moshe Feinstein, Orthodox Judaism says..."). Second, Wikipedia's only requirements for including a POV is that it be notable and published in reliable sources. If it's reliably published that some or all Orthodox rabbis believe the Conservative movement performs invalid conversions, than whatever happens in Orthodox shuls is irrelevant to the issue of the opinion's includability. --Shirahadasha 14:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
First, I apologize to HG. I didn't realize that you had word-smithed the paragraph in question. I had another editor in mind.
Second, I want to address these replies:
- The idea that readers shouldn't leave an article with a mistaken impression of its subject matter is not a good reason to insert material that belongs in another article. This article makes its point (Conservative Judaism has come under a great deal of criticism from a wide-ranging variety of sources such as Orthodox Jews who question the commitment of the movement to Halakha) and refers readers to Criticism of Conservative Judaism where the issue is discussed at greater length. There is no good reason for Orthodox criticism to have two bites at the apple.
- It is pure self-righteousness and historical nonsense to say that Orthodoxy is the "mainstream" and Conservatism is the "offshoot". Orthodoxy is a reactionary movement that arose in resonse to Reform Judaism, and it has grown more and more ossified and reactionary in response to the other Jewish movements. Conservative Judaism is the only true heir to Judaism as it has been practiced since the days of Avraham avinu. Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum for your proselytizing and soap-boxing; that's a rule that works both ways, and this will be the only nastiness I express toward your religious beliefs. Try to extend the same courtesy toward others.
- The government has clear leadership. Orthodox Judaism does not. Since the paragraph says that Orthodox rabbis do a range of things, how can it also say that there is a single view of "Orthodox Judaism"?
I proposed merging Criticism of Conservative Judaism into this article a while back, and I was told that it was taken out because of its length. Maybe, as HG suggests, we need to reconsider the inter-relationship among that article, Relationships between Jewish religious movements, and the articles about the various movements. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 16:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is pure self-righteousness and historical nonsense to say that Orthodoxy is the "mainstream" and Conservatism is the "offshoot". Orthodoxy is a reactionary movement that arose in resonse to Reform Judaism, and it has grown more and more ossified and reactionary in response to the other Jewish movements. Conservative Judaism is the only true heir to Judaism as it has been practiced since the days of Avraham avinu. Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum for your proselytizing and soap-boxing; that's a rule that works both ways, and this will be the only nastiness I express toward your religious beliefs. Try to extend the same courtesy toward others.

Malik - you are posting falsehood, but I shall assume good faith and suppose that you are merely unaware that what you state is completly untrue. In the Editors notes to Letter One of R' Samson Raphael Hirsch's 19 Letters, Joseph Elias states the following:

The reformers arbitrarily (1) chip away at traditional Judaism in order to bring it into accord with modern ideas that are basically incompatible with it, and (2) repreesnt no unified and authoritative voice, but a great variety of subjective approaches. The two weaknesses have, of course, characterized and defeated all movements that have strayed from traditional Judaism, not only Reform and Conservative but also efforts to promote evolutionary and purposive development of the halakhah within Orthodox Judaism. By [admitting] these weaknesses right at the beginning...the discussion [is kept] focused on Judaism in its authentic historical form.[1]

DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 01:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether we believe in Wikipedia or Judaism or both, we need to keep our speech civil. You guys are sounding both partisan and unkind. (E.g., charges of "self-righteous" "nonsense" "absurd" "ridiculous" "falsehood" "soap-boxing" etc) This makes it difficult for others to want to weigh in with their understanding(s). HG | Talk 02:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to again ask editors to please refrain from giving their personal views as to whether Orthodox or Conservative Judaism "is the only true heir to Judaism" etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. If both triumphalist claims are notable and reliably sourced, the neutral point of view policy includes both and prohibits taking an editorial position as to which is correct. It's to be expected that members of a religious denomination will have reasons to believe that theirs is the best and truest expression of the religion. Editors are asked to follow Wikipedia policies, not their own personal view of what is religiously or historically correct. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to apologize to everybody for my recent behavior here. I need a few days away from here. Shabbat shalom. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 16:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

