Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Conserv
ative
Judaism
:O
ur
Ancesto
rsto
Our
Descen
dan
ts
D.
The
Ques
tion
ofA
utho
rh!V
;O
rtho
dox,
Ref
iinn,
and
Four
Con
serv
ativ
e
The
orie
sofR
evel
atio
n
Why
shou
ldJe
ws
obse
rve
the
mitz
vot?
The
Bib
legi
ves
man
yan
swer
sto
that
ques
tion
(aga
in,
see
my
othe
rU
SYso
urce
book
,M
itzva
hM
eans
Com
man
dmen
t,fo
ra
disc
ussi
onof
them
),bu
t
the
mos
tco
mm
onon
eis
sim
ply
that
God
com
man
ded
usat
Sina
ito
doso
.T
here
God
reve
aled
(sho
wed
)H
isw
illto
us,
and
soph
ilos
ophe
rssa
yth
at“r
evel
atio
n”oc
curr
edth
ere.
The
Bib
leis
care
ful
tode
scri
beth
atev
ent
inim
pres
sive
term
s:th
ere
was
ligh
tnin
g,th
unde
r,
arid
eart
hqua
kes
(She
mot
19:1
6,18
),an
dth
ew
hole
grou
pof
600,
000
Isra
elite
sw
itne
ssed
wha
tha
ppen
edth
ere
(She
mot
12:3
7).
Mor
eim
port
antly
,th
atev
ent
mad
eth
ela
wbi
ndin
gon
Jew
sfo
ral
lge
nera
tion
sto
com
e:
Itw
asri
otw
ithou
rfa
ther
sth
atth
eL
ord
mad
eth
isco
vena
nt,
but
wit
hus
,th
e
livin
g,ev
ery
one
ofus
who
ishe
reto
day.
Face
tofa
ceth
elo
rdsp
oke
toyo
u
onth
em
ount
ain
out
ofth
efi
re.
(Dev
arim
5:3-
4;se
eal
soD
evar
im29
:9-1
4)
Kno
w,
ther
efor
e,th
aton
lyth
eLo
rdyo
urG
odis
God
,th
est
eadf
ast
God
who
keep
sH
isgr
acio
usco
vena
ntto
the
thou
sand
thge
nera
tion
ofth
ose
who
love
Him
and
keep
His
com
man
dmen
ts,
butw
hoin
stan
tlyre
quit
esw
ithde
stru
ctio
n
thos
ew
hore
ject
Him
—ne
ver
slow
with
thos
ew
hore
ject
Him
,pu
nish
ing
them
inst
antly
.T
here
fore
obse
rve
faith
fully
the
Inst
ruct
ion,
the
law
s,an
dth
eno
rms
with
whi
chIc
harg
eyo
uto
day.
(Dev
arim
7:9-
11)
As
the
abov
eci
tatio
nsin
dica
te,
ther
ear
etw
ore
ason
sw
hyth
eLa
wth
atG
odga
veat
Sina
iis
eter
nall
ybi
ndin
g.Fi
rst,
our
fore
fath
ers
mad
ea
cove
nant
(agr
eem
ent)
wit
hG
odin
whi
chth
e
Isra
elit
esw
ere
prom
ised
the
land
ofIs
rael
and
the
stat
usof
bein
gG
od’s
Cho
sen
Peo
ple
in
retu
rnfo
rob
serv
ing
His
com
man
dmen
ts,
and
sow
em
ust
obse
rve
the
mit
zvot
beca
use
we
prom
ised
todo
so.
You
mig
htsa
yto
your
self
that
itis
not
fair
that
you
shou
ldbe
boun
dby
wha
tyo
uran
cest
ors
prom
ised
,bu
ttha
tw
ould
not
beri
ght:
you
shou
ldun
ders
tand
the
even
t
atSi
nai
asif
you
your
self
wer
eth
ere
and
part
icip
ated
inth
epr
omis
e.A
sth
eH
agga
dah
of
Pass
over
phra
ses
it:
Inev
ery
gene
rati
ona
pers
onm
ust
look
upon
him
/her
self
asif
heor
she
pers
onal
lyha
dco
me
out
from
Egyp
t,as
the
Bib
lesa
ys:
“And
you
shal
lex
plai
n
toyo
urch
ildon
that
day,
“It
isbe
caus
eof
wha
tth
eL
ord
did
for
me
whe
nI
wen
tfr
eefr
omE
gypt
”(S
hem
ot13
:8).
For
itw
asno
tal
one
our
fore
fath
ers
who
mth
eH
oly
One
,pr
aise
dbe
He,
rede
emed
,bu
tH
ere
deem
edus
toge
ther
with
them
,as
itis
said
:“H
efr
eed
usfr
omth
ere
tobr
ing
usto
,an
dgi
veus
,th
e
land
that
He
prom
ised
onoa
thto
our
fore
fath
ers.
”(D
evar
im6:
23)
96
(Inc
iden
tally
,th
esa
me
istr
uefo
rse
cula
rla
w.
The
cons
titu
tion
ofth
eco
untr
yin
whi
chyo
u
live
isbi
ndin
gup
onyo
uev
enth
ough
you
wer
ene
ver
aske
dw
heth
eryo
uap
prov
eof
it.
Sim
ply
iden
tify
ing
ason
eof
itsci
tize
nsan
dre
apin
gth
ebe
nefi
tsof
citi
zens
hip
obli
gate
you
toob
eyit.
