Response to the Union of Orthodox Rabbis Statement

By Rabbi Barry Freundel

Recently, the Union of Orthodox Rabbis released a statement declaring Conservative and Reform Judaism "not to be Judaism at all." This statement was seen as inflammatory and divisive by the mainstream of the Orthodox community, including the Rabbinical Council of America and the Union of Orthodox Congregations of America (the familiar "OU"--please note that this is a different organization than the Union of Orthodox Rabbis).

I have a more fundamental difficulty with the statement made by the Union of Orthodox rabbis. To my knowledge of halachik (Jewish legal) history, this statement is unprecedented and, therefore, without halachik credibility. Sadly, we have known schisms and differences throughout history. Despite debate, recrimination, and argument, I know of no time in history when traditional Judaism declared the Essenes, the Sadducees, the Karaites, or any other group of Jews "not to be Judaism at all," on the basis of ideological and practical differences.

According to my understanding of history, the only time a group has been read out of Judaism is when that groupís members are no longer, in large part, halachikally Jewish. The Christians, as demonstrated in Professor Lawrence Schiffman's seminal book Who Was a Jew? are an example of this as they were declared outside the pale at the point where a large number of "converts" were brought into the Judeo-Christian community without going through a halachikally acceptable conversion process. At the point where these converts vastly outnumbered those that were halachikally Jewish, the Rabbis declared Christianity to be a separate religion.

This paradigm does not presently apply to our differences with Reform and Conservative Judaism. Even the Union of Orthodox Rabbis took great care in stating the halachik position that any person born of a Jewish mother is Jewish. The large majority of Conservative and Reform Jews meet this crtieria. Instead, both in terms of doctrine and practice, our debates with these groups are similar to those between the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, or those between the Rabbinites and the Karaites. Rabbinite, or Pharisaic Judaism, never declared those earlier groups "not to be Judaism at all." This statement by the Union of Orthodox Rabbis, therefore, does not follow the tradition of our halachik ancestors in responding to doctrinal disagreement within Judaism.

To understand this in another way, one needs to realize that the Union of Orthodox Rabbis has fallen victim to thinking in Western modes of thought, rather than in Jewish legal categories. The term "Judaism," meaning (as the Encyclopaedia Britannica explains it) "the religion of the Jews," is a handy catch word that we all use as we discuss our beliefs and our community within the Western, secular world. However, the Jewish people does not and should not view itself as an "ism." We are far more than a religion. We are, as I'm sure every member of the Union or Orthodox Rabbis would agree, an entire way of life governed by Torah and halachah. As such, the judgment of a particular individual or a particular group, is not simply a judgment of its "ism," but of every one of its individual beliefs and actions.

Using that measuring rod, which is the only one I've ever understood Torah and halachah to subscribe to, there are certainly many profound and fundamental areas of disagreement between what we call "Orthodox," and what we call "Conservative" and "Reform". There is no way to minimize those disagreements, and one should not overlook the fact that they touch on the core issues of Jewish identity, Jewish belief, and Jewish survival. The differences are profound, painful, and present perplexing problems as we try to deal with the issues that confront us as a total community.

Nonetheless, to declare all activities of Conservative and Reform Jews in a religious setting not to be a part of Judaism is simply not correct. Despite the halachik problems that we have in the way a Conservative or Reform synagogue is built, despite the disagreements we might have in the way a minyan (a prayer quorum) is constituted in a Conservative or Reform temple, despite our objections to many liturgical changes they have made, I would ask the Union of Orthodox rabbis the following question. When a Conservative or Reform Jew comes to his synagogue or temple, and puts on a pair of kosher Tefillin because his Rabbi tells him that Jewish law requires this ritual, is that not an act of religious significance according to Halachah? Does he not fulfill a mitzvah by doing so? Is he not fulfilling his obligation as a Jew? Similarly, if a poor person came to the synagogue door and charity were collected by the synagogue for him, would not this constitute fulfillment of the mitzvah of Tzedakah for all who contribute?