To my understanding, the main disagreement between Orthodox and Conservatives is whether the Rabbinic process was meant to be frozen with the closing of the Talmud or if there is still room for "daring" interpretataions of Halacha (based on history, etc.). I am asuming that Isaac Hirsch Weiss who harangues about this all over his books represents Conservative Judaism (though I am unsure. I've never read any of Z. Frankels works but I do get a similar impression from him). If this is the case one can't argue over who is the real heirs to Judaism since this is a geniuine disagreement in the understanding of "Ravina V' Reb Ashi Sof Horaah". The gap between what Conservative founders had in mind and what happened to the movement (as a result of the move to America) has resulted in a movement that is (unfortunately) quite far from Halachic. If any of this sound remotely on target I will try to provide sources.Wolf2191 20:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This a Conservative characterization of the disagreement. For an example of a Modern Orthodox characterization, see the quote from Rabbi Avi Weiss in Criticism of Conservative Judaism. It should be noted that this quote covers Conservative Judaism (as perceived) today. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
A useful source that attempts to discuss the limits of what is Orthodox from the point of view of the left wing of Modern Orthodoxy is Asher Lopatin's essay "What makes a book Orthodox", which attempts to articulate these limits in the course of reviewing Stephen Greenberg's book Wrestling with God and Men. According to the essay, "while Orthodoxy is open to innovation", even on issues such as homosexuality, proposed innovations in halakha have to have certain characteristics to be characterized as coming from within Orthodoxy as distinct from outside it. The essay concluded that Greenberg's book came from a position outside rather than within Orthodoxy, "Yet I am confident that Rabbi Greenberg will write the Orthodox book that will show us that he is committed to staying the long and difficult course of persuasion that Orthodoxy demands." It contrasts Orthodox and Conservative Judaism in several places, and suggests "only an Orthodox thinker, who truly has the confidence that halakhah can and must work for our world, will work with halakhah in the creative and innovative way necessary to derive the true meaning of the sources and Orthodox tradition"; and that for those who believe -- who are willing to "make the plunge only an Orthodox thinker can make: to leap into the great pool of our tradition, certain that he will be received by water rather than by a dry cement bottom" -- things may be possible that simply aren't possible to those who don't believe. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I realize that this quote "yet one should be open to developing the law in the same fashion that it has always historically developed" is more or less what I had in mind. My points is that the Conservative platform does desire to be Halachic. The fact is that the movement has lost hold of that original goal. So perhaps we can agree that Conservative Judaism according to it's platform would be a heir to traditional (talmudic?) Judaism but CJ as it stands today is not.

"only an Orthodox thinker, who truly has the confidence that halakhah can and must work for our world, will work with halakhah in the creative and innovative way necessary to derive the true meaning of the sources and Orthodox tradition" This is incorrect Orthodoxy would never throws off any practice, however obsolete (e.g. Kitnyos-Weiss's bugbear) and the early historical school would have while still keeping within the bounds of Rabbinic and Biblical law. Wolf2191 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are undoubtedly people to Lopatin's right who would agree with your position and who would claim that what Weiss et al. do and the views discussed in the Edah journal aren't Orthodox. Regarding the second issue, what sources suggest that the authorities who favor abolishing the minhag of not eating Kitniyot on Pesach are not Orthodox? For that matter, is the Chofetz Chaim, who approved the innovation of teaching girls Torah, not Orthodox? Best, --Shirahadasha 22:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any mainstream orthodox (askenazic) posek who would favour the abolition of kitnyos, whereas the historical school would. The Chafetz Chaim permitted teaching girls based on his understanding of Maimonides. He would not have stated that the decision to deny girls education was solely based on the social realities of the time. (I'm aware that certain MO Rabbi's (R' Soloveitchik?) say this, but they are actually closer to C than O in this (these labels are confusing). My main point is that the term "heirs to judaism" can apply to (a certain extent) to C. CheersWolf2191 22:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

But how can Wikipedia say that such accepted Orthodox figures as Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik are "actually closer to C then O?" Are there any sources for such a position? Isn't it essentially tautological? I'm taking no position here on the "heirs to Judaism" issue, only suggesting caution and a need for careful adherance to sources and dealing with a multiplicity of views in any attempt to articulate the differences. I'm just pointing out the difference between a claim that "the Orthodox always oppose innovation", which can be empirically tested by outsiders, and a claim that "to be Orthodox is to oppose innovation." A definitional claim would be better left to those inside a religious denomination, who are in a better position to tell us who they are, than those outside. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Here we go again, with editors opining on whether Conservative Judaism is a halakhic movement and whether it has lost sight of its original goals. I shouldn't have to remind other editors that the purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the article, not Conservative Judaism itself.
Since there are already two articles in which the Orthodox views of Conservative Judaism are laid out in great length, I really don't understand why this article needs more of the same, especially since Conservative Judaism#Criticism starts with a link to one of those articles. If other editors feel that the Criticism section doesn't sufficiently summarize Criticism of Conservative Judaism, then edit the bullet point at Conservative Judaism#Criticism. There is absolutely no need for a third forum for Conservative-bashing explication of the Orthodox views of Conservative Judaism. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