You
may
neve
rha
vepr
omis
edob
edie
nce
toit
inw
ords
,bu
tyo
urac
tion
sin
dica
te
‘tac
it[s
ilent
]co
nsen
t,”as
the
polit
ical
phil
osop
her
Tho
mas
Hob
bes
said
.Si
mila
rly,
inte
rnat
iona
lag
reem
ents
dono
tha
veto
bere
new
edw
ith
each
new
gove
rnm
ent
or
gene
ratio
n:th
eybi
ndbo
thpa
rtie
sfo
reve
run
less
ther
eis
asp
ecif
icti
me
limit
inth
eor
igin
al
agre
emen
tor
unle
ssbo
thpa
rtie
sag
ree
tore
nego
tiat
eth
eag
reem
ent.
)9
Sec
ondl
y,th
eL
awof
Sina
iis
eter
nal
beca
use
God
,w
hoga
veit
and
enfo
rces
it,is
eter
nal.
Why
,th
en,
shou
ldw
ego
any
furt
her?
Why
shou
ldw
eno
tsi
mpl
ysa
yth
atyo
ush
ould
obse
rve
Jew
ish
law
beca
use
itsro
otis
inth
eT
orah
,an
dth
atis
the
will
ofG
od?
Man
ydo
say
that
,bu
tso
me
dono
t,an
dev
enth
ose
who
doho
ldth
atpo
siti
onfe
elco
mpe
lled
tode
alw
ithtw
opr
oble
ms
inth
atas
sert
ion.
The
first
conc
erns
the
act
ofre
vela
tion
,an
dth
e
seco
ndre
volv
esar
ound
itspr
oduc
t:
(a)
Inre
gard
toth
eac
tof
reve
lati
on,
we
ask:
Wha
tha
ppen
edat
Sina
i?H
owdo
we
know
that
itw
asG
odsp
eaki
ng?
Per
haps
the
who
leac
coun
tof
the
reve
lati
onat
Sina
iis
sim
ply
apr
oduc
tof
som
eone
’sim
agin
atio
n.E
ven
ifG
oddi
dsp
eak,
how
dow
ekn
owth
at
He
was
unde
rsto
odco
rrec
tly?
(b)
Inre
gard
toth
epr
oduc
tof
the
acto
frev
elat
ion—
that
is,
the
Tor
ah—
we
ask:
Isth
is
the
dire
cttr
ansc
ript
ion
ofG
od’s
wor
ds?
Ifso
,ho
wdo
we
expl
ain
som
eof
the
cont
radi
ctio
ns
inits
law
s(e
.g.,
Pass
over
isto
bece
lebr
ated
for
seve
nda
ysac
cord
ing
toS
hem
ot13
:6,
Vay
ikra
23:6
,an
dD
evar
im16
:3,
but
for
only
six
days
inD
evar
im16
:8;
She
mot
20:2
1pe
rmit
sth
e
erec
tion
ofa
sanc
tuar
yan
ywhe
re,
but
Dev
arim
12:4
-5re
stri
cts
the
sanc
tuar
yto
asi
ngle
shri
ne
inal
lof
Isra
el)?
And
wha
tab
out
the
vari
atio
nsin
itsst
orie
s(e
.g.,
the
diff
eren
tor
ders
of
Cre
atio
nde
pict
edin
Cha
pter
sO
nean
dT
wo
ofB
eres
hit,
and
the
diff
eren
tpa
ths
desc
ribe
dfo
r
the
Isra
elite
sin
Bam
idba
r20
:21
and
Dev
arim
2:4)
?A
ndho
wdo
we
expl
ain
the
sim
ilar
ity
of
som
eof
itsla
ws
(e.g
.,ey
efo
ran
eye)
and
stor
ies
(e.g
.,fl
ood
stor
ies)
toth
ose
ofth
ena
tion
s
surr
ound
ing
the
Isra
elite
sdu
ring
bibl
ical
times
?A
ndw
hat
abou
tth
eva
rian
tve
rsio
nsof
the
Bib
leth
atw
eha
ve?
Even
ifG
odre
veal
edH
isw
illat
Sina
i,hu
man
bein
gsha
veco
pied
itan
d
inte
rpre
ted
itth
roug
hout
all
the
gene
rati
ons,
and
soho
wca
nw
ebe
assu
red
that
wha
tw
e
have
inha
ndis
anyt
hing
like
wha
tG
odga
ve,
and
how
dow
ekn
owth
atou
rin
terp
reta
tion
ofit
isan
ythi
nglik
ew
hat
God
inte
nded
then
—or
wan
tsus
todo
now
?
97
I
4)M
AN
SA
BIL
ITY
TO
2)T
HE
NA
TU
RE
OF
3)T
HE
AU
TH
OR
ITY
OF
TH
EC
HA
NG
ET
HE
BIB
LE
SL
AW
SR
EV
EL
AT
ION
BIB
LE
LA
WS
AN
DID
EA
SA
ND
IDE
AS
None,since
God
revealedthe
answers
toV
erbalRevelation:
allfuturequestions
atSinaiand
man
doesnotknow
more
thanG
od.The
Torah,including
boththe
Written
and
Except ions:
Oral
Traditions,
consistsof
theexact
God’s
will
words
ofGod.
He
gaveitallas
onepiece
I)A
pplicationsto
newsituations
atSinai,andw
ehave
thosew
ordsin
hand.(w
hichw
erealso
revealedatSinai).
2)C
hoiceofone
positionin
thecodes
orresponsa
overothers.