I do not believe that any member of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis would answer these questions in the negative. They must, therefore, see these acts as Jewishly significant even though it is performed under Conservative or Reform auspices. Further, I know of no halachik source that even suggests that actions such as this are not Jewishly significant. On the other hand, I know of many sources that say that it is.

An example appears in the writings of Moses Maimonides, the great codifier of Jewish law. Maimonides in his code, his magnum opus, has several very uncomplimentary things to say about the founders of Karaism. His condemnation of them challenges their beliefs and declares those beliefs fundamentally flawed in ways that parallel the most critical attacks on Conservative and Reform ideology that one finds in Orthodox circles today. (Maimonides, Laws of Mamrim, Ch. 3.) It is interesting to note that even here, Maimonides' treatment of those raised as Karaites is far more lenient and tolerant.

Maimonides also wrote responsa. Responsa are the case law of Judaism. Responsa, as opposed to statutes or codes, deal with the practical application to real situations of the principles enunciated in our books of law. In two pivotal letters, (Blau edition nos. 265 and 449) Maimonides lays out an agenda for the Rabbinites dealing with the Karaites of his day. In the first, Maimonides is asked whether a Karaite should be counted toward a minyan. Maimonides answers, "no." His grounds for saying so are that Karaites do not believe in a minyan. As part of their practice, as part of their ideology, they do not accept Rabbinic law, so this concept is foreign to them. As such, says Maimonides, we cannot work with them in an area in which they fundamentally do not believe as we do. However, says Maimonides, in those areas where they believe as we do, we are duty-bound to work with them and to share with them. Maimonides cites as an example, circumcision, which is accepted by the Karaites as it was by the Rabbinites.

Maimonides goes even further in the second responsum, stating unequivocally that in all areas of agreement, the Rabbinite community must support the Karaite community, and further, that we are to treat them in ways that reflect aspects of honor (Riuyim Hem Lechalkam Meichelkei Hakavod). Again, my question to the Union of Orthodox Rabbis is why doesn't this paradigm apply today? And further, is not this paradigm completely at odds with your statement and with your actions?

The Chazon Ish is an icon of right-wing Orthodox ideology. His personality and the scope of his genius makes him a force to be reckoned with for anyone serious about halachah. In discussing those who had deviated from halachah in his day (the late 19th and early 20th centuries), the Chazon Ish lays down three very important principles (Yoreh Deah, 2:16). 1)Actions which appear to the world to be unethical and morally bankrupt must be avoided. 2)We in the traditional community must dedicate the totality of ourselves to healing the breaches in the community (Kol Atzmeinu Letaken). 3)Given the contemporary situation, our policy with regard to our brethren who have chosen to deny the authority of Jewish law in whole or in part is to approach them with chains of love (Avotot Shel Ahavah). Again, I must ask the Union of Orthodox Rabbis, where is the paradigm of the Chazon Ish in what they are saying and in what they have done?

The closest the Jewish community has ever come to having a cult leader was in the person of Jacob Frank. Jacob Frank, by all historical accounts, was a charlatan who mixed messianism, sabbateanism, and popular mysticism to justify acts such as orgies and the eating of non-kosher fat in the name of G-d. He was denounced and opposed by every responsible religious leader of his day. Later in life, he converted to Christianity. On the day that he experienced that conversion the Baíal Shem Tov, the founder of Chassidism, fasted. The Ba'al Shem was approached by his students, who said, "This man is anathema to everything that you stand for. Why, then, are you fasting for him?"

Responded the Ba'al Shem, "As long as a limb of the tree is attached to the tree, no matter what problems it has, there is still a chance that it can be saved. Once the limb is severed, there is no longer any hope." The Union of Orthodox Rabbis, in opposition to the paradigms of Maimonides, Chazon Ish, and the Ba'al Shem Tov, have engaged in an act of severing of limbs. It is not simply enough to declare their statement divisive; it must be recognized as being anti-halachik, as well.