We were simply trying to clarify the question of whether CJ can be considered "heirs to Judaism" or not. It's definitely important to clarify this in any attempt to write about CJ. It would be quite impossible to discuss improvements to an article about CJ w/o discussing CJ. Incidently, have you read the works of the founders(?) of the historical school such as Frankel and Weiss (?). If I have read them (well weiss at least) and would like to see what I can add based on my knowledge it hardly can be called "bashing". Although I am O I am definitely respectful of what CJ wanted to be.Wolf2191 23:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Shirahdasha, I suspect we're in agreement. The byword for orthodoxy during the Haskalah period was "Chadash Asur Min Hatorah" and "Oseh Chadashos Baal Milchamos (Baruch Epstein). To some extent O (UO?) did (and does?) define itself as being against changes of any sort.Wolf2191 23:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree that this has gotten significantly off the path of what's relevant to improving the article. The fact is that the Conservative movement always has and still does present itself as the proper heir to rabbinic Judaism and to historical halacha. Whether or not such a presentation is correct belongs to the Criticism of Conservative Judaism article. Savant1984 23:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"The fact is that the Conservative movement always has and still does present itself as the proper heir to rabbinic Judaism" Do they though? What source have you got? It's hard for me to believe that Wolpe who essentialy declared that the Exodus never happened considers himself to be heir to Rabbinic Judaism. If you have an explict statment to that effect good. If not than I am correct in my earlier statement.Wolf2191 01:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"We were simply trying to clarify the question of whether CJ can be considered "heirs to Judaism" or not." Who cares whether you think the Conservative movement can be considered the heirs to Rabbinic Judaism? And what is its relevance this section or this article? The article on Orthodox Judaism isn't edited by considering whether Orthodoxy "adheres to a relatively strict interpretation and application of the laws and ethics first canonized in the Talmudic texts."
Is Wolpe the voice of Conservative Judaism? Since he isn't, who cares what he thinks about the Exodus? Again, what is its relevance this section or this article?
This is not a forum for Orthodox Jews to consider whether Conservative Jews are really Jews, or whether they're deluding themselves, or whether their parents raised them no better than wolves in caves. ENOUGH ALREADY! Can we please keep this discussion on topic! — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You really love Polemics!! Ignore C's vs. O's, and the rest of the alphabet as well for the moment. As someone who is interested in Zecharia Frankel and his particular philosphy, I want to know to what extent Modern conservative Judaism considers themselves his heirs (and by extension heirs to Rabbinic Judaism as mentioned earlier). Now who does represent CJ better than its spiritual leaders. Since Wolpe (and I realize that this doesn't meet WP:Source) has denied the exodus and since he appears to be fairly influential (Did you read his Contra Dawkins), I assume that at least a section of CJ has a philosphy rather different than Frankel's (and by extension doesn't consider themselves heirs to Rabbinic Judaism). I do think this is a valid question that desrves to be clarified in the article.
And since you like polemics

אין הארי נוהם מתוך קופה של תבן אלא מתוך קופה של בשר Wolf2191 13:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

