Zeramim: An Online Journal of Applied Jewish Thought Vol. I, Issue 3: Spring 2017 / 5777 Zeramim: An Online Journal of Applied Jewish Thought ~ Vol. I, Issue 3 ~ Spring 2017 / 5777 A Letter From the Editors Dear readers, It is with great pleasure that we present our third issue of Zeramim. Committed to a present and future of Jewish civilization informed and enriched by studies of our history, literature and traditions, Zeramim is proud to publish three issues a year featuring articles representing excellence in scholarship that impacts contemporary Jewish life and thought. Our issue opens with Daniel Stein’s ground-breaking research on the history of the Rabbinical Assembly’s attitudes, policies and actions in regard to any interfaith marriage at which a member of the Conservative rabbinic membership organization officiates. The array of questions surrounding the inclusion of interfaith partnerships have been the subject of many debates among Conservative Jews—lay and clergy—in recent years. Navigating yet another path forward in Conservative Judaism, Ben Sommer compares and synthesizes the theological and interpretive trends found in the teachings of three late Biblical scholars ordained by the Jewish Theological Seminary: Moshe Greenberg, Yochanan Muffs and Jacob Milgrom. Seeking common ground amidst the work of this triad, Sommer proposes a system of conserving and seeking meaning and Jewish identity in the likeness of these teachers’ radical scholarship. Exploring the peculiar ritual of placing stones at graves, David Golinkin illustrates a nearly encyclopedic history of the development of this traditional action so often associated with remembrance of those whom we have lost. Golinkin invites the reader back to the origins of this practice that dates back over a millennium. In contemplating the diversity of current, past and potential liturgical practices regarding reciting the prayer Addir Addirenu, Jonah Rank traces the literary history of and mythic meanings associated with this short prayer. Building layers of meaning found in the prayer through several centuries of commentary and interpretation, Rank proposes a spiritual and halakhic framework to aid the worshiper in appreciating this prayer in contemporary practice. Closing our third issue and previewing our fifth issue, Richard Claman, recognizing the unique challenges of Jewish and American life in the age of Trump, reviews the problematic nexus of nuanced and effective Jewish engagement with the political in society guided by the ideal of civility and neutral discourse. Claman’s article reviews the latest writings on the subject and segues naturally into our final page of this issue: an invitation for our readers—Jewish academics, clergy, professionals, and laypeople alike—to submit their own articles articulating the idealized and actualized relationships between Judaism and the political—and what all this should mean today. Thank you for joining us in exploring the Jewish past, present and future. Senior Editors: Joshua Cahan Richard Claman Marcus Mordecai Schwartz Managing Editor (& Graphic Designer): Jonah Rank Consulting Editor: Judith Hauptman | ~ Table of Contents ~ | Is There a Standard of Rabbinic Practice Against Intermarriage? A History of the Rabbinical Assembly’s Prohibition on Interfaith Marriage DANIEL Z. STEIN p. 3 Reclaiming the Bible as a Jewish Book: The Legacy of Three Conservative Scholars (Yochanan Muffs, Moshe Greenberg, and Jacob Milgrom) BENJAMIN D. SOMMER p. 23 Why Is It Customary To Place A Stone On A Grave? DAVID GOLINKIN p. 49 Addir Addirenu On Shabbat & Beyond JONAH RANK p. 67 Judaism and American Civil/Political Society In the Age of Trump RICHARD L. CLAMAN p. 111 Call for Papers: JUDAISM, THE 21st CENTURY & THE POLITICAL p. 130 Zeramim: An Online Journal of Applied Jewish Thought | Vol. I | Issue 3 | Spring 2017 / 5777 Is There a Standard of Rabbinic Practice Against Intermarriage? A History of the Rabbinical Assembly’s Prohibition on Interfaith Marriage1 Daniel Z. Stein I was presented with my copy of Hatzne’a Lekhet: A Code of Professional Conduct for Members of the Rabbinical Assembly2 during my final year of study at the Jewish Theological Seminary, as part of a seminar on rabbinic ethics. By nature, I am contrarian, so it is not surprising that my interest focused on the illicit thou shalt nots: What behaviors were deemed immoral enough to place my professional credentials and affiliation in jeopardy? With great interest, I turned to the so-called “Standards of Religious Practice,” which I understood to be the categories in Jewish law that held a special status in the Rabbinical Assembly (RA). This is how the Code describes the formulation of these standards: “Standards of Religious Practice” are binding upon all members of the Rabbinical Assembly. Such standards are established through the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards with approval of the Assembly at an annual meeting... Violations of Standards of Religious Practice usually result in expulsion from the Rabbinical Assembly.3 Official publications of the Rabbinical Assembly list four such standards; they largely deal with issues of Jewish identity: May a rabbi officiate at an intermarriage? What is the status of Jews with a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother? May a rabbi perform a marriage absent a rabbinic divorce? 