Burying the lead in more ways than one

The Conservative movement has been trying to stay relevant to younger Jews, and to be honest, it's hard to tell if it's working. On the one hand the movement seems to understand it needs to have some core principles if it's going to try to stake out a proper position between Orthodoxy and Reform, but on the other hand it seems like it can't decide what those principles are or how they should be realized.

One of the books that highlights this frustrating struggle is the new "Observant Life," written by various members the Rabbinical Assembly. As Jonathan Marks (no big admirer of liberal Judaism) writes, the Observant Life purports to try to show the rich spectrum that is Conservative Judaism today:

...it is aimed, in addition to Conservative Jews, those “in a liberal Orthodox environment and a more traditional Reform environment, and people who are outside the denominational world but are interested in the question of observance. This is also for those interested in the big picture [of how observance] functions when you look at it all at once.” 

...“The Observant Life” is also respectful of, even charmed by, folkways and traditions that are not specifically Orthodox, halachic or Conservative, but meaningful in any case, such as the post-Shabbat Melave Malka, or the custom of men immersing themselves in the mikveh before Shabbat. 

...The book makes it clear that to these more than 30 authors (some writing more than one chapter), halacha is more “than an endless list of rules.” As the book explains, alongside Conservative theology there is always the human dimension, meaning the law doesn’t always have the last word: “The mara d’atra [the synagogue’s rabbi and/or halachic authority], ideally with the support of the lay leadership, will define the halacha of the synagogue by balancing the law with a community’s customs, values and vision.” 
 

Therefore, intermarried Jews or gays, for example, may be called to the Torah and be welcomed to serve as synagogue leaders (in non-religious “role model” positions), despite their halachic status being still subject to debate, because “very few, if any, synagogues within the Conservative movement require strict halachic observance as a condition for honoring people during worship.” 

Nevertheless, despite these and other liberal opinions, readers may be intrigued to learn from “The Observant Life” that Conservative Judaism can be more conservative than some might think. For example, “no halachic authorities regard abortion as a Jewish woman’s right to exercise at will. … Absent extreme circumstances, abortion is usually forbidden.” 

...The book doesn’t shy away from such complex halachic riddles, even if cases are obscure or esoteric. While many halachic situations are presented as an ideal, there is another ideal, that “rabbinical restrictions are conditioned on the public’s ability to meet their stipulations.” 

Even more of an overriding principal, says Rabbi Cohen, is that halacha and observance are not in one realm while ethics and relationships are in another. Loving God and loving other Jews are of a singular piece, he says, as are ritual laws and the ethical ones. “The Observant Life” draws on both these heavenly and earthly considerations to the extent that it becomes clear that there never really was a boundary between the two.

“To be an observant Jew,” he says, “you need to embrace both.”

That's all well and good, but one of the things Mrs. Yid and I noticed while thumbing through our copy was that in the midst of trying to convince themselves of how halachic they are, the authors of the Observant Life seem to be missing a larger point: I don't object to nitty-gritty, but for me, the book fails to answer some big picture questions like why should one be Jewish, and more to the point, why should one want to live within a halachic framework, much less the Conservative one, specifically. While the concept of trying to create one text to represent the perspective of Conservative Judaism on contemporary issues is nice, ultimately the result winds up feeling unwieldy and rambling rather than relevant. I think the project would have been much improved had the editors taken the book's three sections and instead published a series in three parts: one focusing on Conservative prayer and ritual, one on Conservative approaches towards modern society (such as the secular justice system, commerce, and intellectual property), and the last one on modern Conservative thought involving questions of Jewish identity, specifically focusing on descent, marriage and sexuality. Instead the book comes across as a bloated exercise in minutiae, leaving some of the more immediate questions of the day, such as intermarriage, patrilineal descent and LGBT Jews to get lost in the shuffle alongside whether Jews should be nice to animals (yes), if Messianic Jews count as Jewish (no) and if file sharing is ok (also no). If someone is just dying to find out about the Halacha of Napster, how about putting together an online database/wiki of random responsum? Young Jews in your synagogues have some actual pressing issues that need addressing, and you're dickering around answering questions no one's asked!

As an intermarried Jew with LGBT Jewish friends and patrilineal family members, I have several stakes in this. Not only are young Jews intermarrying at greater numbers than any generation previous, but lots of them are also trying to figure out what this means in terms of their eligibility to be part of a Jewish community. Ditto for many LGBT Jews. Part of the reason clarification on these points would be helpful, as Marks' fellow Jewish Week writer Julie Weiner points out, is because at present the movement's positions seem to be clear as mud:

when it comes to intermarriage, the Conservative movement is ambivalent if not outright schizophrenic. Its rabbis are forbidden even from being guests at interfaith weddings, let alone officiating at them. On the other hand, well aware that most Conservative synagogue members (not to mention the rabbis themselves) have many intermarried friends and family members — and that intermarried families will soon outnumber in-married ones in the larger Jewish community — most Conservative rabbis seek to welcome intermarried couples after the wedding. 

Two books out this year highlight the movement’s split personality: “The Observant Life,” a compendium of “Conservative Jewish wisdom” published in April by the Rabbinical Assembly, and “Intermarriage: Concepts and Strategies for Families and Synagogue Leaders,” to be released later this month by the movement’s Federation of Jewish Men’s Clubs. 

“The Observant Jewish Life” addresses a range of contemporary topics, each chapter penned by a Conservative rabbi. It is scholarly and just a bit forbidding...When it comes to intermarriage, the book cites a range of opinions; however, it clings to the view that intermarriage should be discouraged, even if it cannot be prevented. 

“Concepts and Strategies,” by contrast, starts from the assumption that, in the words of journalist (and Conservative synagogue member) Jeffrey Goldberg, “The war against intermarriage is over and intermarriage won.” Goldberg is quoted in the book’s preface, by Harvey Braunstein and Stephen Lachter, the founding lay leaders of FJMC’s Keruv [outreach] Initiative. Braunstein and Lachter argue that “our Conservative movement has not moved forward quickly enough and is now faced with a critical need to adapt to the changing world or become irrelevant.” 

In essays written by Conservative rabbis, lay leaders and some voices from outside (although not to the right of) the movement, “Concepts and Strategies” (107 pages) offers suggestions ranging from “shifting the conversation from marrying Jewish to raising Jewish children,” to explicitly welcoming interfaith families on synagogue websites and publications, to offering alternative aufruf ceremonies for interfaith newlyweds and a “non-Jewish gentleman’s drinking club” to enable supportive gentile husbands to bond with the rabbi. 

Meanwhile, the RA’s “The Observant Life”... urges a more cautious tightrope walk. Membership, notes Rabbi Craig T. Scheff (Orangetown Jewish Center in Rockland County) in a chapter on “synagogue life,” should be “restricted to the Jewish spouse,” while at the same time, the non-Jewish spouse should be “welcomed warmly and made to feel like part of the larger synagogue community.” 

Elsewhere in the volume, contributors voice their opposition to intermarriage, while at the same time discouraging people from antagonizing the intermarried. In a chapter on marriage, Rabbi David J. Fine (Temple Israel in Ridgewood, N.J.) writes that “studies have shown conclusively that intermarried couples overwhelmingly do not raise Jewishly committed children,” and notes that “Conservative Judaism endorses the ancient Jewish prohibition of intermarriage.” 