First, pardon my nastiness, but if you're interested in learning more about Conservative Judaism, read a book. This isn't a forum in which to learn about the tenets of Conservative Judaism.
No it's an article that should be explaining the tenets of CJ. If it doesn't it needs to be corrected.
Second, whether "a section" of Conservative Jews believes that the Exodus took places is irrelevant. Orthodox Judaism is about "the formulation of Judaism that adheres to a relatively strict interpretation and application of the laws and ethics first canonized in the Talmudic texts", not about "the section" of Orthodox Jews who don't adhere to that interpretation and application.
The section of Orthdoxy that doesn't adhere etc., etc. is called Conservative Judaism. If you insist that Wolpe and co. belongs to Reform, fine (bet he wouldn't appreciate it). If not, we need to specify that a significant portion of CJ does not consider itself heirs to Rabbinic Judaism.
Finally, my Hebrew isn't what it used to be. I'm afraid that I don't understand what you wrote. — Malik Shabazz
It's a Talmudic quote so it probably doesn't conform to modern hebrew.Wolf2191 17:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(Talk | contribs) 16:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"The section of Orthdoxy that doesn't adhere etc., etc. is called Conservative Judaism." And you say that you're not engaged in Conservative-bashing. Ha! If you believe that, you don't know anything about Conservative Judaism. What arrogance! Read the following section. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You mean that CJ does conform to "strict interpetation" ,etc. You're becoming more confusing by the minute. I repeat my question- Do all facets of CJ today claim to be working in the continuation of Rabbinic proccess or not? My impression has benn that there are elements of CJ that don't claim to follow Z. Frankels historical Judaism but rather have an entirely different philosphy of their own. Making constant accusations of Conservative bashing and engaging in polemics is not conducive to this discussion. If I'm wrong in every respect, explain to me why? And I honestly don't see anything "bashing" about that statement. CJ by it's nature expands the boundaries of their interpetation of the law. See the Kitnyos example above.Wolf2191 18:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Arggh! I wrote a long (and polite) response to your message, Wolf2191, and my browser crashed. I'll try again later. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Your statements in this section have suggested that an Orthodox Jew who doesn't strictly follow Orthodox halakha is a Conservative Jew, and that a Conservative Jew who doesn't strictly follow Conservative halakha is a Reform Jew. That's simply not the case. Every religion has a normative set of rules, and some people don't follow them. Conservative Judaism isn't a movement for lapsed Orthodox Jews, and Reform Judaism isn't a movement for lapsed Conservative Jews. These movements are not distinguished by different degrees of observance of Orthodox law; they each have their own philosophy of Judaism and how it should be practiced.
Conservative Judaism has a "strict" halakha that it believes is a continuation of the rabbinic tradition. It expects Conservative Jews to follow that law. The fact that many Conservative Jews don't follow the movement's halakha may be notable, but it doesn't mean that Conservative Judaism has no halakha.
I must be more careful in my wording in the future. I meant that someone with a wider philosphy concerning the flexibility of Halacha was CJ. I certainly did not mean that CJ (acc. to Frankel at least) was lapsed O.
You ask if "all facets of CJ today claim to be working in the continuation of Rabbinic proccess or not?" I don't know what you mean by "all facets" — are you referring to members of the Rabbinical Assembly or individual Conservative Jews? I don't know that every member of the Rabbinical Assembly is in agreement, but the Conservative movement's view is that it is continuing the historical process of rabbinic interpretation and halakhic evolution that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
I'm going to add what Shira wrote on my discussion page since it describes the impression I get from CJ:
My take on the situation is this. If one honestly believes that the rabbis of the Talmud followed a tradition received from Moses on Mount Sinai, then one is following a similar Rabbinic process if one continues that tradition. But if one honestly believes that the Torah was written by a group of editors, and that the Rabbis made up most of the oral law themselves much later as a reaction to a historical switch from Biblical to classical and medieval condtions, than one is following a similar Rabbinic process if one makes stuff up in what one believes to be a similar fashion as a reaction to a historical switch from classical/medieval to modern conditions. Conservative Rabbi Joel Roth is the proponent of the continuing-the-tradition approach; Rabbi Gordon Tucker appears to be the proponent of the develop-new-midrash-and-then-interpret-the-Torah-midrashically-and-not-literally approach
I do think the article needs to reflect that there are 2 entirely different philosphy's within the movement (if we can source it).
Are there "some elements" within the Conservative rabbinate who don't strictly follow the decisions of the RA? Absolutely. I'm sure that there were Conservative rabbis who were officiating at civil unions before the movement said it was okay. I was too young to know, but I imagine that some Conservative synagogues may have included women in a minyan before the RA said it was alright. And there may be Conservative synagogues that won't include women even if the RA says that they must. I don't know, but I think that they believe that they are acting within the rabbinic tradition. I doubt that any of them is saying "Halakha be damned, I'm going to do whatever I want."
Yes, the Conservative movement "by its nature expands the boundaries of their interpetation of the law." It calls it "evolution," and it makes no secret of it. Its viewpoint is that Akiva and Hillel and Rambam and every other rabbi in Jewish history has done the same thing — until the reactionary Orthodox movement slowed the process to a snail's pace.
Hey! Them's fighting words (:-)). I'm going to answer your point with the chess allegory brought in the article. I think that the Orthodox are afraid that we've forgotten the rules of the game and since the game is so very valuable and important we's rather make only the most minute changes rather than risk inadvertently ruining something of immense spiritual importance. C is willing to take the risks.
Anyway, I think this discussion is going way off track. I'm sorry for the tone of my earlier comments, but saying that Conservative Jews are lapsed Orthodox is offensive. —
As I said I didn't mean it that way. I agree some of it's off track but it's hard to contain a discussion within the proper boundaries. Thanks for your response,I appreciate it.Wolf2191 22:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: Regarding Wolpe and his views of the Exodus, that's so far afield that I hope you don't mind if I leave my comments on your Talk page.
No problemWolf2191 22:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I would just comment on Shira's comment: "But if one honestly believes that the Torah was written by a group of editors, and that the Rabbis made up most of the oral law themselves much later as a reaction to a historical switch from Biblical to classical and medieval condtions, than one is following a similar Rabbinic process if one makes stuff up in what one believes to be a similar fashion as a reaction to a historical switch from classical/medieval to modern conditions."
I'm not familiar with Rabbi Tucker, nor do I claim to be an expert in this, but I think you over-simplify when you say that the Conservative viewpoint is that the rabbis "made it up." I think the view is that the rabbis interpreted the texts and traditions they had inherited from previous generations and adapted them to suit contemporary conditions. Usually they did so in light of new political, technological, or social developments, but sometimes they did so with other objectives in mind (more about that in a moment). But I think very few would suggest that rabbis in the past or today are just "making it up."
With respect to other objectives, I don't remember the details (it's been a very long time), but I remember that one of the medieval rabbis was so disgusted that butchers (or other merchants) were over-charging for a particular kosher-for-Passover item that he declared that it was not kosher for Passover. Of course he could cite proof-texts to explain the rationale behind his decision, but it reinforces the saying that "where there's a rabbinic will, there's a halakhic way." — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Numerous such statements in Talmud (if you don't lower the price, I will rule like such and such). The rationale is (AFAIK) that the Halacha was in fact according to the lenient opinion but that the Rabbis ruled stringently as a "fence" around the Torah. In a case where the stringency was causing more problems than it solved we goes back to the lenient position. It is definitely not (according to O) because of "Rabbinic will". Wolf2191 23:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion regarding assertions within an article

