sign in sign up
<<
Home , Conservative Judaism, Minhag

Paradigms for Contemporary Reconstructionism

By Richard Hirsh

This article is dedicated to my current and mitment to a vision of history that former students at the Reconstructionist culminated in the arrival of the Mes- Rabbinical College, whose probing ques- siah. As the credibility of each of these tions, perceptive analyses, and principled mythic components was called in to positions have helped me to define and question in the open society of Amer- refine the paradigms under discussion. ica, the taken-for-granted affirmation of traditional was diminished. hen set And one consequence among many was out to write Judaism as a that patterns of common Jewish W Civilization, he wanted behavior soon dissolved. to create a contemporary rationale for Jewish identification, commitment and Kaplan’s Context, and Ours continuity. Like many Jewish thinkers of the modern period, Kaplan assumed Reconstructionism as defined by that the fundamental issue was one of Kaplan was a response to a specific ideology or concept, i.e., that without community (the American Jewish something credible to replace the community) at a specific time (the assumptions of the pre- 1920s-1930s) and a specific profile modern tradition, there would be no (immigrants to a degree, but even more basis on which to build a contemporary so to first- and second-generation Jewish life. born in the United States). When we The pre-modern Jewish myth of look at the 21st-century Jewish com- origins included: a conception of a munity, comprised now primarily of creator with whom personal inter- third, fourth and even fifth genera- action was possible; an understanding tion , and increasingly of the Jewish people as God’s chosen populated by non-Jews married to or community, whose origins and as- partnered with Jews, we find that the sured continuity came through divine questions, concerns and needs are quite intervention; a in the and different than those of the audience as being divinely revealed, for whom Kaplan wrote Judaism as a authoritative and binding; and a com- Civilization.

Rabbi Richard Hirsh is the Executive Director of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, and was Editor of The Reconstructionist from 1996-2006. The views expressed here are the personal views of the author and do not represent the RRA.

The Reconstructionist Spring 2006 •  Adaptations prior to Kaplan were as they try to integrate, often for the largely cosmetic: on the analogy of a first time, Jewish practices into their home, some thought you could simply spiritual lives. It is not so much an redecorate (classical Reform’s adaptation ideology of Judaism that they seek as an of Protestant civility for what soon be- approach to maneuvering through the came known as “”); or move the rich but complex resources of Jewish furniture around (korbanot [] tradition that can avoid the “all-or- to the basement, the to the nothing” polarities of secularism and front parlor); some thought adding on a Orthodoxy. room would help (political ). We in the Reconstructionist move- Only Kaplan got it right, because ment, and especially Reconstructionist he was the only one who realized that , have an opportunity to contrib- the problem was not in the paint or ute something unique to this process, wallpaper, in the furniture, or in reno- because our approach to ritual decision vations. He saw that the problem was making stands apart from both the the foundation. Unless the foundation Reform and Conservative options. But got repaired or rebuilt, anything resting we rarely articulate how we differ. Even on top would not be sustained. more crucially, we rarely take enough steps back to the bigger picture, Building on the Foundation and see the context within which we are engaged in the reconstruction of Part of rebuilding the foundation for Judaism. Kaplan was the creation of a naturalistic In this article, therefore, I want to paradigm to replace the inadequate and analyze the moment in implausible supernatural paradigm of where we find ourselves, and to seek pre-modern Judaism. That work having analogies from the past that can guide been done by the early generations of us through the present. I then want to Reconstructionist leaders, our task is propose specific ways of approaching different. Building on Kaplan’s foun- tradition that can be responsive to cur- dation, the challenge for our time is to rent needs within that context. While create pragmatic paradigms of Jewish much of what is under discussion here living that are rooted in conceptual applies specifically to the work of Re- consistency. constructionist rabbis, the paradigms Kaplan sought to create an ideol- described are relevant to the work of ogy that would sustain and support the movement as a whole. patterns of Jewish living and religious observance that could more-or-less be I. First Paradigm: Living in taken for granted in his time. We face “Mishna Time” a different problem, insofar as familiar- ity with such traditional patterns has By way of identifying our context, I dissolved. We work with Jews seeking suggest we are living in times more akin an approach to ritual decision making to those of the Mishna than of the Ge-