Rabbi Jeremy Kalmanofsky (Manhattan’s Ansche Chesed) writes that “we must lovingly invite” interfaith families that maintain a strong commitment to Judaism “into our communities and not ignore them, but their example does not negate the overwhelming evidence that intermarriage correlates with weak Jewish commitment.” 

Rabbi Scheff cites papers and responsa from the 1960s through 1980s forbidding intermarried Jews from leadership roles, key staff positions or “special honors” at synagogue, but notes that in recent years “dissenting views” have been heard. “Today most synagogues value above all other concerns the need and wish to draw all Jews to synagogue life without subjecting an individual’s desire to serve the community to harsh or exclusionary standards,” he writes. 

As for hot-button issues like non-Jewish spouses participating in lifecycle rituals or synagogue newsletters acknowledging intermarriages, Rabbi Scheff writes that Conservative opinion on the former “ranges from absolute permission of such involvement to absolute prohibition,” while practices on the latter “vary from synagogue to synagogue.”
A survey conducted recently by the FJMC confirms the diversity on these hot-button matters — and finds that, in yet another indicator of Conservative ambivalence vis-à-vis intermarriage, even congregations that are inclusive and flexible on ritual matters do not advertise this fact in their newsletters and websites. 

...“Almost all of the congregations are more welcoming to the non-Jewish spouse and intermarrieds when it comes to bima choreography than they communicate through their websites,” Rabbi Simon notes in an article (not in the book) about the survey.

What it seems to come down to is that at the end of the day, there is a split between where the Conservative leadership is and where its congregants are. To the rabbis' credit, on a day-to-day basis many of them act as true mensches, welcoming couples and families who may not fit the typical mold and encouraging them to be part of their communities. That should be honored and celebrated. At the same time, however, the fact that the leadership of the movement seems to not want to acknowledge what its synagogues are doing leaves one with the feeling of a cognitive dissonance that seems neither healthy nor desirable. The website issue seems to be a microcosm of the same dilemma: "On the one hand we don't really care if you're gay or intermarried or whatever because we really just want to have more people joining the shul, and if you're a good congregant it doesn't really matter to us. But god forbid we put that on our website because who knows what people might think?" Frankly, I don't think I'd be able to stand belonging to a shul like that. Part of what makes Beth Elderly work for me and Mrs. Yid is that there's never been any pressure on us and people there live out their values of inclusiveness: one of the prominent Young Guard members is intermarried. He's also on the Board. The former President of the shul was intermarried; after 20-plus years of being part of a welcoming, non-judgmental Jewish community, her husband converted. Every time we go to services, we see plenty of faces in the pews that don't look like us. Many of those people converted. Some haven't. All are welcome, and all are valued. This is what it looks like when a Conservative community decides to show its values instead of hiding them because it's worried about pissing someone off.

I'm not sure who the Conservative movement is trying to kid or look good for but it seems like a huge waste of time and energy. Instead of pretending that it's an Orthodox-lite, how about growing a spine and openly proclaiming that, following Conservative principles and the modern-day needs of Conservative Jews, its understanding of halacha has evolved-- just like it has for driving on Shabbat or any other number of issues.

The Conservative movement keeps talking about how it wants to stay relevant and appeal to young people. The way to do that is to address the key issues they care about. The rabbis don't necessarily need to agree with them on every point (after all, not all young Jews-- even on the liberal spectrum-- agree about all of this). But you have to at least show us that you're working on it. Otherwise, all you're really doing is showing us that you're too wrapped up in your own issues and priorities to notice ours.

The bottom line is that while ideologues are wringing their hands over what people to their right might think if they admit that their rabbis welcome intermarried or gay Jews, those same Jews (and their kids!) are feeling tired of the double-speak and the subtle suggestion that they need to stay in the closet. If the movement doesn't get its house in order, there's a good chance some of those wonderful, talented and engaged people will go elsewhere-- either to other shuls, or potentially, no shul at all. Instead of cranking out a phonebook of Conservative halacha, how about focusing on the key points that young people are most concerned with-- and then working on creating a culture of transparency so that individual congregations who are more liberal than others don't feel like they need to hide it?

Playing by the Rules

I have a new post up on intra-community liberal Jewish friction/differences over at Too Cool For Shul, but the money quote relevant to this post is here:

with us slowly starting to take more mitzvot (or pseudo-mitzvot) on, the idea of belonging to a community that actually purports to follow some version of halacha-- in both positive and, perhaps "restrictive" ways, no longer feels quite so at odds with our own philosophies. Mrs. Yid told me shortly before we got married that for her to feel connected, she needed to feel like she was actually doing Jewish things, and I think there's something to that. 

...Though I'm still not exactly sure how much halacha I'm prepared to personally accept, I think I'm becoming more comfortable with the idea of being part of a community that at least seriously considers what halacha has to say, and I think worship style is part of this evolving sensibility as well. However, some of our foundational core values are also inclusiveness and diversity, so I think balancing those two elements is going to be an ongoing process as we try to take our Judaism and our community-building more seriously.

So that's background to this interesting piece by Rabbi Jason Miller, where he mulls over what to do about intermarriage and non-halachic Jewish kids.

it is important to understand that the Reform Movement's 1983 resolution allowing patrilineal descent didn't create this mess, but it did complicate it further. In the almost 30 years since that decision, there has been much crossover between the Conservative and Reform movements in America. Thus, when the Reform movement issued its resolution (which was in the works for more than 35 years), it might have thought the implications would be wholly positive and would really only impact Reform Jews (the resolution specifies "in Reform communities"). However, that resolution has had negative impacts on both the Conservative and Modern Orthodox movements. The question of "Who's a Jew" has less implications for the Orthodox Jews in America as it is unusual for them to marry outside of their sect. It is when a Modern Orthodox or Conservative young person wants to marry an individual who has been considered Jewish through the Reform movement's notion of patrilineal descent that we are posed with the problem. Jewish young people in these more liberal denominations interact throughout adolescence and the college years in youth groups, summer camps, Israel trips and college Hillels. Additionally, following college Jewish communal organizations like Federation and B'nai Brith do not distinguish between patrilineal Jews and matrilineal Jews at young adult singles' events. 

...this issue must be resolved for Jews from the more liberal movements of modern Judaism (Reform, Reconstructionist, Conservative, Modern Orthodox) whose followers are marrying each other and raising families together. 

Over the years, there have been several recommendations to fix this matter. Some have suggested mass conversions for all Jewish children before bar or bat mitzvah. Others have recommended that all brides and grooms go to the mikveh as a form of conversion before the wedding to assure Halachic Jewish status. 

My proposal is to set a time limit on the status quo. Until the year 2020, matrilineal descent is the only accepted form of passing Jewish status genetically. Jewish individuals who are raised Jewish in a home with a Jewish father and identify as Jewish are to be considered Jewish from a cultural perspective, but must undergo a formal conversion for recognition as Jewish from a Halachic understanding. 

After the year 2020, it will be understood that because of modern genetic testing (DNA tests) it is now possible to ascertain patrilineality with complete certainty. Therefore, a Jewish individual with at least one Jewish parent will be considered Jewish from a Halachic perspective for all matters. While the Orthodox will not agree to this, it will not have the same negative implications as the fissure between the Reform and Conservative movements that has existed for the past three decades.