As Malik has apologized, I shall apologize as well. I begin this new topic because I feel, as other must, that the argument has veered off the path it had originally intended to take. I say this, because I feel as though I have contributed inordinately to the brewing of this dispute. My issue with this article is simple: What should be done when an article makes assertions based on sources when other sources make opposing assertions. I feel that cannot be that because, chronologically, assertions were made within an article and sources were cited, any later opposing assertion, however validly cited, must take a back seat to the original assertions; I say this because this is supposed to be an encyclopedia that can be revisited and modified until an article is complete. Thus, chronological placement of information should have no effect on articles. Maybe someone disagrees.

Conservative Jews claim that they are dedicated to halakhah. I do not know for sure what they claim about Orthodoxy, so I will not venture a guess. Orthodox Jews claim that they themselves are dedicated to halakhah, and by definition, any other factions who don't keep halakhah as they do, must not be in accordance with halakhah. This would include Conservative Judaism. While on the surface, this may seem to be frivolous non-Orthodox bashing, by intent was as follows: when the CJ article makes assertions that a basis for CJ is "...a dedication to halakhah..." and CJ is only dedicated to halakhah according to its own clergy, who modified the halakhah from what it once was under Orthodoxy prior to the establishment of CJ, and a multitude of sources, all existing prior to CJ, all cite that non-Orthodox Judaism is a foreign practice, no matter how much "halakhah" they choose not to dispense with, including but not limited to R' Samson Raphael Hirsh, the Rambam and Rabbi Avi Shafran (thre are literally scores more), how can the article cite that Conservative Jews are dedicated to halakhah.