Same
asO
flhodo,t(butusuallychoose
theC
ontinuousR
evelation:lenientposition
inthe
cod
es)
plu
sG
oddictatej
His
will
atSinai
andother
3)Places
where
themare
clearscribaltim
es.It
was
wnttcn
down
byhum
anG
od’sw
illerrors.
beings,how
ever,and
hencethe
diverse4)
Clear
borrowings
fromother
cultures.traditions
inthe
Bible.
That
is,distinguishthe
divineand
huniajielem
entsin
ourte
xts,
Hum
anbeings
canchange
thembecause
rabbisin
eachgeneration
may
beinspired
Continuous
Revelation:
toa
newM
idrash;they
must
becausethe
Hum
anbeings
wrote
theT
orah,but
theyG
od’sw
illrabbis
ofeach
generationare
chargedw
eredivinely
inspired,w
iththe
responsibilityto
keepJew
ishL
awviable
bybalancing
traditionand
change.
We
continueto
haveencounters
with
God,
Continuous
Revelaijon:
andthe
lawm
ustbechanged
toreflect
theThe
Torah
isthe
human
recordo
fthe
newU
nderstandingof
God’s
will
thatencounter
between
God
andthe
PeopleG
od’sw
illIsrael
atSinai.
Sinceit
was
written
byC
ovept
with
God
andthe
Jewish
resultsfrom
theseencounters
Itis
thePeople
ofpast,present
andfuture.
rabbis,representing
thecom
munity,
andhum
anbeings,itcontajn
some
laws
andnotevery
individualonhis
own,
who
must
ideasw
hichw
efind
repugnanttoday.determ
inethe
contentofJewish
lawin
ourday.
Com
munalauthorities
ineach
generationcan
andm
usthelpindividuals
reconstructVo
Revelation:
Judaismw
ithcurrent
andm
eaningfulI)
Tradition
(custom)
Hum
anbeings
wrote
theT
orahN
oclaim
customs
andideas,
butobservance
offordivinty
ofthe
product,2)
InternalW
isdomrituals
isvoluntary;
anorganized
creative
_________________________________
comm
unityof
thefuture
couldestablish
andenforce
moral
laws.
Pro
gpe
55j
Revelatian.
I)M
orallaw
scom
efrom
God.
TheToraJiis
God’s
willw
rittenby
human
2)Ritual
laws
haveno
authoritybecause:
beings.A
stim
egoes
on,w
eget
toa)
prophetscancelled
them.
Every
individualdecides
bothw
hatand
5flderstandH
isw
illbetterand
betterb)
Rabbinic
laws
were
intendedfor
howto
obey.....p
rog
reslis
.vela
t0fl.)
specificperiods
only.
T—
II
ISO
ME
EX
PO
NE
NT
SO
FT
HE
II)
ME
TH
OD
OF
ST
UD
YI
APPR
OA
CH
No
distinctionbetw
eenP
’shatand
OR
TH
OD
OX
Berkovits, L
amm
Derash:
meaning
of
text
=m
eaningthat
traditionalcom
mentators
assignedto
it.
HISTO
RIC
AL
METH
OD
:D
istinguishL
eeser,K
ohut,betw
eenP
eshatand
Derush:
determine
CO
NS
ER
VA
TIV
EI
SchechterP
eshatthrough
literaryand
historicalR
othanalysis.
Bokser,
Gonlis
CO
NS
ER
VA
TIV
EII
Routtenberg
Existenialists:Jacobs,
Schorsch,H
eschel.G
illman
CO
NS
ER
VA
TIV
E111
Objectivists:L
ieber,D
orff
CO
NS
ER
VA
TIV
EIV
Kaplan, E
isentein,
=R
econstructiontendency)
Green,T
eutsch,Schuiw
eis
RE
FO
RM
Petuchowski,
Borow
itz,1937
Guiding
Principles1976
Centenary
Perspective
“
The
sear
eha
rdqu
esti
ons,
but
itis
nece
ssar
yto
face
them
squa
rely
ifyo
uar
eev
ergo
ing
to
unde
rsta
ndth
eau
thor
itybe
hind
Jew
ish
law
.T
his
ises
peci
ally
impo
rtan
tfo
rth
eC
onse
rvat
ive
Mov
emen
tbe
caus
efr
omits
begi
nnin
git
has
been
base
don
taki
ngan
hist
oric
alap
proa
chto
the
text
sof
our
trad
itio
n,an
dth
atap
proa
chm
akes
the
prob
lem
slis
ted
in(b
)al
lth
em
ore
com
pell
ing,
asyo
uw
illse
e.
Tosh
owyo
uth
ere
spon
ses
toth
ese
ques
tion
s,it
will
behe
lpfu
lto
dist
ingu
ish
four
sepa
rate
,
but
rela
ted
ques
tion
s:
(1)
Met
hod
ofSt
udy:
How
shou
ldw
est
udy
the
Bib
le?
Sho
uld
we
see
itas
the
dire
ct
wor
dof
God
,or
isit
abo
okw
ritt
enby
hum
anbe
ings
and
ther
efor
esu
bjec
tto
hist
oric
al,
liter
ary,
and
phil
osop
hica
lan
alys
islik
eot
her
book
s?T
hese
are
ques
tion
s
conc
erni
ngth
epr
oduc
tof
reve
lati
on,
the
ques
tion
slis
ted
in(b
)ab
ove
(2)
The
Nat
ure
ofR
evel
atio
n:W
here
did
the
Bib
leco
me
from
?R
evel
atio
n?If
so,
how
shou
ldw
eun
ders
tand
how
that
occu
rred
?If
not,
then
why
did
the
peop
lew
how
rote
itca
llit
the
wor
dof
God
?