More than almost any other issue, I find patrilineal descent and "Who is a Jew?" to be one of the most painful and raw problems in contemporary Jewish society today. On the one hand, as a person who has patrilineal Jewish cousins (and matrilineal cousins who have never set foot in a synagogue and were raised Christian), I find the standard Orthodox response that my uncle's kids are less Jewish than my aunt's both unreasonable as well as downright insulting. (Particularly given the scholarship suggesting that at various points matrilineal descent was not the determining factor of Jewishness.) At the same time, I also acknowledge that my standard response ("My future kids can deal with their Jewish status if they want to at a later date") may be on the overly-glib side.


The real issue comes down to whether you accept halacha (or Jewish customs/folkways) as in any way binding, and if you do, how you integrate that understanding and worldview into modern life, including the important value of treating others with respect and decency. As such, though I'm not sure that Rabbi Miller's solution is necessarily workable, it's refreshing to see someone from the liberal community at least treating the topic as an actual issue that needs to be thought about and that needs some sort of resolution, even if it's not the one he proposes.

Facing Reality

The past few months have seen an interesting upswing regarding intermarriage stories. Here are the best bits.

In March, the Reform movement's CCAR met in San Francisco (woot!) to discuss, among other things, the movement's official position on intermarriage. While on a practical level Reform has long acknowledged that I-M exists, the traditional response to this was to officially condemn it while quietly letting I-F families into the shul. Finally, it seems that Reform is able to get over itself and admit what everybody already knows: Intermarriage is real. Luckily, however, not every intermarriage is necessarily an INTER-FAITH one. My personal experience, and a lot of anecdotal experiences that I've read and heard about, are that one of the crucial elements in determining whether an intermarriage results in a Jewishly-identified couple or family, though, is the response of the community.

In a major shift, Reform rabbis have publicly acknowledged intermarriage as a "given" that calls for increased outreach and understanding, rather than a threat to Jewish identity that must be resisted at all costs.

Halle-freaking-lujah.

Now, on a practical level, not much has changed. Reform rabbis are still given the choice of whether or not to officiate at I-F weddings, for instance. But, there seem to be some good policy points that are starting to be articulated.

But now that the group's attitude about intermarriage has officially changed, Dreyfus expressed hope that clergy will make greater efforts to welcome interfaith families into religious activities and life-cycle events like bar and bat mitzvah ceremonies for their children.

"Ignoring intermarriage won't make it go away," she said. "We want to embrace it as an opportunity."

The new position is not a formal policy or resolution, but rather a semi-official "recognition" of changing times based on the task force's 10-page report.

"In the past, there was a great focus on how to prevent intermarriage," the report said. "Today we are more likely to focus on how to deal with intermarriage as a given in our society with the goal of positive Jewish engagement of the family."

One Reform rabbi, Reeve Brenner, thinks it's about damn time, and has a laundry list of things the movement can start taking a hard look at any time they feel they're ready:

Among the neglected issues:

• A Jewish-non-Jewish polarity cannot long be sustained in 21st-century America, seeing that there are so many who constitute our loving eruv rav, the mixed or intermarried “multitude” who are part of us. They are clearly not gentiles in the previous meaning of that term. They are another category.

• The consequences of not recognizing the legitimate needs of the ger toshav family in the synagogue. What is to be lost and what gained were we to allow, if not encourage, the non-Jewish partner(s) to stand alongside his or her child at life-cycle events within the synagogue sanctuary.

Because they are ger toshav and not Jews; because they have only converged, but not converted, are they to be excluded from participation in family life-cycle events in shul?

• That certain rabbis have decided for themselves that they will not participate in an interfaith wedding and, furthermore, no other rabbi should — and, therefore, they give no referrals.

Sound like some great starting points to me. I particularly like one of his last lines:

We have to do better, so these couples do not end up raising Unitarians with a Jewish parent as opposed to raising Jewish kids with an all-but-a-Jewish parent.

The reality is, there are many couples, many families, today, whose dynamic does indeed match this model: an all-but-Jewish spouse with another one who happened to be born Jewish. This is an opportunity that needs to be encouraged, not a case where the couple should either be scorned, or, even worse, aggressively pursued for conversion.

The Conservative movement finally seems to be getting it, too. Shortly before the CCAR meet-up, the Jewish Theological Seminary had an intermarriage-focused workshop for rabbinical students. Given that JTS has tended to be more conservative than the CJ institutions on the West Coast, this is notable.

“When I was in rabbinical school, we were taught there was only one way to respond” to intermarriage, Rabbi Charles Simon, executive director of the Federation of Jewish Men's Clubs and a JTS graduate, told the group of students. “And that was not to respond at all, but to walk away and say ‘I’m sorry we’re losing another person.’ ”

Speaker after speaker at the workshop urged students not to walk away but to reach out, not only to intermarried Jews and their partners but to longtime congregants whose children have intermarried and who are fearful of being judged.

...Today there is talk of allowing rabbis to attend interfaith weddings of friends and family members. The question will come before the Rabbinical Assembly when it meets later this year.

And in January the movement’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards ruled that the non-Jewish spouses of congregants can be buried alongside their Jewish partners in Jewish cemeteries -- provided they are in a section set aside for this purpose; that gentile clergy do not officiate at the funeral; and that no non-Jewish markers appear on the graves.

In the ruling, approved by a vote of 10 (three law committee members abstained, and one voted against) is the statement, “Our relations to non-Jews are very different than in the past. Many of us have non-Jews in our families. All of us know non-Jews who are strongly connected to the Jewish community although they have chosen not to convert and retain their status as non-Jews.

“In regard to the question of interfaith marriages, we must be sensitive to their feelings and make them feel welcome in our communities. In addition, non-Jewish spouses and children who are involved in our synagogues, while not Jewish, are nevertheless part of our community.”

Today, a number of Conservative synagogues allow non-Jewish family members on the bimah during b’nai mitzvah and baby-naming ceremonies, although some require them to stand on a separate step or make sure to clarify that they are not saying a blessing over the Torah.

As the article points out, this is by no means as sweeping as the Reform announcement (the workshop was only attended by 30 people.) But even if this is a series of baby steps, this is still a major improvement over the past ten to fifteen years:

At one session, a male rabbinical student burst out, “If we’re going to be so welcoming, why not just do the intermarriage? Yet I don’t want to. This feels like a slippery slope.”

A female rabbinical student next to him retorted, “It’s a slippery slope either way. If you don’t slip down one side, you slip down the other side.”

“I want to be welcoming, but I have this ‘but,’ and I don’t know what to do with the ‘but,’” the male student replied.

Intermarried Jews have always been able to join Conservative synagogues, of course, but strict regulations barred them from assuming leadership roles and prevented their gentile partners from participating in lifecycle ceremonies, appearing on the bima or even being listed as a family member on synagogue mailings.

Of all these policies, the lifecycle events seem the most alienating, many at the workshop noted.