If a certain agency governs safety authorization and some company being reviewed for safety fails certification, is it within the jurisdiction of this company to claim they in fact passed inspection, albeit with a new and different battery of tests, or even with the same tests, but with completely different threshholds of safety? Please explain why this analogy is invalid. In earnest attempt to gain clarity... DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 12:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

David, it does seem like you are making a good faith effort to understand how to approach NPOV on this topic. From an outside standpoint, we see multiple entities claiming to make authoritative halakhah. The first problem with your analogy is that you assume Orthodoxy has the authorization and Conservative Judaism doesn't meet the standard. (Perhaps some Conservative Jews think the opposite.) From a neutral view, it's more like two agencies each professing to be able to give authorizations. Two governments, two halakhic/legal systems grounded on pre-modern sources. A better analogy is to Canadian and Australian law, both grounded on and sharing much common law but then forking as their national laws develop. Secondly, I have the sense that like many Orthodox folks outside the academy you are accustomed to thinking of pre-modern rabbis as Orthodox (e.g., your reference to Rambam above) , whereas outsiders (and Orthodox academics) think of Orthodoxy as a modern movement, whose claim to pre-modern rabbis is a matter of faith not facticity. From a matter of your faith, it may be correct to say that Conservative Judaism is not authorized to make halakhah and that only Orthodox has a claim on Rambam et alia. For an encyclopedia, though, you would need to suspend such faith commitments and write from a more neutral standpoint. Do you see my point? HG | Talk 14:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, HG, for explaining this far more rationally and calmly than I did earlier. Conservative Judaism rejects Orthodoxy's assertion that before the 1800s all Jews were Orthodox, that Orthodox Judaism today is the continuation of that tradition, and that Conservative Judaism has veered from that path of "normative Judaism." It asserts that traditional Judaism has always evolved, that Orthodoxy has retarded that evolution in reaction to the Haskalah and the Reform movement, and that Conservatism — which continues to evolve — is the continuation of the evolution of "normative Judaism." In other words, looking at history, Orthodox Jews see an unbroken chain of Orthodox Jews since the time of the Talmud, and Conservative Jews see an unbroken chain of Conservative Jews since that time. So yes, Conservative Judaism adheres to halakha, as it believes it has evolved through the ages and has continued to evolve in our age.
Wikipedia articles take as a given that a religious system is credible. That's why Orthodox Judaism starts with the statement that "Orthodox Judaism is the formulation of Judaism that adheres to a relatively strict interpretation and application of the laws and ethics first canonized in the Talmudic texts" and not that "Orthodox Judaism is the formulation of Judaism that claims to adhere ..." Articles aren't written from an atheistic point of view that mocks the existence of supernatural beings to whom religious people offer prayers (and in some instances sacrifices). The "truth" behind a religion's claims, whatever that might mean, is suspended for most of the article.
On the other hand, it is appropriate to have a section that offers criticism of the religion, and I don't think anybody is questioning the need for a "Criticism" section here. As I've written many times, since there is already a separate article about criticism, I think this section should be concise and refer the reader to the other article. I don't think it's appropriate to have lengthy criticism in two places, unless the two articles are merged. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 16:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


I agree with Malik and HG. DRosenbach, the simple answer to why your analogy is wrong is that the Conservative movement deny that they are 'a new company' with 'new standards', but rather believe that they are simply that camp of Judaism which holds fast to the authority of Jewish law, but recognises critical-historical aspects of its development, and rejects what it takes to be the reflexively restrictive nature of Orthodox rulings. In re, for example, your initial assertion that CJ is not halachic because of the permissive CJLS teshuva on homosexuality, I urge you actually to read the Dorff-Nevins-Reisner teshuva at the RA website. It contains detailed halachic analysis for their perspective, and even if you disagree with it, I think being familiar with both Conserative theoretical writings and teshuvot will help you understand how the movement presents itself and how we can write about it in NPOV. (NB, I write this in full consciousness that Wikipedia is not a forum and hope that it will be helpful in efforts to improve the 'pedia.) Savant1984 19:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"It holds the traditional Jewish belief that God inspired Moses and later prophets to write the Torah and the rest of the Tanakh. " This is incorrect. See Menachem Mendel Kasher's length essay on Torah Min Ha'Shamayim in Torah Sheleimah that explains that the traditional view is that G-d dictated the torah word for word (for the first 4 bks.) and that Moses was a mere secretary in this. The word inspired is to vague. Any suggestions on how we can change the wording? Wolf2191 19:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the ambiguity is intentional. There are a variety of different theories of revelation within CJ. Still, it'd be a good idea to survey at least some of the major ones in the article, I think. Elliot Dorff's book Conservative Judaism: Our Ancestors to Our Descendants is probably an excellent source for that. Savant1984 23:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