 • Spring 2006 The Reconstructionist mara and the later codes of Jewish law. cited in the reopen discussions This circumscribes our options, defines and even make changes to conclusions our choices, and requires us to assess cited previously. what we can and cannot accomplish Although the short-term resolution under such circumstances. of any number of issues of Jewish law When the in Je- was a major achievement, what the rusalem was destroyed in 70 CE, an Mishna accomplished was more signifi- already-fractious Jewish community cant than rulings on halakhic questions. was thrown into disarray. The religious The Mishna was able to organize issues, task of the moment was to organize the arrange prior and current opinions, conversations that needed to happen and reconstruct the grammar, vocabu- in order to reconstruct the discourse lary and syntax of the Jewish religious of Jewish religious life — to try and conversation. Put differently, what the make order out of chaos. Many of Mishna reflects is the religious discourse the discussions, debates and decisions of the Jewish people (or, perhaps more that occurred in the first and second narrowly, of the rabbinic leaders) in a centuries of the Common Era found transitional period following a collec- their way into the first authoritative tive trauma, in which the search for written code to emerge after the crisis stability was crucial. of 70 CE — the Mishna. The rabbinic leaders of that time faced the daunting Diversity Dominates tasks of imposing order on chaos, and sifting and sorting conflicting opinions, The period of the Mishna was char- practices and principles. It is not an acterized not only by halakhic but by accident that we speak about the six theological and ideological differences “orders” of the Mishna. as well. Our time is characterized by While in many cases the authori- many of the same kinds of debates. ties cited in the Mishna were able to Since the explosion of Jews into moder- reach consensus on matters of Jewish nity, we have been struggling to make law, including ritual practice, in other order out of chaos. The 19th century cases the discussions were inconclusive, rabbis/scholars thought they could do with differing opinions and procedures that through theological and ritual re- cited when no definitive positions vision as seen in what became Reform emerged. Sometimes the emergence of Judaism and in the wissenschaft move- answers (what in our terms we might ment that incubated what would later call policies or procedures) had to wait emerge as . for different and more stable times But even as the Jewish people was and sets of circumstances; hence the trying simultaneously to rethink its Gemara and the later codes. And in collective identity so as to be able to other cases, despite the halakha of a embrace the option of civil enfranchise- given issue seeming to have been settled ment and to rethink its religious ideol- in the Mishna, the rabbinic authorities ogy in support of that effort, circum-

The Reconstructionist Spring 2006 •  stances dictated that stability would be alongside the traumas, we have faced ephemeral. The Dreyfus affair, the rise unprecedented circumstances, includ- of political Zionism, the world wars, ing the creation of the first Jewish the Shoah and the establishment of Me- homeland/political entity in two mil- dinat Yisrael are just a few of the things lennia, and the impact of intermarriage that have kept us in Mishna-time. We within our own North American Jewish continue to live in a period of readjust- community. ment that lacks consensus, and where The first and second centuries of the diversity dominates. Common Era were also similar to our Recognizing and accepting the time in that competing ideologies and larger context in which we are doing strategies for survival were very much our work is essential if we are to have a in play. Jews in the early centuries of realistic sense of what can and cannot the Common Era could choose from a be accomplished in such moments in variety of what we might anachronisti- Jewish history. Rabbis often counsel cally call “denominations.” There were individuals who have suffered a recent the “fundamentalists” (the ) loss or undergone a major life transition whose reliance on scripture alone made to allow for the necessary time to adjust, them hostile to the emergence of rab- and to avoid dramatic or definitive de- binic halakha. There were the “secular cisions for which they may not yet have Zionists” (political zealots whose focus reassembled the necessary emotional was on the survival of the Jewish nation, and cognitive resources. Similarly, we and for whom was less central). should remind ourselves when we do There were the “spiritual seekers” (the our collective communal work of re- , early mystics, and others) for constructing Judaism that we should whom the harsh realities of the world remain cognizant of the circumstances seemed to demand a turning inward to within which we are doing that work. the life of the spirit. There were the “Jews for ” (the Living Post-Trauma early followers of Jesus and of his dis- ciples) whose messianic mindset took We are living in a time analogous them to the edges of the Jewish com- to the second century of the Com- munity, and eventually beyond them. mon Era. Several major traumas have There were the “modernists” (the Phari- occurred: the impact of modernity on sees and their disciples and descen- the Jewish people and Jewish religion; dents) who sought to balance “tradition the extension of citizenship and the and change” while innovating in the retraction of it in the heart of cultured service of adaptation. And there were within a period of 100 years; subsets of each of these, and no doubt the repression of Russian Jewry and its other clusters and communities that reemergence several generations later; leaned one way or another in terms of the Shoah, of course, and the wars of , halakha, liturgy and a host of survival that has endured. And other subjects.