(3)
The
Aut
hori
tyof
the
Bib
le’s
Law
san
dId
eas:
Isth
eB
ible
asp
ecia
lbo
okfo
rus
beca
use
itca
rrie
sth
eau
thor
ity
ofG
odor
for
anot
her
reas
on—
oris
ita
com
bina
tion
ofbo
th?
The
answ
erto
this
ques
tion
will
depe
ndve
rym
uch
onho
ww
ean
swer
(1)
and
(2).
(4)
The
War
rant
for
Hum
anB
eing
sto
Cha
nge
the
Bib
le’s
Law
sor
Idea
s:D
ope
ople
,
whe
ther
indi
vidu
ally
orco
llec
tive
lyin
som
efo
rum
,ha
veth
eri
ght
orob
liga
tion
to
mak
esu
chch
ange
s?If
so,
how
?T
hean
swer
toth
ose
ques
tion
sob
viou
sly
depe
nds
upon
the
answ
ers
to(1
),(2
),an
d(3
).
Des
pite
som
eva
riat
ions
,th
eO
rtho
dox
answ
erth
ese
four
ques
tion
sin
one
basi
cw
ay,
and
the
sam
eis
true
for
the
Ref
orm
Mov
emen
t.’
0T
here
are
atle
ast
four
dist
inct
resp
onse
sin
the
Con
serv
ativ
eM
ovem
ent.
We
will
cons
ider
each
ofth
ose
appr
oach
esin
turn
.T
ohe
lpyo
u
keep
trac
kof
the
disc
ussi
on,
keep
your
fing
eron
the
page
sco
ntai
ning
the
char
ton
the
prec
edin
gpa
ges.
Do
not
expe
ctto
unde
rsta
ndev
eryt
hing
;so
me
thin
gsm
ayev
ense
em
conf
usin
gat
first
glan
ce.
The
enti
rech
art
will
beex
plai
ned
inth
efo
llow
ing
page
s.
Let
usno
wta
keth
epo
siti
ons
one
byon
e.
1.O
rtho
dox
The
Ort
hodo
xaf
firm
that
God
reve
aled
His
will
atSi
nai
inbo
tha
Wri
tten
and
anO
ral
form
.
The
Ora
ltr
aditi
onw
asul
tim
atel
yw
ritte
ndo
wn
inR
abbi
nic
liter
atur
e,It
cons
ists
ofth
ew
ay
inw
hich
God
wan
ted
the
Wri
tten
law
(the
Tor
ah)
tobe
inte
rpre
tan
dap
plie
d.
Con
sequ
ently
the
rhea
ning
ofan
ygi
ven
vers
eof
the
Bib
leis
wha
tth
eT
alm
ud,
Mid
rash
,an
d
late
rco
mm
enta
ries
say
itis.
Thu
sE
lieze
rB
erko
vits
,an
Ort
hodo
xra
bbi
who
was
form
erly
a
prof
esso
rat
Heb
rew
The
olog
ical
Col
lege
inC
hica
goan
dw
hono
wte
ache
sat
Bar
Han
Uni
vers
ity
inIs
rael
,m
aint
ains
:...e
ver
yw
ord
ofth
eT
orah
,an
d,of
cour
se,
ever
y
com
man
dmen
tha
sits
sour
cein
God
;bu
tth
em
eani
ngof
the
reve
aled
wor
dor
com
man
dmen
tis
give
nin
the
oral
trad
ition
,th
eT
orah
she-
be’a
l peh
alon
e.””
Mor
eove
rth
e
text
sof
the
Bib
lean
dT
alm
udth
atw
eha
vein
hand
mus
tbe
unde
rsto
ocj
asth
eex
act
wor
dof
God
beca
use
ifa
hum
anbe
ing
wro
tedo
wn
God
’sw
ord,
the
reco
rdof
itth
atw
eha
vem
ay
bein
erro
r,A
sR
abbi
Nor
man
Lam
m,
Pre
side
ntof
Yes
hiva
Uni
vers
ity,
says
:
I acc
ept
unap
olog
etic
ally
the
idea
ofth
eve
rbal
reve
latio
nof
the
Tor
ah.
Ido
not
take
seri
ousl
yth
eca
rica
ture
ofth
isid
eaw
hich
redu
ces
Mos
esto
ase
cret
ary
taki
ngdi
ctat
ion.
Any
com
peti
ngno
tion
ofre
vela
tion
,su
chas
the
vari
ous
Insp
irat
ion”
theo
ries
,ca
nsi
mila
rly
bem
ade
toSo
und
absu
rdby
anth
ropo
mor
phic
para
llel
s,E
xact
lyho
wth
isco
mm
unic
atio
nto
okpl
ace
no
one
can
say:
itis
nole
ssm
yste
riou
sth
anth
ena
ture
ofth
eO
new
ho
spok
e.,..