Finally, people are grappling with these issues in a real way, instead of pretending it doesn't exist. And, even as Orthodox apologists continue to hammer home the "unchanged since Sinai" line ad infinitum, the J Post points out that they, too, have begun to start adapting to the intermarriage facts on the ground:

Even Orthodoxy has responded to the challenge of intermarriage. The haredi Eternal Jewish Family project actively encourages the non-Jewish spouse of a mixed marriage to convert to Judaism if he or she is willing to embrace an Orthodox lifestyle. This marks a departure from a more stringent position in Orthodoxy that rejects the possibility of conversion for the spouse of someone who has chosen to marry outside the faith.

Now, I of course neither need nor expect Orthodoxy to give sanction to mixed marriages. What I do hope to see one day is an increased willingness to acknowledge the humanity, decency, and commitment of all members of Jewishly-identified families-- Orthodox or not, halachic or not. In the meantime, I'll stick to putting the liberal movements' feet to the fire.

Of course, I have a personal stake in this issue, but for me what's really important is that Judaism, particularly American Judaism, finally stop shooting itself in the foot by turning away committed Jews and Jewish-friendly spouses. Seeing the liberal movements finally starting to get it is a welcome change.

A slow evolution

I've been doing some reading about the processes of change among the different Jewish denominations. It's interesting to see what decisions influence what changes, and at what pace the denominations move to adapt to each other.

Take the issue of ordaining female rabbis. Apparently the Reform movement was kicking the idea around all through the late 1800s (and vetoing it through the first few decades of the 1900s), but took another 100 years for it to come into practice with Rabbi Sally Preisand, who was ordained in 1972. I had vaguely heard of R. Preisand but was surprised to learn that right behind her, nipping at her heels, as it were, was a Reconstructionist Rabbi, Sandy Eisenberg Sasso, ordained just two years later. It took 11 years after Sally Preisand for the Conservative movement to follow suit, a process which some feared (and others threatened) would split the movement. For the most part, this did not happen. And even though there is presently no widespread move towards ordaining women rabbis in the Orthodox world, it too has not been immune from the shift. Since the 1970s, there has been a dramatic increase in the quality and diversity of educational opportunities for women, something that I would say must be partially read as Orthodoxy's attempt to negotiate a middle road between not actually ordaining female rabbis (too goyish!) and not overly pissing off/alienating women and the feminist-inclined in their own camp ("I can read Hebrew better than you, I can understand Talmudic argumentation, so remind me again why I can't study Talmud?")

This is all interesting to look at because it suggests the model for future issues. Take homosexuality. Again, we have Reconstructionist and Reform leading the way, letting gay students into their seminaries back in the late 1980s. As before, it has taken the Conservative movement longer, this time about twenty years, to come to similar conclusions- though, again, there is a lot of talk about this potentially splitting the movement, and the decision by the American wing to allow the ordination of gay rabbis seems like it will take a while to gain full acceptance among its counterparts in the UK and Israel.

But what's really fascinating is to look at how these questions of law and ideology influence things like political positions. The Reconstructionist and Reform movements were vocally supporting same-sex marriage as early as 1992 and 96. A recent article chronicling the latest salvo in the marriage wars in California focused on the religious movements involved, and which side they came down on:

On one side are the Mormon church, the California Catholic Conference, the National Association of Evangelicals and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. They describe marriage between a man and a woman as "the lifeblood of community, society and the state" and say any attempt by the courts to change that would create "deep tensions between civil and religious understandings of that institution."

On the other side are the Unitarians, the United Church of Christ, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Soka Gakkai branch of Buddhism, and dissident groups of Mormons, Catholics and Muslims. Saying their faiths and a wide range of historical traditions honor same-sex unions, they argue that the current law puts the state's stamp of approval on "the religious orthodoxy of some sects concerning who may marry."

Notice anything? The Conservative movement stayed out of it. Didn't want to take a side. It's kind of sad, but understandable. Given the trend for the Conservative movement to act slower (perhaps, in their minds, rightfully slow) on issues relating to social change, so it might have been too much to expect them to come out swinging for same-sex marriage so soon after finishing the last major battle over whether gays and lesbians can even become rabbis.

But then I spotted this:

Los Angeles — In 2005, when a Jewish gay-marriage activist first pressed California rabbis to sign a statement supporting full marriage equality for gays and lesbians, only a handful of Conservative rabbis lent their names. Over the course of the past two months, however, more than a dozen Conservative rabbis here have signed on to a growing list of clergy who support gay marriage in the civil realm.

What changed in between was the December 2006 decision, or teshuvah, by the Conservative movement’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards to allow gay and lesbian clergy and same-sex commitment ceremonies — a decision made after 15 years of rancorous argument about the issue. As a result of that long-simmering debate, observers note, Conservative rabbis, many of whom were previously uninformed on issues of gay rights in the civil sphere, did their homework and read up on the issues. Others who may have already supported gay marriage finally felt freed up to express their views publicly.

...In Massachusetts, an anti same-sex marriage amendment was roundly defeated in 2005, and again in 2007 at the state legislative level. Rabbi Menachem Creditor, a former Bay State Conservative rabbi who in June of last year became rabbi of Berkeley synagogue Congregation Netivot Shalom, helped organize rabbinic efforts to defeat the Massachusetts bill. Three years ago, 97 Massachusetts rabbis signed a public advertisement opposing the proposed legislation. But according to Creditor — who founded Keshet Rabbis, an organization of Conservative rabbis who support gay and lesbian equality — only seven of those signatories were Conservative. Following passage of the law committee decision in December 2006, Creditor said, many more Conservative rabbis signed their names.

Elliot Dorff, the rector of Los Angeles’s American Jewish University and a co-author of the rabbinic opinion that opened the doors for gay and lesbian clergy and same-sex unions in Conservative Judaism, said the scientific evidence that the opinion presented, showing that sexual orientation is not a choice, has been a key factor in swaying rabbis. Before the hard-fought opinion passed, Dorff said, it would have been far more difficult to convince Conservative rabbis to rally behind the cause of same-sex marriage.

I guess the desire to have the rabbi find a good match trumps the squick/halacha factor!

I have to say, I'm encouraged by this. I don't need Conservative Judaism to be a clone of Reform or Recon, but to see that there is a pattern of having CJ lean the direction of its liberal counterparts when it comes to progressive change, at least on a basic, human equality level... I see that as all for the good. And, again, as the other movements take positions, the Orthodox world modifies some of its own, albeit in different ways. (Who could have predicted this twenty years ago?)

I predict that the next big question will be about intermarriage, patrilineal descent, and so on. I think CJ is content to let patrilineal descent remain their "dividing line" relative to Reform for a good while, unless something big happens to change that. And, most likely, they will find a way of dealing with the issue that at least gives more face value to halacha than Reform's "screw it" position (perhaps continuing some of the practices they already have, like formal conversion of patrilineal-descent children at or before Bar/Bat Mitzvah age). But CJ has demonstrated over the years that fundamentally, it is more interested in seeing what halacha can permit and coexist with, as opposed to shut out. I would say that is what fundamentally distinguishes it from Orthodoxy, and that is why eventually CJ will wind up figuring something out that will probably be more, not less, inclusive of the intermarried and patrilineals.

A final thought: if R. Roth resigned from the Law Committee over ordaining gay rabbis, god knows what he'll do if they decide to allow mixed marriages. Presumably it will involve fire.

Michael Medved finally finds Conservatives he dislikes.

Besides Joseph Farah, I mean.