 • Spring 2006 The Reconstructionist Tentative Proposals clarified the issue when he said the right way to frame the question is to say “we If we can agree on anything, it might live in a post-halakhic era.” That is, we be that we have not yet been given live in an era in which the assumptions, the chance to reconstruct Judaism in communal structures, beliefs/faith and a stable and secure setting — we are attitudes towards authority that sus- working in a moment that is fluid and tained the pre-modern halakhic norms flexible. We have not yet coalesced into of a community are absent. Hay- consensus on many fundamental issues. im Herring, executive vice-president of Given our many challenges, everything STAR (“: Transformation we propose at this moment in terms of and Renewal”) suggests an analogy priorities (outreach v. inreach, unilin- with the term “post-industrial” — we eality v. , v. still have industry, but our economy is ethnicity, as examples) is tentative. no longer defined by it. Applied more narrowly to the Re- What does this mean for the Re- constructionist movement, this sug- constructionist movement? The Re- gests that we are not going to use our constructionist Rabbinical Association time, energy and resources well if we (RRA) already has 275 rabbis. The try to set definitive guidelines and cre- Jewish Reconstructionist Federation ate rules. As examples: do we require (JRF) has 105 affiliated congregations. conversion for adopted children? Do we The Reconstructionist Rabbinical Col- require a get for remarriage? Are Jewish lege has graduated over 300 rabbis, and appropriate for interfaith life- 75 students are currently matriculated. cycle events, or should alternatives be Ownership of Reconstructionist Juda- created? We could create commissions, ism is now a shared enterprise. We have hold conventions and craft codes that long passed the time when the writings seek to define “the Reconstructionist of the charismatic founder and the early position” on any number of issues. Or, disciples were considered definitive. on analogy to the Mishna, we could in- We now have a wide spectrum of stead (as argued above) organize issues, practice and policy within our move- arrange prior and current opinions, and ment. With rare exceptions, any “rule” reconstruct the grammar, vocabulary or “policy” we adopt is likely to be and syntax of the Jewish religious con- ignored by some percentage of rabbis versation, trusting that later generations or congregations, and our liberal predi- will generate consensus in what we can lection towards being non-judgmental hope will be more settled times. coupled with our principled preference for pluralism suggests we are unlikely to A Post-Halakhic Era coerce compliance. What then would it mean to “have a policy” on any ritual We know the vocabulary: “non- matter other than to mimic the Conser- halakhic, post-halakhic, anti-halakhic, vative movement’s ephemeral attempt quasi-halakhic.” Rabbi Jack Cohen to hold people to halakhic norms that

The Reconstructionist Spring 2006 •  are routinely ignored? whatever those policies might be, repli- cating them in every Reconstructionist The Place of Halakha community is hardly necessary or even possible. On the other hand, on issues That said, halakha continues to affecting and status, we inform our entire approach to the should have a movement-wide agree- Reconstructionist conversation, and ment on, for example, “who is a ,” while not binding, remains a weighted one that will not leave the religious informant whose norms are generally status of children to the serendipity of presumed as a starting point. Some whatever Reconstructionist Reconstructionists (like me) operate a family happens to join. on the principle of “work within the Without an over-arching theory of boundaries of tradition when possible religious and ritual practice, we cannot and move beyond them when neces- hope to navigate the challenges we face. sary.” (I acknowledge that “possible” Here, we have something both unique and “necessary” are very subjective and uniquely-suited to contribute to terms.) Other Reconstructionists start the wider Jewish discussion. As Kaplan from the assumptions of defining the did in his time, we to ought to craft a need and then creating the response; if response to the community as we have the response correlates with tradition, it, to the time and place in which we that’s a nice bonus, but if it does not, it’s find ourselves, and to the circumstances equally fine to disregard the tradition. and challenges that we face. And our Our bumper-sticker slogan that “tradi- response needs to take into account tion has a vote but not a veto” (parallel the consequences of living in Mishna- to the Reform movement’s less-well- time. known but equally pithy “tradition gives guidance but not governance’) II. The Second Paradigm: is, like most bumper-stickers, mostly meaningless when we actually try to address a specific serious issue. Living in Mishna-time requires us This is not to suggest that we can- to identify an organizing principle or not reach consensus on any issues. set of principles through which we On some klal (general) issues, finding can undertake the reconstruction of consensus may be more crucial. On Judaism. Each of the modern Jewish some pratim (specific applications) religious movements has tried to ac- it may be less so. For example: now complish this in its own way. Before that our movement finally has its own turning to a discussion of what Recon- summer camp (Camp JRF) it becomes structionist Judaism might contribute necessary to create policies by which to this discussion, it will be helpful to the camp community, at least, will live analyze the other two non-Orthodox for its time together each summer. But approaches.