How
God
spok
eis
am
yste
ry;
how
Mos
esre
ceiv
edth
ism
essa
geis
an
irre
leva
ncy
Tha
tG
odsp
oke
isof
the
utm
ost
signif
ican
,an
dw
hat
He
said
mus
tth
eref
ore
bein
telli
gibl
eto
hum
ans
ina
hum
anco
ntex
t,ev
enif
one
insi
sts
upon
anen
dles
sly
prof
ound
mys
tical
over
plus
ofm
eani
ngin
the
text
.T
ode
ny
that
God
can
mak
eH
isw
illcl
earl
ykn
own
isto
impo
seup
onH
ima
lim
itat
ion
ofdu
mbn
ess
that
wou
ldin
sult
the
leas
tof
His
hum
ancr
eatu
res’
2
Tha
t,of
cour
se,
rais
esal
lth
equ
esti
ons
abou
tth
ebi
blic
alan
dta
lmud
icte
xts
that
we
men
tion
edea
rlie
rin
(b)
and
that
lead
othe
rpe
ople
toan
alyz
eth
eB
ible
hist
oric
ally
.R
abbi
tam
mre
cogn
izes
that
asa
prob
lem
,bu
the
dow
npla
ysth
eev
iden
ce:
Lite
rary
criti
cism
ofth
eB
ible
isa
prob
lem
,bu
tno
ta
cruc
ial
one.
Juda
ism
has
succ
essf
ully
met
grea
ter
chal
leng
esin
the
past
.H
ighe
rC
ritic
ism
[app
lyin
g
liter
ary
anal
ysis
toth
eB
ible
jis
far
inde
edfr
oman
exac
tsc
ienc
e.T
hest
artli
ng
lack
ofaeem
ent
amon
gsc
hola
rson
any
one
criti
cal
view
;th
era
dica
lch
ange
s
inge
nera
lor
ient
atio
nin
mor
ere
cent
year
s;th
em
any
revi
sion
sth
at
arch
aeol
ogy
has
forc
edup
onlit
erar
ycr
itics
;an
dth
eun
fort
unat
ene
glec
tev
en
101
100
byB
iblescholars
ofm
uchfirst-rate
scholarshipin
modern
Hebrew
Supportingthe
traditionalclaim
ofM
osaicauthorship
—all
thesereduce
thequestion
ofH
igherC
riticismfrom
them
assiveproportions
ithas
oftenassum
edto
arelatively
minor
andm
anageableproblem
thatis
chieflya
nuisancebut
nota
threatto
theenlightened
believ
er.13
What this
effectivelym
eansis
thatO
rthodoxbelievers
must
beintellectually
schizophrenic,because
theyapproach
theT
orahin
atotally
different way
thanthey
studyany
otherbook.
Orthodox
Jews
may
usetheir
minds
andscholarly
methods
ofanalysis
tounderstand
anyother
text,but
theB
ibleand
Talm
udare
different.T
heym
ustunderstand
suchclassical
Jewish
textsas
thetradition
hasinterpreted
them,
ignoringor
somehow
circumventing
thosefactual
andintellectual
problems
which
arisefrom
archaeologicalfinds,
literaryor
linguisticanalysis,
cross-culturalstudies,
scientificdiscoveries,
andthe
like.
The
advantageof
that,of
course,is
thatG
odH
imself
isspeaking
inboth
thelegal
andnon-legal
sectionsof the
Bible,
andtherefore
bothare
trueand
authoritative.M
oreover,the
laws
areunchangeably
binding.Thus
Rabbi
EliezerB
erkovitssays
this:
As
tothe
meaning
ofthe
comm
andments,
eventhose
thatapparently
haveneither
ethicalnor
doctrinalcontent,
onem
ust—
asalw
ays—
referto
theoral
tradition1
asw
ellas
tothe
continuallydeveloping
philosophyand
theologyof
Judaism.
One
may
explainthe
ritualcom
mandm
entsaccording
toSaadia’s
hedonism,
oraccording
toY
ehudaH
alevi’squasi-m
ysticism;
accordingto
Maim
onideS’Srationalism
, orK
abbalisticm
ysticism, or
accordingto
some
more
sophisticatedm
odernreligious
philosophyor
theology.The
comm
andments,
however,
remain
unchangeablybin
din
g.
14
David
Singer, anO
rthodoxJew
who
iseditor
ofthe
Am
ericanJew
ishY
earbook,puts
it more
bluntlythan
therabbis
do,but
hisform
ulationgives
onea
goodinsight
intothe
mindset
ofO
rthodoxJudaism
:
“...The
lineof
authorityis
clear:G
odissues
them
archingorders
andm
anobeys.
About
thesem
archingorders
thereisnothing
atall
vague—
we
aretalking
aboutlaw
,law
thatencom
passesthe
whole
oflife
andis
sharplyfocused
indetail.
As
forobedience,
itentailsan
urgentfeeling
ofobligation,
inw
hichthe
solecriterion
ofsignificance
isthe
will
ofG
od.L
udicrousthough
itmay
seemto
others,fox
thecom
mitted
Orthodox
Jew,
nottearing
toiletpaper
onthe
Sabbathis
aserious
religiousissue.’5
Ifaskedabout
thechanges
that havein
fact takenplace
inJew
ishlaw
,m
ostO
rthodoxJew
s’6
would
claimthat
theyw
erenot
changesbut
simply
extensionsof
theLaw
,and
moreover
thoseextensions
were
alreadyrevealed
atSinai.In
otherw
ords,they
would
interpretSource
#28in
Section(C) of
thischapter
literally(butperhaps
incorrectly)and
notas
itwas
explained
2.5)ConservatIve
I-IV
All
ofthe
otherpositions
listedon
thechart
takean
historicalapproach
tothe
textsof
ourtradition.
That
is,the
textsare
understoodin
thecontext
ofthe
times
andplaces
inw
hichthey
were
written.
Adistinction
istherefore
made
between
them
eaningof
thetext
asit
stands(thepeshat)
aridthe
meaning(s)
thatlater
generationsascribed
tothe
text(the
rnidrash,or
derash).