Yes, apparently in addition to being politically more holier-than-thou, it appears Mike's also a former Conservative- now MO- Jew, and as such, feels free to bash it. Fair enough. I bash a hell of a lot of things, and as I've said elsewhere, if anything I'm a Reform or Recon who likes to sing Hebrew. But some of ol' Mike's criticisms just didn't seem, well... fair. And since Ortho triumphalism (not unlike other forms of it) happens to be something I find extremely grating, I thought I'd take a look.

For several generations, most Americans have embraced what could be described as the Goldilocks attitude toward religion: affirming faith choices that seemed not too soft but not too hard, not too hot but not too cool. Majorities viewed easy-going moderation and comforting compromise as the religious path that counted as "just right."

Not too itchy, but not one of those pansy hypoallergenic blends.

Conservative Judaism — the "middle branch" of the ancient faith — always exemplified the "Goldilocks" orientation with its emphasis on the "sweet spot" between stringencies of Orthodox observance and the anything-goes adaptability of Reform.

And if America's taught us anything, it's that compromise is the work of the Devil.

But just before Passover, the Conservative movement's flagship institution, The Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS), announced a controversial decision highlighting the painful contradictions of middle way religions.

Following the findings of an expert panel filed last December, JTS signaled its intention to accept openly gay candidates for the rabbinate and to raise no objection to their involvement in same-sex commitment ceremonies. For a movement that still stresses time-honored standards of Sabbath observance and kosher food, this represents a stunning break with tradition. A spiritual leader proudly, publicly promoting consumption of pork would never fit in with the Conservative rabbinate, but this same denomination now will sanction rabbis who call unblushing communal attention to their personal practice of sexual relations that the Torah describes as "abomination."

Except that, to use your examples, the Orthodox argue that the Torah also condemns driving to shul, which is a longstanding Conservative practice, to the point that it has become normative and PART of Conservative tradition. Ditto with swordfish. They examined the evidence available to them, voted on it, and made a decision which will eventually become the new standard. Sort of like when haredi rabbis ban wigs or declare that only certain kinds of bleach are kosher for passover.

As I understand it, the point of the Conservative Law Committee is not, "the Torah says don't do X, screw the Torah!" Rather, it is, "the Torah says don't do X- are we sure that Y applies?" You can disagree with the methodology or the reasoning, but don't misrepresent the intent. This is less about looking for holes in halacha than it is about trying to determine exactly where the limits of halacha are- not unlike, say, Rabbenu Gershom's ban on polygamy (where did he pull that from?)

There's more.

Unfortunately for today's leaders, there is little wiggle room on biblical insistence on male-female marriage. Not only does Leviticus (part of the Torah that's sacred to all Jews) specifically prohibit lying "with a man as one lies with a woman" (18:22) but the description of the very first marriage (between Adam and Eve) makes clear that the ultimate union of two souls requires partners of opposite genders. When the Torah (Genesis 2:24) says a man will "cling to his wife and they shall become one flesh," it's not just referring to an emotional or erotic relationship, but the unique ability of a male-female couple to fuse in the creation of children.

Ok, A- there's still debate over defining exactly what that Leviticus verse exactly prohibits (especially if you and the wife are into experimenting). B- What about that Midrash that talks about the first man being a hermaphrodite? How does that measure into your neat little marriage package? And C- you could just as easily cherry-pick a quote about how joyful the Sabbath is; it doesn't mean that the whole thing turns to ashes and sackcloth if you drive to shul. And even if we're going to view the primary purpose and validation of marriage or relationships in terms of their ability to procreate (which seems a tad off to me), in this day and age, a man and a woman are far from the only combination that can lead to the creation of a child.

Religious liberals in Christian as well as Jewish denominations call it hypocritical to focus on biblical definitions of marriage or sanctions against homosexuality, while readily disregarding so many other rules from Scripture. Despite Old Testament references, they note, most people don't marry multiple wives today, or employ slave-like indentured servants in our homes, or avoid eating shellfish. But the Bible merely permitted polygamy and indentured servitude in certain circumstances, never commanding those practices for everyone. In Jewish law, male-female marriage, on the other hand, is a mitzvah — an obligation, a commandment. And to this day, Conservative Judaism still doesn't sanction shrimp.

See above Mike, cars on Shabbos and swordfish. There's precedent. You don't have to like it, but there it is.

...public pressure — not some startling discovery of ancient text — forced [Conservative] adjustment to 21st century trends. Arnold Eisen, chancellor-elect of The Jewish Theological Seminary, declared: "The decision to ordain gay and lesbian clergy at JTS is in keeping with the longstanding commitment of the Jewish tradition to pluralism. Pluralism means that we recognize more than one way to be a good Conservative Jew, more than one way of walking authentically in the path of our tradition."

In other words, he now embraces moral relativism in its modern-day "let's not be judgmental" garb and abandons the traditional role of religion to command or at least suggest clear standards for human behavior and intimate relationships.

The interesting thing here is that Medved continually believes that any decision by the Conservatives is motivated out of cynical self-interest as a marketing tool, not any sort of actual ideological belief. This is fine, of course, but it would be a little easier to swallow if he didn't tend to be such an apologist for things that fit his own political agenda and chide others on their lack of faith or benefit of the doubt.

Disaffected young people seldom flock to watered-down versions of religious faith that lack continuity or integrity. The rapidly growing denominations are those that make demands on potential adherents and advance clear standards of right and wrong. That's why Evangelical and Pentecostal Christianity has grown while "mainline" Protestant denominations have dwindled, and why traditionalist Catholicism boasts more worldwide vitality than liberal strains of the church. Meanwhile, Mormons uphold multiple restrictions (giving up alcohol, coffee, tobacco, among other things) and yet constitute one of the fastest-growing creeds in the USA.

None of which, I'm sure, has anything to do with these folks' stance on birth control, abortion, or the value they place on having very large families, right? How about some stats on growth through changes in affiliation alone?

In Judaism, the same dynamic applies: with tepid, uncertain versions of the faith fighting a losing battle to maintain the affiliation of their young people, while the unaffiliated explore enthusiastic, traditionalist sects. No movement in Judaism has experienced anything like the explosive recent growth of the Hassidic organization, Chabad, with its 3,300 community centers miraculously appearing nearly everywhere and transforming the face of American Judaism. The Conservative movement has been losing influence during the past 40 years not because of its unbending adherence to outmoded rituals but because of its confusion, contradictions and gradual disregard of tradition.

Michael's partially right here, except he's forgetting that at the moment, REFORM is the largest denomination in America. So much for people only being interested in Chabad.

The core question remains the nature of religion itself and our relation to it. Should we challenge ourselves, or our faith traditions? Do we measure religion against personal impulses and values, or should we judge our impulses and values against religion? Should we adjust our faith to suit current trends and to enhance our comfort and convenience, or should we evaluate trends in the light of timeless teachings, no matter how unfashionable or inconvenient?

Or should we, like the Conservative movement has attempted to do, try some combination of BOTH? What a concept.

The choice is stark and, on the issue of marriage, inescapable. Talk of "pluralism" only dodges the issue, because if religion fails to provide forceful guidance on the most crucial behavioral issues of life, it offers only meager servings of lukewarm porridge. That might be good enough for Goldilocks, but it won't nourish the spiritual seekers who desire — and deserve — more commitment and clarity.