10 • Spring 2006 The Reconstructionist The Reform Position munal norms, the Reform approach to ritual decision making and behavior is The Reform movement, in its official incompatible with the Reconstruction- documents and publications, and in ist emphasis on community. many of the books written by its lead- ing thinkers, has for the past quarter- The Conservative Position century increasingly been speaking the language of mitzva. And by mitzva they The Conservative approach to Jew- mean “religious commandment or ob- ish religious and ritual life is predi- ligation,” and not “a nice friendly ges- cated on the priority of the halakha. ture.” (if not Reform Whatever adaptations, innovations or Jews) asserts that Jews are a covenantal adjustments to Jewish practice may be chosen community whose faithful- proposed, they can only be validated ness to God ought to be reflected in a “within the system.” While Conser- routine of religious obligations. Mitzva vative Judaism accepts the historical (“commandment”) implies a Metzaveh evolution of Judaism, and (to differing (“commander”), and for Reform Juda- degrees) that halakha is a humanly- ism, this is axiomatic. (See the 1999 influenced (perhaps even constructed) “Statement of Principles” of the CCAR system, it makes a voluntary choice to under “platforms” [http://ccarnet.org].) define its field of activity as being cir- For Reform Judaism, however, cumscribed by the norms, procedures mitzva does not, and should not, im- and precedents of the halakha. ply halakha (communal law). Because Because it insists on adherence to Reform takes as its point of departure halakha, Conservative Judaism experi- the primacy of personal autonomy, ences a well-documented gap between the choice of which mitzvot to observe folk and elite application. While it remains up to the individual. The can coerce compliance within its in- Committee of the Reform stitutions (the Schechter day schools, rabbinic association, for example, offers , USCJ congregations), analysis and advice, but cannot man- the ability to influence significant date compliance. Nor are its positions numbers of individual Conservative binding on the Reform seminary or the households and create a halakhi- Reform congregational body. cally-normative population remains Because it grounds its approach to ephemeral. Faced, for example, by the Jewish practice in the supernatural as- demographic infiltration of intermar- sumptions of a commanding God and riage as well as gay/lesbian populations a , Reform ideology is into Conservative Judaism, the validity suspect for Reconstructionists in terms and viability of defining Conservative of its ability to convince contemporary Judaism as “halakhic” has recently been Jews to engage ritual practices. Because called into question even by some of it asserts the primacy of the individual its leading intellectual thinkers, who over any sense of community or com- imply that halakhic paradigms may