Historical
analysisreveals
thatthe
Torah
consistsof
severaldocum
ents(“the
Docum
entaryH
ypothesis”)corning
fromdifferentperiods
andplaces
andedited
togetherby
thetim
eof
Ezra(444
B.C.E.).T
hem
ostcom
mon
versionof
thistheory
identifiesfour
documents
within
theT
orah,labeled
J,E,
P.and
D.
Inbroad
terms,
theJ
document
refersto
thesections
ofthe
Torah
which
referto
God
byG
od’sproper
name
(thetetragram
maton
ofyod-heh-vav-heh,
or“Jehovah,”
oftentranslated
as‘Lord’);
theE
documentrefers
toG
odas
“Elohim,”
usuallytranslated
as“G
od”;the
Pdocum
entis
thepriestly
code,including
much
ofV
ayikraand
sectionsofthe
otherbooks;
andD
isD
evarim,
adocum
entseparate
fromthose
which
make
upthe
firstfour
booksof
theT
orahand
whose
authorsw
ereprobably
alsothe
authorsof
Melakhim
,Jerem
iah,and
Eikhah.
Sometim
esthe
historicalapproach
iscalled
“biblicalcriticism
”or
“thecritical
approach,”not
becausepeople
who
want
tostudy
theB
iblehistorically
disrespectitand
want
todim
inishits
stature(“critical”
inthe
senseof
criticize),but
ratherbecause
studyingthe
Bible
historicallysubjects
itto
historicalanalysis
(or“critique”).
The
advantageof
understandingthe
texthistorically
isclear:
youdo
nothave
tobe
intellectuallyschizophrenic,applying
differentm
ethodsof
analysisto
Jewish
textsfrom
thosew
hichyou
usein
understandingother
textsfrom
thepast.
On
thecontrary,
younot
onlyadm
it,but
expectthat
thetexts
will
manifest
theinfluences
ofneighboring
culturesand
particularperiods
inhistory
becauseyou
assume
thatthe
textsw
erew
rittenby
people.B
utthe
disadvantageis
alsoclear:
youm
ustexplain
why
thesetexts
haveparticular
authorityfor
youas
aJew
.Ifhum
anbeings
wrote
them,
why
shouldIassum
ethat
theyare
binding,true
orgood?
there.
102103
The
rear
eat
leas
tfou
rdi
stin
ctan
swer
sto
that
inth
eC
onse
rvat
ive
Mov
emen
twhi
chw
ew
ill
now
cons
ider
and
whi
chw
ew
illla
bel
Con
serv
ativ
eI,
II,Ill
,an
dIV
.T
hese
are
not
sepa
rate
org
aniz
atio
ns
wit
hin
the
Mov
emen
t:th
eyar
era
ther
com
posi
tepi
ctur
escr
eate
dfo
rth
is
sour
cebo
okof
posi
tions
held
bya
num
ber
ofC
onse
rvat
ive
rabb
is.
Con
sequ
ently
,af
ter
the
desc
ript
ion
ofea
chon
eof
the
four
gene
ral
posi
tions
onth
eau
thor
ityof
Jew
ish
law
,se
vera
l
spec
ific
vers
ions
ofth
epo
sitio
nar
eci
ted
asill
ustra
tions
.
2)C
onse
rvat
Ive
I
Tho
sew
hoho
ldth
isvi
ewm
aint
ain
that
-
a)G
odin
fact
dict
ated
His
will
atSi
nai
and
atot
her
times
inw
ords
.Si
nce
the
reve
lati
onto
Mos
esw
aSby
far
the
clea
rest
and
mos
tpu
blic
,it
isth
em
ost
auth
entic
reco
rdin
gof
God
’sw
ill.
b)T
here
vela
tion
atSi
nai
and
thos
ew
hich
follo
wed
,ho
wev
er,
wer
ew
ritte
n
dow
nby
hum
anbe
ings
,an
dhe
nce
ther
ear
edi
vers
eso
urce
sof
bibl
ical
liter
atur
ew
hich
one
disc
over
sw
hen
one
stud
ies
the
Bib
lehi
stor
ical
ly.
C)
From
Sina
ion
,Jew
ish
law
and
theo
logy
are
tobe
iden
tifie
dw
ithth
ew
ays
inw
hich
the
lead
ers
(late
r,th
era
bbis
)of
each
gene
ratio
nin
terp
rete
dan
d
appl
ied
the
law
sof
the
Tor
ah.
Hen
ceth
eau
thor
ityof
Jew
ish
law
isba
sed
upon
the
fact
that
itis
God
’sw
ill,
asst
ated
first
inth
eT
orah
and
then
byra
bbis
of
each
gene
ratio
n.
d)R
abbi
sar
eau
thor
ized
tom
odif
yth
ela
wfo
rth
eir
time,
but
only
with
extr
eme
caut
ion,
for,
afte
ral
l,th
eyar
eal
teri
ngth
ecl
oses
tthi
ngth
atw
eha
ve
toa
reco
rdof
wha
tG
odsa
id.
Att
hesa
me
time,
God
spec
ific
ally
auth
oriz
ed
judg
esin
each
gene
ratio
nto
inte
rpre
tand
appl
yth
ela
w,
and
God
com
man
ded
the
peop
leto
follo
wth
eru
lings
ofth
eju
dges
ofth
eir
gene
ratio
n,an
dso
cont
empo
rary
rabb
inic
rulin
gsar
eau
thor
itativ
eex
pres
sion
sof
God
’sw
illfo
r
us,
even
,in
the
extr
eme,
whe
nth
eydi
ffer
from
the
plai
nm
eani
ngof
the
bibl
ical
text
.