Fine, Michael. Let people who don't want to be Conservative Jews not be. But you're mistaken if you think that pluralism is a dodge and an excuse for Conservative to be as liberal as possible- the fact is that pluralism is a value. It may not be one of yours, but it is for millions of others, including, apparently, Conservative Jews. Yes, religion should indeed be a guiding force as well, but, as in pluralism itself, I believe there are many paths to Heaven or Enlightenment or whatever. Your suggestion to Conservative Judaism is that it become Orthodox (or maybe just on issues that really push your buttons, I can't tell). Some seekers may be turned off by perceived wishy-washiness, and that indeed is an issue. But so is defining exactly what the movement wants its future to be. It needs to find a way to hold its own in the middle while increasing numbers of Jews become- and choose to be- polarized. Conservative Judaism should not sell out its principles- whatever they are- to attract more members, either from the right OR the left. It needs to define ITSELF and try to enforce its own standards- not mine, and not yours. If pluralism is indeed a value of Conservative Judaism, its leaders need to figure out how to incorporate that into its future, on the one hand, not becoming "anything goes", but also not being instinctively reactionary on issues that happen to be controversial. You would have Conservative attempt to be Orthodox Lite (the easier to attack it, I suppose). I say let it find its own way.

On JTS and Gays

So it's official (and I'm late, but so what), the Conservative movement is going to ordain gay rabbis. As some of you might have suspected, I'm in favor of this, but not just because I love homos. I also think this is an important step for JTS in grappling with its own intellectual honesty. The Conservative Movement knows full well that it isn't Orthodox, or even Orthodox-lite, and past teshuvahs have reflected this. The CM has made umpteen innovations over the years, from driving to Shabbos to declaring swordfish kosher. Invariably it has alternately been accused of selling out tradition for convenience and popularity and dooming itself by making controversial choices that will "split the movement", the eternal buzzword of terror.

But the reality is that if CM is supposed to be about anything, it should be having modern Jews grapple with halachic tradition, and via a specific process- that's supposed to be what distinguishes Conservative from Reform, at least structurally. For better or worse, Reform emphasizes individual autonomy, whereas Conservative follows its rabbinical bodies, trying to make up for what appears to be control by a small aristocracy by allowing multiple conflicting rulings, effectively creating a spectrum of permissible practice. In theory, I think this is a very interesting idea, in some ways reflective of the interpretive diversity illustrated in the Talmud and other pre-Modern Jewish sources. But at the same time, I think this approach is ultimately more useful, and appealing, on an intellectual level, to scholars and academics, than it is a practical program to keep a movement together. As sad as it may sound, one of the reasons Reform and Orthodoxy are gaining numbers at the CM's expense has to do with the relative clarity of their message: chuck the law, or keep the law. The nuance of the CM, particularly its insistence on having several permissible interpretations, precludes it from having any ideological unity or cohesiveness.

Now, this doesn't have to be an inherent problem, but the reason that this keeps coming up is the phenomenon of the wedge issues- first women rabbis, now gay rabbis, and in a few years, intermarriage and patrilineal descent. When the discussion in question has to do with formulating a policy, in determining whether or not CM is going to abolish something or keep it, it really can't say "both" and claim any pretense of intellectual honesty- and that is partially what alienates it from its rank-and-file. People who want to hear a definitive yes or no on an issue they feel strongly about aren't going to be satisfied with a "some say yes, some say no" answer. Conservative Jews who see the issue of ordaining gay rabbis as being part and parcel of the movement for egalitarianism and human rights aren't going to settle for a half-way solution.Ditto for CJs who see any concession to gays, particularly in the rabbinate, as rejecting halakha. Whether correct or not, these issues have become presented as zero-sum-games, and the Law Committee attempting to have it both ways without first working to counteract this impression only results in pissing off everybody while they spend years hemming-and-hawing before finally doing what everyone suspected they were going to do, which is accept gay rabbis. This is also good for CM's intellectual honesty because the movement was ALREADY allowing rabbis who came out after ordination to keep their jobs, making the whole question particularly absurd- once you allow practicing rabbis to be gay, you really can't still argue for keeping gays out of the seminary.

Some Orthos are understandably pissed. Some are downright wacked. They're using this to smear the CM once again, accusing it of violating halakha, divorcing itself from real Judaism, and so on. They say this reflects the trend of moral relativism, soon they'll have to ordain pedophiles and people who hump sheep (speaking of sheep, btw...) Of course, a lot of this is standard Conservative-bashing as well as an excuse to bitch about gays, as a cursory perusal of the above posts' comments show. What the Orthodox fail to understand (likely deliberately) is that this isn't about the CM rejecting halakha wholesale for "convenience's" sake, or about them willfully "violating the will of God"- rather, it reflects a difference in how they view the mizvot themselves. The CM is looking at this mizvah through the same eyes it did when it allowed women to sit with men, read Torah, and be cantors and rabbis, or when it abolished levirate marriage. It had nothing to do with a conscious desire to reject God or Judaism, it was about making a choice to change the tradition to reflect their movement's values, and the fact that most of their members stayed with them shows that it also echoed what most CJs believed, as well. The CM never worried about whether telling widows they didn't have to marry their husbands' brothers meant they were out of the club; it was in keeping with their conception of halakha as an evolving system that can be legitimately changed via the right process.

Though these divisive issues are always painful, in some ways I think they're necessary in order to give CM a little clarity on exactly what it's standing for. I don't think splits are a good thing, but in its attempt to remain one big tent, CM ultimately winds up alienating more people. If it can figure out exactly where its red lines are, by contrast, then it may be able to do a better job of keeping its members- if its politics aren't to people's liking, they'll go somewhere else (Orthodoxy, most likely, given the general trend of the movement as of late)- but if they don't start firmly reasserting who and what they are, there won't be anything left for people to identify or affiliate with at all. Incidentally, I don't think the ideal for CJ is to become a Reform clone, either- if all it has going for it is more Jewish literacy, a more traditional prayerbook and a few more (theoretical) mitzvah restrictions, I don't particularly see why it should stick around. Instead of defining itself by what it does or doesn't allow, CM needs to examine exactly what it's supposed to BE and move from there.

Levirate marriage was seen as archaic and outmoded, they got rid of it, and life went on. Most likely, this will be the case with gay rabbis as well. The movement may be on the decline, but it has more to do with it occupying the always-precarious middle position and the fact that it's hard to be a serious Conservative Jew and believe in it. The movement may be fighting a losing battle against time and low numbers, but ultimately those and the existential definition issue will be the deciding factor in its future, not wedge issues.

Bad day to be a rabbi (well, Orthodox, anyway)

Olmert tells Amar to buzz off.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert promised a visiting delegation of Conservative rabbis from the United States that Israel would maintain a "policy of openness" on the issue of conversions to Judaism overseas. Olmert met the rabbis on Sunday.

At the meeting, Rabbi Jerome Epstein, Executive Vice President of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, told Olmert of the Conservative movement's objection to Chief Sephardi Rabbi Shlomo Amar's initiative not to recognize Diaspora conversions in Israel.

Olmert said that Amar's initiative had not been discussed in the cabinet and that he was committed to maintaining the present open policy on conversion.

Epstein, who reported to his colleagues in New York about his conversation with Olmert, said on Monday that the prime minister's message was clear - Olmert supports the Conservative rabbis' position on conversions.