The Reconstructionist Spring 2006 • 11 not be adequate for the challenges of spectrum of practice in shaping and the moment. sustaining meaningful religious com- munities. The Reconstructionist Minhag is the appropriate framework Alternative for living in Mishna-time: it implies the maintenance of categories of signifi- So if the paradigms of mitzva and cance, of boundaries that help define halakha do not work, what organiz- a variety of spectrums (, for ing category can perhaps embrace the example), of pluralism as a value, and reality of the Jewish community as it of “community” as a determinant in the exists at this moment in Jewish history? shaping of norms. Minhag embodies I want to suggest that the Reconstruc- Kaplan’s centrality of “peoplehood” in tionist movement needs to assert clearly contrast to halakha, which embodies that the appropriate category for living the centrality of text and text-guard- a Jewish religious life in Mishna-time is ians (rabbis [only]). In contrast to the minhag, or “custom.” mitzva-centered approach of Reform Minhag is an alternative to mitzva Judaism that embodies the centrality and halakha, and not (only) in the sense of God (and the coordinate implication that Kaplan used the term “folkways” that Judaism is a religion, not a culture), to describe Jewish ritual behaviors, such minhag locates divinity in the interac- as, for example, use of the talit, mezzuza tions and resultant responsibilities that or the observance of kashrut. Minhag emerge from a faithful community implies norms, and as a movement, we that strives to transcend individuality. can have such norms (formal and infor- Minhag evolves from the ground up. mal) that we share. Minhag allows for But like anything that grows, it needs individual choices (for example, what nurturance, sustenance and direction; level of observance to choose) hence, there is a central and crucial role within paradigmatic imperatives (i.e., for rabbis. observing Shabbat is something that can and ought to be one among many III. The Third Paradigm: places where Jews derive spiritual mean- The Pastor- Continuum ing from their tradition). To take it one step further, we can- For Reconstructionist rabbis in par- not have the much-vaunted “sense of ticular, using the category of minhag community” for which we advocate can be helpful. Our rabbinic work is without a shared sense of practice, along a spectrum of what I call “pastor- such as can emerge from affirmation of to-posek” with a pastor being someone minhag. And insofar as “the search for whose primary referent is compassion- community” is a commonly articulated ate counseling/response, and a posek imperative for Jews seeking to connect (“one who decides on matters of Jewish with their tradition, we would do well law”) being someone whose primary to consider the importance of a shared referents are the requirements and/or

12 • Spring 2006 The Reconstructionist expectations of Jewish tradition. At “inquiries of opportunity.” any given moment, in response to the person or people with whom we are IV. The Fourth Paradigm: dealing, we are moving back and forth Locating Authority on this continuum, trying to balance in Relationship responsiveness to the situation with responsibility to the tradition for which Minhag also helps us clarify where we are responsible. Minhag mandates a contemporary Jewish community that both be taken into account, but might locate authority. As Kaplan also suggests that individual cases may rightly noted, and as the experience of see differing accommodations, balances American Judaism in the 20th century and trade-offs between the two. clearly demonstrated, simply appealing Using the concept of minhag al- to the authority of tradition will not lows us to lean one way or another convince very many people. The Re- depending on the circumstance, and form model of mitzva locates authority also validates the variety of ways Re- in the individual. The up side of this constructionist rabbis might respond to is it validates the “right to choice” that the same situation. It also allows us to American Jews have absorbed as in- approach the same situation in different alienable. The down side is it makes the ways depending on the people involved construction of community difficult and on the circumstances. It affirms as each person’s choice (and comfort that we see pluralism and diversity level) is implicitly assumed to require as enriching, and as a value, and not validation. merely as something we will tolerate The Conservative model of halakha until a policy can be reached. perpetuates the assumption of tradi- Using minhag as an organizing tion, namely, that the rabbi is the source principle for communal conversation of authority. If Judaism is primarily a helps us to avoid the pitfalls of the legal tradition, then it makes sense that pursuit of policies over which we may experts be entrusted with it, just as we argue passionately but for which we want lawyers and judges managing civil will not have, nor would we want to law. The up side of this position is that have, consequences for non-compli- it reasonably assures that decision mak- ance. (See the discussions below on ing is well-informed and that decisions conversion and as examples.) are made that are consonant with tradi- If we predicate our conversation on tion. The down side is that American the assumption that we strive for a Jews do not experience or live Judaism consensual covenantal spectrum of Jew- as a legal tradition but as a cultural-re- ish practice that still allows for choices ligious experience into which they step within that spectrum, and makes no more often at events and intervals than judgment about where on the spectrum on a daily basis. Rabbinic authority is we position ourselves, we can redefine not so much dismissed as it is invisible questions of policy so that they become and irrelevant.