This
posi
tion
reta
ins
adi
rect
,ve
rbal
reve
latio
nat
Sina
i,an
d,as
such
,it
can
and
does
clai
m
that
all
ofth
ela
ws
inth
eTo
rah
have
the
expr
ess
auth
ority
ofG
odbe
hind
them
.A
tthe
sam
e
time,
itop
enly
asse
rts
that
God
’sw
ords
wer
ere
cord
edby
hum
anbe
ings
,an
dhe
nce
this
theo
ryca
nac
coun
tfo
rth
eva
riat
ions
inla
w,
ideo
logy
,an
dla
ngua
gein
the
Bib
le.
The
latte
r
feat
ure
qual
ifie
sit
asa
Con
serv
ativ
epo
sitio
n,fo
rit
advo
cate
san
hist
oric
alst
udy
ofth
ete
xts
ofou
rtr
aditi
on—
orat
leas
tm
ost
ofth
em.
704
This
isa
“rig
ht-w
ing”
view
,ho
wev
er,
beca
use
itcl
aim
sth
atG
odco
mm
unic
ated
His
will
to
Mos
esin
adi
rect
,ver
bal
way
,an
dco
nseq
uent
lyit
isno
tea
syto
dism
iss
any
law
asa
prod
uct
ofhu
man
erro
r,ho
wev
ertr
oubl
esom
eit
may
be.
That
,af
ter
all,
wou
ldun
derm
ine
this
posi
tion’
scl
aim
that
the
Tora
h’s
auth
ority
isul
timat
ely
base
don
God
’sw
ords
tous
,ho
wev
er
muc
hth
eyw
ere
filte
red
thro
ugh
hum
anun
ders
tand
ing
and
reco
rdin
g.T
here
fore
whi
le
advo
cate
sof
this
posi
tion
mig
htch
oose
the
liber
alpo
sitio
nam
ong
thos
eav
aila
ble
inth
e
trad
ition
,th
eyar
ege
nera
llyno
tw
illin
gto
mod
ify
the
law
inth
eab
senc
eof
are
ason
ably
stron
gpr
eced
entw
hich
alre
ady
appe
ars
inth
ete
xts
ofth
etra
ditio
n.Th
eyun
ders
tand
othe
r
fact
ors
whi
chot
hers
use
tom
odif
yth
ela
w—
as,
for
exam
ple,
mor
al,
soci
al,
orec
onom
ic
cons
ider
atio
ns—
asex
tra-
Iega
l”an
dth
eref
ore
only
tobe
used
whe
nth
ere
isan
inte
nsel
y
pres
sing
need
and
noot
her
reco
urse
toju
stif
ya
chan
ge.
Thi
svi
ew,
inot
her
wor
ds,
tend
sto
beth
em
ost
cons
erva
tive
(with
asm
all
“C”)
with
inth
eC
onse
rvat
ive
mov
emen
tin
that
itis
leas
tlik
ely
toin
stitu
teor
acce
pta
chan
gein
pre-
exis
ting
law
.
The
posi
tion
that
Ihav
ede
scri
bed
as“C
onse
rvat
ive
I”w
ashe
ldby
anu
mbe
rof
the
peop
le
who
wer
ein
volv
edin
the
Con
serv
ativ
eM
ovem
ent
inits
earl
yye
ars.
Rab
biIs
aac
Lee
ser,
for
exam
ple,
was
the
first
expo
nent
ofa
mod
ern
form
oftr
aditi
onal
ism
inA
mer
ica
and
inm
any
way
sth
epr
ecur
sor
ofC
onse
rvat
ive
Juda
ism
.W
hen
aske
dby
thos
ew
hodo
ubte
dth
elit
eral
trut
hof
the
Bib
lew
heth
erG
odsp
oke
with
avo
ice,
Lees
eran
swer
ed:
“Let
itbe
clea
rly
unde
rsto
odth
atou
rre
ligio
nis
true
,no
tbe
caus
eot
her
syst
ems
are
fals
e,bu
tbe
caus
eit
is
base
don
divi
nere
vela
tion,
whi
chto
abe
lieve
ris
the
only
sour
ceof
trut
h.”’
7In
the
pref
ace
tohi
sEn
glis
hve
rsio
nof
the
Bib
le,
hew
rote
:“T
hetr
ansl
ator
...be
lieve
sin
the
Scri
ptur
esas
they
have
been
hand
eddo
wn
tous
,as
also
inth
etr
uth
and
auth
entic
ityof
prop
heci
esan
d
thei
rlit
eral
fulf
illm
ent.
”8
Sim
ilarl
y,R
abbi
Ale
xand
erK
ohut
,w
hose
view
son
the
teac
hing
ofB
ible
and
Tal
mud
wer
eul
timat
ely
adop
ted
byth
eSe
min
ary
facu
ltyin
the
late
1800
san
d
early
1 900
s,ap
prov
edof
acr
itica
lst
udy
ofth
eT
alm
ud,
the
Prop
hets
,an
dth
eH
agio
grap
ha,
[the
Writ
ings
]bu
t not
ofth
eFi
veB
ooks
ofM
oses
:“T
ous
the
Pent
ateu
chis
ano
lim
eta
nge
re!