Epstein said the prime minister also promised that if a new committee were to be formed on conversion, like the Neeman committee in the past, Conservative movement members can expect to play a role in it.

Gasp! A committee representing a plurality of Jews! Nooo!

For reasons he himself probably doesn't know, Yona Metzger agreed to an online Q&A at the Jerusalem Post. Highlights here (hat-tip to Failed Messiah).

Max Rositan, Toronto, Canada: Since there is absolutely nothing explicit in the Torah about considering someone being Jewish only because person's mother is Jewish isn't it time to start considering people who only have Jewish father being Jewish? In our times when thanks to DNA evidence we can establish with a 100% certainty who person's father was lets stop alienating almost 50% of Diaspora Jews. These people are not at fault for "transgressions" of their fathers. I am writing this as a traditional Jew who can trace my maternal Jewish ancestors at least to the beginning of the 19th century.

Rabbi Metzger: The basic assumption is wrong. The Torah clearly states that appropriating a person to a specific nationality is determined by the mother only, just as the Talmud tractate of Kidushin interprets the verse forbidding a man to wed his daughter to a gentile "for they will turn away thy son from following me" in the sense that only if your son was born to an Israelite mother can be called "your son" but if your son is born from a worshiper of the stars, he can only be referred to as her son. Therefore it is not allowed to consider the identity of a person by the identity of the father.

What about Moses' kids? What God did the Midianites worship?

Liza Zimmerman, Budapest: Dear Rabbi, my question is about the Kabbalah. Is there any stream in Judaism that doesn't accept it? Is the Torah, which has been given direct from Hashem not enough?

Rabbi Metzger: There is no stream in Orthodox Jewry - the original Jewry - that does not accept the Kabbalah, the Kabbalah is a secret Torah and is one of the deepest layers of interpreting the Torah and understanding the Creator's way in running the world.

Debunked here.

Gil Bashe, Metuchen, NJ: Rav Shilt"a, how can we best address the challenges of intermarriage? What do you recommend to welcome these families into our community and encourage fuller participation? B'Todah

Rabbi Metzger: Jewish education should be encouraged - Jews in the Diaspora should study in Jewish schools teaching the values of Jewish tradition, which emphasizes the uniqueness and special status of Jews among other nations, and strengthens our national pride. The problem you mentioned exists mainly in universities, and I believe that after a rooted, proud Jewish education, University encounters would not lead to intermarriages.

Or better yet, don't send your kids to college. Or keep them in an insular ghetto and don't tell them about the outside world. Tell them goyim put Jewish blood in their Bud Light! The possibilities abound!

Tracy Drucker, New York: I'm concerned about the lack of solidarity, the outright hostility among different secular and religious groups within Israel at a time of extreme vulnerability. Couldn't leaders like you initiate a temporary "truce", and foster a spirit of kindness, integrity and brotherhood to be strong to face Israel's enemies? It hurts so much to watch the country tearing itself apart. Thank you for this opportunity.

Rabbi Metzger: We are acting in many ways to bridge the gaps so that we can live together as one people. The situation is definitely not encouraging and openness on both sides is needed. I think there were harder times in the past, and genuinely hope that we can take the right way together. It is important to point out that one of the foundations of the unity of the nation between religious and non-religious people is the education system of the schools:
A) Educating towards respecting one's peers and loving Israel, as the Torah states "Love thy neighbor".
B) Expanding Jewish studies - the values of religion and the sources of prayer and Mitzvoth that would help bridge the gap, which stems mainly from lack of knowledge and prejudice.

Why not have haredim study the ways of the world, while you're out it? You know, things like science and archeology and astronomy, so that in addition to Talmud, Jews of all different approaches can discuss facts in addition to theology.

What you're suggesting here, rabbi, is that if only every Jew became frummer, hostilities would cease. Not only is this extremely patronizing to non-frummies in its assumptions, it's also damn ignorant. Take a look at Satmar and Bobov sometime and get a clue. And ditto for you, Tracy. Jews fight. It's what we do. Is it optimal? Maybe not. But better some infighting than a moribund bunch of yes-men. It's GOOD that Jews, all kinds of Jews, care enough to disagree with each other. Saying we should all just sing kumbaya because "Israel is vulnerable" is the product of a really bizarre worldview. This isn't the Warsaw Ghetto. Israel (and the rest of the world's Jews) is a vibrant democracy, and that's good for the state and the faith. Furthermore, a lot of the divisive issues constantly being batted around are IMPORTANT. Asking someone like Metzger (who doesn't represent anyone) to put a band-aid on the whole situation isn't just unfeasible, it's also undesirable. Putting on a front of false unity doesn't accomplish anything- Somehow I doubt Iran or the Palestinians are going to care much if Jews stop fighting about women at the Kotel or following Orthodox halakha on conversions.

Last one:

Barry Hammer, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Do you feel that there is a lack of people who can properly guide Jews into answering "Why should I be religious" without falling back on the answer "Because that's how you're supposed to live your life" or "Because G-d said so"? If so, what would you suggest we do to help fight this problem? If not, how would you approach a Jew who has fallen off the derech?

Rabbi Metzger: The true answer is "because this is the only true way and there is no other." There are not several truths and the way of Judaism is the only one that can be logically proven. It is hard to give general advice on how to approach a Jew who has left the righteous way, and each case should be regarded individually. Keeping the Mitzvoth should be encouraged while observing the wholeness they give to the person keeping them.

Logically proven, huh? I'd be interested in reading that book.

El Al fired their "Chief Rabbi" (thereby causing this to appear in my Google Alerts messages under "Chief Rabbi"). Question- why is he a Chief Rabbi? Are there Ashkenazic and Sephardic Chief Rabbis, to deal with different issues, like whether El Al can serve rice over Passover?

It's unclear exactly who was behind the move to fire the guy, but it looks like he's been phased out in favor of his haredi subordinate.

El Al said the layoff of Lt.-Col. (res) Katzir, former deputy chief rabbi of the IDF, was part of streamlining measures. However, haredi sources in El Al said that Katzir was superfluous.

"He did not help El Al in the recent negotiations with the haredim because he is a religious Zionist," said the source. "And kosher supervision of food is already taken care of by the caterers."

Maybe he didn't help because no one would talk to him. But clearly that's his fault. Doesn't ANYBODY ELSE fly on this damn airline?

Well, it's not all bad...

Katzir, who held a part time position at El Al, told The Jerusalem Post that he did not know the reason for the layoff. But he verified reports that Rabbi Avraham Yosef, son of Shas's spiritual Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, was working behind the scenes to get Katzir reinstated.

Avraham Yosef, now chief rabbi of Holon, was Katzir's deputy when Katzir served as chief rabbi of the IAF.

However, sources in El Al said that during a friendly meeting between El Al CEO Haim Romano and Rabbi Ovadia Yosef three days ago, Yosef, who already knew about Katzir's layoff, did not try to convince Romano to backtrack.

"All he said was that Katzir should be treated respectfully," said the El Al source.

So, basically, guy number 1 replaces Katzir, guy number 2 wants him back, and guy number three (also known as "vote for me, get amulet, vote against, go to hell), waffles. Interesting.