The Reconstructionist Spring 2006 • 13 The category of minhag locates who owns the policies — the rabbi or religious authority in the relationship the convert. All they do is state that fact between the individual and the com- as part of a statement of norms. They munity. In other words, norms evolve do not attempt to resolve it at this - out of the ongoing life of a community, ment in their history. [See http://data. as individuals interact with the com- ccarnet.org/glgerim7.html] I think that munity and as the community places is a wise approach, and would hope the expectations on the individual. “Com- Reconstructionist rabbinate heads in a munity” is a corrective to the domi- similar direction.) nance of individual autonomy, but it is also a leavening and lightening agent Towards New RRA Guidelines with regard to “the halakha.” If we adopted a “Mishna/minhag” Conversion as an Example perspective, what might, for example, new RRA guidelines on intermarriage Consider conversion as an example. and on conversion look like? Who sets the ritual requirements for In terms of conversion, I will focus conversion, the rabbi or the ger/giyoret on the case of adopted children. How (prospective convert)? Option A: “I, do we approach the issue of defining the rabbi, require mila (covenantal Jewish identity for adopted children? circumcision) and tevila (immersion in (Note the way the question is framed a mikva) in addition to limud (study).” — I am not asking “Do we require con- Option B: “Here are the norms of the version for adopted children?”) Instead tradition and community for conver- of debating whether we require conver- sion, including mila and tevila. Here’s sion, and if so, what rituals we require, what I recommend and why. The deci- what if we responded to this concern sion of which to use is yours.” instead? I imagine a document of the I am not suggesting we avoid striving RRA that explains the norm of conver- for a recommended procedure, or that sion for adopted children, but in terms we avoid asserting the value of con- of the larger context of “community,” forming to historical and contemporary not in terms of “the halakha requires.” consensus. But by using minhag as We understand that “identity” may be the organizing principle, we avoid the an individual choice, or in this case a necessity of coming to a conclusion in choice of the parents, but that “status” favor of articulating a consensus of pref- is the community’s evaluation/accep- erence. A consensus would, one hopes, tance of that claimed identity. Both be compelling, but not coercive. are important. (Interestingly, the Reform Central But conversion guidelines that Conference of American Rabbis, in reflect our current context should their current giyyur [conversion] guide- acknowledge the concerns that some lines, makes it clear that the members adoptive parents have raised, especially are about evenly split on the question of the perceived “penalty for infertility”

14 • Spring 2006 The Reconstructionist issues that are so poignant and painful full rituals of kiddushin, for intermar- for many. (Requiring conversion for riages. In constructing new guidelines adopted children because the parents on intermarriage, we could debate had been unable to conceive is expe- whether to reaffirm the 1983 position. rienced by some adoptive parents as Or we could indicate out of a Recon- punitive.) We might explain how in a structionist understanding of sancta given case, leaning towards the “pastor” the reasons why, and values behind, end of the “pastor-posek continuum” not using (some/any) Jewish sancta for we would work with a family towards intermarriage. (I leave aside the issue of a series of affirmations of identity (like what constitutes sancta — for some, it a naming) rather than a conversion to is ketuba, or the ritual formula “harei an identity. Values attached to both at/a,” for others it is the huppa or the positions could be articulated, and ritu- breaking of the glass.) We. could also als for each might even be shared, with indicate how, if rabbis want to incor- the meanings being defined differently. porate Jewish elements, other choices (See Michael Fessler’s article “Adoption could be made. And we could explain and Jewish Families: A Proposal” in The how in some cases using (some) sancta Reconstructionist, Fall 2001, and Renée of kiddushin could make sense or might Bauer’s article “‘Patrilineal Descent’ and be considered. Same-Sex Parents: New Definitions of In other words, given the fluid nature Identity” in this issue.) of the impact of intermarriage on the In other words, rather than trying Jewish community, a Mishna/minhag to arrive at a consensus on whether perspective would suggest that trying conversion is or is not required in to set rules while things are very much cases of adoption, we could construct in motion is not productive. Creating a guidelines that provide explanations, variety of approaches, and articulating rationales and rituals that could equally how each might be considered as one be elected depending on the parties and possible legitimate response to a specific particulars involved. The common con- situation, would seem to be a better use cern, to affirm Jewish identity for the of our collective time and energy as a adopted child, might be met in more movement. than one way. V. The Fifth Paradigm: The Use of Sancta “Before and After the Fact”

Another example: The 1983 RRA Another paradigm for contemporary Guidelines on Intermarriage oppose Reconstructionism should be men- the use of Jewish sancta for a wed- tioned. Rabbinic tradition (as well as ding presided over by an RRA rabbi if other traditions) often employs the both partners are not Jewish. Despite distinction between lekhathila and that, there are many RRA rabbis who b’diavad (a-priori and ex-post-facto,. or routinely use Jewish sancta, including “before the fact” and “after the fact.”)