1 I am particularly grateful to Mordecai Martin, without whose assistance this research would not have been possible. Mo spent many hours digging through microfilm at the Jewish Theological Seminary Library on my behalf; he has my gratitude. I am also grateful to Professors Roger Simon and Robert Weiner, who read early drafts of this paper. I am equally in debt to Rabbis Jonah Rank and Joshua Cahan, who guided me with important clarifying questions, and have provided this important forum for applied Jewish studies. Any errors, obviously, remain my own. Finally, I am deeply in debt to my friend Norm Seidel, of blessed memory. Norm was principally opposed to illogical ideas, and our many conversations on jurisprudence inspired me throughout this project. 2 The Rabbinical Assembly, A Code of Professional Conduct for Members of the Rabbinical Assembly. (The Rabbinical Assembly, 2011). Available online as of May 17, 2017: http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/ethical_guidelines/Code%20of%20conduct- 2011-public.pdf. Emphasis added. 3 Ibid., 2. -| ~ 3 ~ |- Is There a Standard of Rabbinic Practice Against Intermarriage? A History of the Rabbinical Assembly’s Prohibition on Interfaith Marriage | Daniel Z. Stein I gave little thought to these standards until recently. The publication of the Pew Research Foundation’s A Portrait of Jewish Americans,4 which highlighted the overwhelming intermarriage rate among non-Orthodox Jews, prompted me to take a deeper look at the development of these standards, and Standard (d) in particular—which states that “[r]abbis may not officiate at, participate in, or attend an intermarriage.”5 I wanted to understand how, exactly, this ban on rabbinic participation in interfaith marriage came into being. Given the language in the Code, I thought the task would be simple enough: I would just read the minutes of the annual meeting at which the Rabbinical Assembly passed the standard. I soon discovered, though, that no evidence of such a vote exists. Instead, an understanding of Standard (d)’s evolution requires an in-depth study of the history of both the RA and its Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS). Such analysis ultimately calls into question the very legitimacy of the Standard; my research suggests that a reevaluation is necessary to determine if it is in any way binding on members of the RA. David Golinkin’s encyclopedic anthology, Proceedings of the CJLS 1927-1970, sheds light on the persistent controversies that shaped the CJLS’s first decades. Perhaps the most vital dispute centered on the function of the committee’s decisions: Was every rabbi a ruler unto himself? Could the rulings of the CJLS be binding on Rabbinical Assembly membership? And, if rulings were “binding,” what precisely did that term mean? Did the Rabbinical Assembly have the right to enforce punitive action on a member who chose to ignore a “binding” decision? This controversy emerged as early as 1927, when the RA established the CJLS as an advisory body on halakha for rabbis in the field. The resolution establishing the CJLS attempted to create a degree of cohesive practice among RA members; while the committee was to include rabbis representing a wide array of opinions, if it was to reach a unanimous decision on an issue, it was to be regarded “as the authoritative opinion of the Rabbinical Assembly.”6 In any other instance, the CJLS was to issue both majority and minority opinions, both of which were to be 4 The Pew Research Center, A Portrait of Jewish Americans. (The Pew Research Center, October 2014). Accessed online on May 17, 2017: http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/10/jewish-american-full-report- for-web.pdf. 5 Ibid.. 6 Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, Proceedings of the Committee of Jewish Law and Standards, 1927–1970, vol. I. Ed. David Golinkin, (New York: The Rabbinical Assembly, 1970), 4. The early years of the -| ~ 4 ~ |- Is There a Standard of Rabbinic Practice Against Intermarriage? A History of the Rabbinical Assembly’s Prohibition on Interfaith Marriage | Daniel Z. Stein considered valid.7 A unanimous decision of the CJLS could thus be considered “authoritative,” although the precise meaning of that term was unclear. In 1948, when the committee was reformed, the RA’s resolution strove for greater clarity; it included a clause declaring that “[d]ecisions rendered by the Committee unanimously shall be binding on all members of the Rabbinical Assembly.”8 During the same voting session, though, the Rabbinical Assembly rejected a resolution that allowed for punitive measures if a rabbi failed to comply with a “binding” decision; this rejected resolution reads, in part: Disciplinary sanctions against members who defy the unanimous decisions of the Committee shall not be the business of the Committee, but of a special court to be set up by the Assembly.