For CJ yes, but the wording is traditional Judaism, implying that O holds this way as well. We don't. This is why a change is necessary (but I can't decide how)Wolf2191 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, Wolf2191. Before I edited the section it read: "In agreement with traditional Judaism, Conservative Judaism holds that God inspired prophets to write the Torah (five books of Moses) and the Hebrew Bible. ... most Conservative Jews reject the traditional Jewish idea that God dictated the words of the Torah to Moses at Mount Sinai." I combined the two sentences and edited them, and I'm sorry if I mucked it up. I'll fix it. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Wolf2191, I revised Conservative Judaism#Revelation to better describe traditional Jewish views as I understand them. Please let me know if you agree, or go ahead and change the section if you think I missed the mark. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 16:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Perfect. Thanks Wolf2191 17:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

To address DRosenbach's original question, "What should be done when an article makes assertions based on sources when other sources make opposing assertions." WP:NPOV requires including all relevant points of view in the encyclopedia, but it does not require including all viewpoints in each individual article section. Whether to disperse criticism throughout an article, put it in a separate section, or put it in a separate Criticism of... article is a matter of discretion. The editors of WP:Criticism have been attempting for some time to come up with a consistent method of handling criticism, but they have not yet succeeded in having their ideas, currently an essay, accepted as a policy or guideline. My own view is that in articles on religion and similar topics, interspersing criticism with content can be counterproductive. Listing the views of critics after every statement about a religion's beliefs and practices would likely confuse the reader about what the religion believes, and could easily appear to be overly disparaging. A good case could be made that relegating criticism to a separate article puts it out of the way and makes it less noticable, but Wikipedia supports moving sections into separate articles as articles expand and it is a permissable approach. Suggest that discussions of whether to keep criticism in a separate article be grounded in policy and separated from discussion of what criticisms should be included. Also suggest not going back-and-forth, at least not too often. Every new editor who enters the discussion will likely have a new opinion. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hirsch quote as source

Removed this statement to the Talk page:

and some Orthodox rabbis have described them as practicing a foreign religion ("anybody rejecting even a single mitzvah as a matter of principle is considered an unbeliever"). <ref>Rabbi Joseph Elias, ''The Nineteen Letters: Newly Translated and with a Comprehensive Commentary'', page 285. ISBN: 0-87306-696-0.</ref>

I believe this statement is problematic because: the quote doesn't directly criticize Conservative Judaism; it states a general principle without naming anyone in particular. An editor has to draw an inference that the general principle applies to Conservative Judaism. Wikipedia's No original research policy, specifically the rule against synthesis explicitly prohibits drawing such an inference. The policy gives an example of a very similar situation, where someone claimed someone committed plagiarism and cited the general definition of plagiarism in the Chicago Manual of Style as a source. The policy explains that Wikipedia can't accept such an approach. This is essentially the same situation. Because of this Wikipedia policy, only sources who are unambiguously criticizing Conservative Judaism and identify it or its institutions by name can be used as sources for the criticism section. --Shirahadasha 19:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] God and G-d

Someone rewrote the word "God" into "G-d". I changed it back. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and does not abide by some religious conventions. Furthermore, the tradition of writing G-d instead of God has no real source in Jewish law and tradition, and is in fact completely silly. Benjil 09:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The user above is obviously no expert in either jewish law or tradition.See here [2] It is further an expression of awe that a religious person feels about G-d and is definitely not silly (and if Jews are stringent on this (and many are) it becomes a Jewish tradition. While you were correct to revert that last edit. You cannot insult others on WP:Talk (see guidelines). Nor do you seem to have any real understanding of Jewish Law. Please refrain from writing in this manner in the future.Wolf2191 19:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There was no insult in what I wrote, I was criticizing a custom, not people. Anyway, the laws about the name of God are about YHVH (in Hebrew) and not the word "God". We are forbidden to pronounce YHVH, we are also forbidden to write it on a perishable document. Any document with YHVH written on it must be kept safe in a Geniza. Note that there is no clear consensus about digital documents and what rules apply to them. So usually people will write YKVK. Many people also extended this rule to the word Elohim (written in Hebrew) and will write and even pronounce Elokim. This is here a custom, not a Law. Some people started a little while ago to extend it further to God or Dios or Dieu. I said it is silly because we are not dealing here with names of God at all, on the contrary. The French Dieu or Spanish Dios come from the Latin Deus which comes from the Greek "Zeus". The etymology of the word "God" is less clear, but according to wikipedia, some scholars think the word comes from a chieftain Gaut who was later deified. So obviously, expressing awe to such a word could even be understood as Avoda Zara according to the Halakha. Benjil 05:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