Other news: Ukrainian Jews are asking the government to give them their Judaica objects back so they can restart their communities again. It's an interesting idea:

Testifying to a rich Jewish past, museums in the western Ukrainian city of Lvov hold hundreds of Jewish artifacts that once belonged to local synagogues and Jewish institutions.

Now the few practicing Jews here say they need the artifacts back to reinvigorate their community. "Our congregation is trying to bring Jewish tradition back, and we need these Torah scrolls and religious objects," said Valentina Zamichkovskaya, 67, a member of the Lvov Reform Jewish congregation.

Ukrainian authorities seem open to the possibility.

"We are ready to transfer some items to the Jewish communities upon their request," Roman Kurash, a representative of the Lvov Regional Administration in charge of religious affairs, told JTA. "Ukrainian authorities are ready to resolve the issue on the condition that these objects are used for religious community purposes," said Alexander Sagan, a senior adviser to President Viktor Yuschenko.

Well that's good. Of course, some things aren't always so simple.

Lvov now is home to some 2,000 Jews. Aside from the Reform congregation, there's a large Orthodox shul run by Rabbi Mordechai Shloime Bold, a Karlin-Stonliner Chasid. The synagogue was confiscated by the Bolsheviks but was returned to the community in 1989, shortly before the fall of communism. Another Orthodox minyan, or prayer group, is run by a longtime Jewish community and human-rights activist, Meilach Sheichet.

Members of these groups acknowledge that many of the scrolls and Judaica objects may never be returned to proper religious use, given the small size of the community. But they insist the city should help the community transfer Judaica from municipal museums to a new Jewish museum that Jewish organizations want to open.

Politics, anyone? Still, if anyone's to have auspices over confiscated Judaica in the former SU, it's probably better that it be the Jews. But then you get into the problem of which Jews- the Orthodox? The Chief Rabbis (mostly Chabad emissaries)?

Oh, and speaking of Chabad...

"Museums must return all Torah scrolls to the communities," Rabbi Azriel Chaikin, a chief rabbi of Ukraine and the main Chabad-Lubavitch authority in the country, told JTA. "Religious silver and some other objects we can discuss separately, but Torahs must be returned."

Hmm. Well, they do tend to be a little more brusque than most.

Baruch Marzel's been in the news a bit lately. First he offered to help "expel" Yonatan Bassi. Now he's calling Ephraim Sneh a slut. Fair enough, I guess, as long as he's willing to apply the same fine-tooth comb to his own guys- like the would-be child killers in Bat Ayin, and the FBI informant (narc?)-turned-black-beater-enabler-of-terrorism-and, oh yeah-philanderer- Meir Kahane. How about it, Baruch?

The Jpost has some interesting remarks about Hebronites, though. A pretty good article, though the author seems to fall into this weird guilt-trap:

what the officer and the settler pragmatists fail to acknowledge is that there is no one else prepared to go through what the Hebron settlers do. Ninety-nine percent of settlers live in what are in effect dormitory suburbs of Jerusalem and Gush Dan. Those living deeper in the West Bank at least enjoy large villas and gardens at prices that won't buy a two-bedroom flat in Petah Tikva.

The Hebronites raise their large families in cramped warrens, with windows blocked off from the Palestinian's line of fire, in constant danger of terror attacks, cut off from most of the material benefits of Israeli society. That kind of life calls for a certain type of idealist, and also causes a certain coarsening of character. Most of their supporters prefer to do so from afar. More moderate right-wing politicians and spokespeople prefer not to be drawn into questions on the Hebron settlers, not wishing to condone their actions while being careful not to appear anything less than steadfast in their support of the Jewish people's right to the city of our forefathers.

...The short video of Yifat Alkobi repeatedly calling a Palestinian woman, hiding behind bars protecting her home, "sharmuta, sharmuta" (whore) dominated the airwaves and Web sites more than any yearly report. Perhaps it was the incongruity of a head-covered religious woman using such coarse language. Alkobi drew almost universal denunciation except from the ultra-rightists, who retorted that she was merely voicing her frustration at the joint persecution of the settlers by the Palestinians, left-wingers, journalists and IDF soldiers.

But more that anything, it revealed something that most Israelis, especially on the right-wing, would prefer not to admit. The Hebron settlers might be a tiny minority in Israeli society, but as they have been allowed to live there for almost four decades, defended by the IDF and receiving most of the social, educational and health services there, they are indeed the representatives of the state, whether we like it or not. Whether or not we as Israelis support the right of Jews to continue living in Hebron, Yifat Alkobi is there on behalf of all of us.

But of course, no one asked Mrs. Alkobi to go to Hebron, no one forced her into it. The people in Hebron are there because they believe that it is where they are meant to be, and they treat their neighbors the way they do because they think that's the right thing to do. These people volunteered to live in these "warrens", and they can leave if they truly want. Besides, what happened to the Israeli pioneer ethos? Somebody choosing a difficult life doesn't excuse bad behavior, not even if they feel they're doing it "on behalf" of somebody else. Baruch Goldstein, so the story goes, thought he was killing Arabs on behalf of his fellows. That doesn't excuse what he did.

More on the Conservative movement and its non-decisions.

First, a rabbi from Masorti movement in Israel accuses his colleagues, both in Israel and America, of "singling him out" as "persona non-grata". His crime? Conducting 10 same-sex weddings in the past 5 years.

Now, there's the argument that rabbis shouldn't be doing something that their own movement disallows, and I think that actually has some validity. But it's also clearly a symptom of the deep divisions, and lack of clear-cut leadership (and a process through which change can be addressed, or effected) at work in the Conservative Movement. The kind of anarchy that Lazar's activity illustrates seems to be a rather glaring example of some of the major problems Conservative Judaism is suffering from. Instead of actively grappling with the halchic (and policy) problems and issues that the existence of gay Jews creates, the C.M. instead prefers to stall, pleasing no one and perpetuating a status-quo of "see no gays, speak no gays" that has yet to appease anyone.

In a related matter, the Forward has some analysis about the latest reversal by the C.M. Law Commitee:

The motion, passed 106 to 37 with 24 abstentions, allows the Conservative movement’s top lawmaking body, the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, to approve major revisions to Jewish law with the approval of 13 out of 25 voting members. It overturns the decision by the R.A.’s executive council last June to establish a 20-vote threshold for major changes.

Very interesting. The Friar will be keeping a close eye on this. Stay tuned.

Also, at the same conference, we got to hear chancellor Ismar Schorsch remind everyone how old he is.

"If the Conservative movement chooses to do something at the expense of the halachic system, then it's going to pay the price down the road," Schorsch told the Forward in a reiteration of his longstanding opposition to lifting the ban on homosexuality. "The erosion of our fidelity to Halacha is what brings us close to Reform Judaism."

Heaven forbid! It's always nice to see some bridge-building between the traditionalist C.Js and the Orthos- in this case, Reform-Bashing. Nice send-off, Chancellor. Don't let the car door hit you on your way out.

Put off until tomorrow...

I was going to write a giant post about how by delaying its decision about gay rabbis and same-sex unions, the Conservative movement has yet again managed to both display internal cowardice as well as demonstrate why it is semi-slowly dying as a movement...

And then I thought I'd just take a page out of their playbook.

So I'll talk about this some other time. Maybe a month, maybe eight... who knows? I've got to wait for word from the Friar Yid Law Committee.