The Reconstructionist Spring 2006 • 15 The import of this for minhag should opportunity to work with a couple in be transparent. What might be optimal proximity to a civil divorce, we would at the outset may not be possible at a urge that a (Reconstructionist) get later stage. We might have different rec- be included as part of the work the ommendations, priorities or procedures couple does in closing the partnered depending on when we come into the stage of their relationship. Conversely, story being presented by an individual, if someone comes to us for remarriage a couple, a family or a community. ten years after a civil divorce and there This does not mean we have nothing was no get back then, we could explain to say, or nothing for which we stand. the issues involved, and assess with the It means rather that if we look at Jewish person if there would be any spiritual tradition as being a spiritual resource, or emotional value to arranging for a then the goal becomes to help people get at this later stage. If there were not, take as much advantage as possible of we could proceed with the remarriage that resource in their own lives, rather even without the get. than having the goal be compliance Similarly, we might urge converts with an abstract set of policies or re- lekhathila to include mikva (ritual im- quirements under all circumstances. mersion). as a ritual of conversion, but if we meet someone years later whose Jewish Divorce as an Example conversion did not include immer- sion, we would not question b’diavad If we apply this paradigm to the case the person’s Jewish identity or status. of a get (Jewish divorce), we can see The question of “what is required” gets the usefulness as well as the unique- translated into “what can be meaning- ness of what could be a Reconstruc- ful at this stage of your life?” While tionist approach to the issue. Rather some might anticipate anarchy in such than framing the question as “does an approach, my experience as a con- Reconstructionist Judaism require a gregational rabbi, and my assessment get for remarriage?” we could instead of anecdotes shared with me by many ask “under what circumstances would Reconstructionist rabbis suggests that we recommend a get as a meaningful more often than not, people are will- ritual?” The focus becomes the people ing, even eager, to take advantage of involved in the divorce, rather than the ritual and spiritual opportunities in their compliance with the requirements Judaism if presented to them as choices of halakha. While not a universal indi- rather than as requirements. cator, we could presume that in many cases, the further the interval between a VI. The Sixth Paradigm: civil divorce and when the discussion of Corridor of Consequence a get arises, the less likely it is that a get would carry significant meaning. When considering how wide a spec- Therefore, many Reconstructionist trum of choices might be optimal, we rabbis might say that if we have an should factor in what I call the “cor-

16 • Spring 2006 The Reconstructionist ridor of consequence.” This simply ritual practices. We don’t want to be means that the upshot of certain ritual “all things to all people,” nor do we decisions, including those that attach to want to say it makes no difference what issues of ishut (personal status) may or choices people make. We do stand for may not be of consequence beyond the the continuity of Jewish tradition and immediate situation and moment. for the preservation of its integrity, even Using divorce again as an example, while we are making changes appropri- if a couple decides to marry and each ate to our time. Towards that end, we person had a prior Jewish marriage that do need to state from time to time what ended without a get, and (the/each) our positions are. woman is past the age of childbear- But what is the question to which ing, the consequences of their second guidelines are the answer? I suggest we marriage in the absence of a get are frame the question as: minimal in terms of the wider Jewish Living in a Mishna-time/minhag community. Since a major consequence paradigm, how do we articulate the of remarriage without a get is that issues, identify norms, explain related Orthodoxy considers offspring of the values, and begin to define the posi- second marriage to be mamzerim (ille- tions along a spectrum of options that gitimate as defined by Jewish law), if no could, with equal integrity, be chosen children are anticipated in the second by Reconstructionist rabbis working in marriage, the corridor of consequence relationship with people in a specific is narrow. circumstance at the time they come Conversely, if a 30-year-old Jewish into contact with those people? woman whose prior marriage ended without a get remarries and has chil- If we adopt some form of that ques- dren, despite the fact that mamzerut is tion as a guideline, we will be on the not an issue for Reconstructionist and way to doing the sort of work the rabbis Reform Judaism, and has been ruled as of the Mishna did in a similar period inoperative by the Conservative move- of transition following trauma: orga- ment, there is at least the potential of a nizing the issues, arranging prior and problem down the line. As the corridor current opinions, and reconstructing of consequence is wider here, a longer the grammar, vocabulary and syntax look at the advisability of a get before of the Jewish religious conversation. remarriage might be in order, even if a We may then hope and trust that the get is not required. common sense and wisdom of the Jew- ish people, infused with the guidance of Reframing the Questions God/liness, and informed by the teach- ing and leadership of Reconstructionist As Reconstructionists, we should rabbis, will lead towards more definitive be able to say how we approach mak- positions in future generations. ing decisions about religious and

The Reconstructionist Spring 2006 • 17