See the aricle on God for its etymology. As I understand it, since the name is used today refer to G-d (not any chieftain), It consititutes a "Kinui" (nickname-sort of) of Hashems name and according to some authorities must be respected. I refer to authorities of the stature of R' Elchonon Wasserman and others. No worriesWolf2191 13:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-1970 Rabbis and congregations

WIki on CJ jumps from Germany to 1970's without much on the crucial years that created the american movement. There is little on David Aronson, Louis Epstein, Jacob Agus, Simon Greenberg, Levinthal, and Morris Silverman, or the Brooklyn Jewish Center. --Jayrav 13:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms and our use of secondary sources

Wikipedia is a tertiary source; our policy is to write articles based on secondary sources. As editors, it is not our role to construct analysis and intellectual argument, whether or not they seem valid, because that is original research. Some recent edits, as well as prior text, are inappropriately synthesizing different points in order to construct a critique of Conservative Judaism. Instead, such critiques need to be based on secondary sources.

Also, it is important to present Conservative Judaism in a neutral fashion, without either praising it (from its own worldview) or condemning from an Orthodox (or other) viewpoint. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me add that many portions of the article would benefit from fewer synthetic generalizations and more careful reliance on secondary sources to describe this Judaism's practices, beliefs, etc. HG | Talk 18:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I would point out that edits that tend to defend conservative Judaism also have sourcing problems, and also that histories written by movement leaders can sometimes be biased. That said, I think that Orthodox critiques of Conservative Judaism -- from people on the right of Orthodoxy like Avi Shafran to people on the left like Avi Weiss -- do tend to have certain commonalities. Finally, I'd like to point out that the WP:SYN policy only applies when content is used to construct arguments, when an inference "therefore C" is drawn after bringing together the sourced statements A and B. If sourced statements A and B are simply stated without any inference being drawn, there is no violation of WP:SYN. This is why in the absence of reliable secondary sources, I have recommended that criticism consist of simply quoting or closely paraphrasing statements by notable figures, particularly statements which themselves received substantial attention and comment providing a basis for mention. I think both Avi Shafran's and Avi Weiss' critiques of Conservative Judaism pass this test. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you. (Or are you disagreeing with me?) To avoid quote farming, though, I'd suggest we most firmly encourage editors/ourselves to utilize secondary sources, which are readily available, or at least emphasize official pronouncements. HG | Talk 20:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting beliefs section into separate article

Adding this section to the talk page as a purely administrative matter to have a place to discuss existing proposal to have a separate beliefs page. Not expressing an opinion either way. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Heirs to the tradition"

If I am not mistaken, Conservative Judaism claims to be "heirs to the tradition" of original Judaism and Orthodox Judaism is a right-wing perversion. Is this true? If it is, and Maimonidies was then what would now be referred to as Conservative, how could Conservative Jews not accept that the Torah is a product of direct divine revelation, something Maimonidies asserts? Does Conservative Judaism claim that this assertion is not really his? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a serious question dressed up in alot of confusion. Maimonides is not and never should be considered Conservative or Orthodox. Such designations are purely anachronistic. Maimonidies's code is not considered binding for Consrevative Jews nor is it binding on Orthodox Jews. Maimonidies was put in Herem for his philosophical writings; Orthodox practice is based on Karo's Shulkhan Arukh. As regards his principles of faith -- these were not universally accepted either. There were other formulations before and after Maimonides. Most controversial was his insistence that a person may not beleive that God has a corporeal form. All the Maimonidiean stuff aside - I think Rosenbach is asking a fundamental question regarding Conservative Judaism. How can Conservative Judaism believe itself to be "traditional" when the historicity of long held and "fundamental" beliefs are questioned or sometimes rejected? I think the answer lies in what it means to be "Traditional". The meaning of "tradition" is probably different to those with an orthodix bent versus a conservative bent. Perhaps an expert in Conservative Judaism could help enlighten Mr. Rosenbach.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)