Han
dsof
f!W
edi
scla
imal
lho
nor
ofha
ndli
ngth
esh
arp
knif
ew
hich
cuts
the
Bib
lein
toa
thou
sand
pie
ces”
9—
and,
infa
ct,
the
Tora
hw
asno
tta
ught
with
the
criti
cal
met
hod
inth
e
Rab
bini
cal
scho
olof
the
Sem
inar
yun
tilm
uch
late
r.2°
Rab
biSo
lom
onSc
hech
ter,
the
first
“Rig
ht-w
ing”
gene
rally
refe
rsto
apo
sitio
nw
hich
isle
astw
illin
gto
chan
gepa
stpa
ttern
s
ofth
ough
tor
prac
tice.
As
you
gole
fton
the
spec
trum
,yo
uen
coun
ter
posi
tions
whi
ch
are
incr
easi
ngly
will
ing
tore
inte
rpre
t,m
odif
y,or
subs
titut
e.A
posi
tion
may
be“r
ight
-
win
g”in
thou
ght
and
“lef
t-win
g”in
prac
tice,
orvi
ce-v
ersa
;th
esp
ectr
umof
ideo
logy
and
the
spec
trum
ofob
serv
ance
are
two
diff
eren
tsp
ectr
aw
hich
dono
tne
cess
arily
coin
cide
,al
thou
ghth
ere
usua
llyis
som
eco
rrel
atio
nbe
twee
nth
etw
o,as
the
desc
ript
ions
ofth
eva
riou
spo
sitio
nsin
this
sect
ion
will
indi
cate
.
•1
105
1)
presidentof
thereorganized
Seminary,
describedthe
historicalapproach
onw
hichthe
Seminary’s
curriculumw
asbased
asfollow
s:
Itis
notthe
mere
revealedB
iblethat
isof
firstim
portanceto
theJew
,but
theB
ibleas
itrepeats
itselfin
history,in
otherw
ords,as
itis
interpretedby
Trad
ition.
21
He
was
notaltogetherhappy
with
that,how
ever,and
apparentlysoughtto
regainthe
certaintyand
grandeurof
direct,verbal
revelationifhe
couldonly
reconcileitw
ithhis
comm
itment
tothe
historicalapproach:
But
when
Revelation
orthe
Written
Word
isreduced
tothe
levelof
history,there
isno
difficultyin
elevatinghistory
inits
aspectofT
raditionto
therank
ofScripture,
forboth
havethen
thesam
ehum
anor
divineorigin
(accordingto
thestudent’s
predilectionfor
theone
orthe
otheradjective),
andem
anatefrom
thesam
eauthority.
Tradition
becomes
thusthe
means
whereby
them
oderndivine
[thatis,
them
odernstudent
oftheology]
seeksto
compensate
himself
forthe
lossof
theB
ible,and
thetheological
balanceis
tothe
satisfactionof
allparties
happilyreadjusted....
How
longthe
positionof
thisschool
will
provetenable
isanother
question.B
eingbrought
upin
theold
Low
Synagogue,w
here,w
ithall
attachment
totradition,
theB
iblew
aslooked
uponas
thecrow
nand
theclim
axof
Judaism,
theold
Adam
stillasserts
itselfin
me,
andin
unguardedm
oments
makes
me
rebelagainst
thisnew
rivalof
revelationin
theshape
ofhistory.
At
times
thenew
fashionableexaltation
ofT
raditionat
theexpense
ofS
criptureeven
impresses
me
asa
sortofreligiousbim
etallism[a
market
basedon
two
metals]
inw
hichboth
speculators[traders]
intheology
tryto
keepup
them
arketvalue
ofan
inferiorcurrency
[—tradition]
bydenouncing
loudlythe
brightshining
gold[—
theT
orah]w
hich,they
would
haveus
believe,is
lessfitted
tocirculate
inthe
vulgaruse
ofdaily
lifethan
thesm
allcash
ofhistorical
interp
retation.
22
Earlyexponents
ofthis
viewof
revelationw
erew
aryof
applyingthe
techniquesof
historicalscholarship
tothe
Torah
inpart
becausethey
were
worried
tñatthat
would
undermine
itsauthority
andin
partbecause
thefirst
groupof
scholarsto
usehistorical
methods
inunderstanding
thePentateuch
were
Germ
anProtestant
writers
who
franklyintended
toattack
Judaismand
theJew
ishclaim
toem
bodythe
originaland
authoritativerevelation
ofG
od.Solom
onSchechter,
infact, called
higherbiblical
criticism“higher
anti-Semitism
,”and
JosephH
ertz,in
hispopular
comm
entaryon
theP
entateuch,uses
everyopportunity
torail
againstthe
documentary
hy
po
thesis.
Modern
advocatesof
theview
Ihavedesignated
as“C
onservativeI”
arem
uchm
orew
illingto
studynot
justthe
Prophets
andW
ritingsof
theB
ibleand
Rabbinic
literaturew
iththe
historicalm
ethodsof
scholarship,but
theT
orahitself.
Forone
thing,the
anti-Semitism
thatm
otivatedm
uchof
biblicalcriticism
among
Germ
anProtestant
scholarsin
thelate
nineteenthand
earlytw
entiethcenturies
(which
were
alsothe
earlyyears
ofthe
Conservative
Movem
ent)no
longeris
asignificant
factorin
it.Jew
sand
Christians
haveboth
learnedto
usethat
methodology
with
objectivity.M
oreover,the
techniquesof
biblicalcriticism
haveproved
helpfulin
clarifyingm
anypassages
thatwere
eithernot
understoodor
misunderstood
before.C
onsequently,from
the1950s
on,advocates
ofC
onservativeIhave
generallybeen
willing
toapply
historicaland
literarytechniques
tothe
studyof
theB
ible,including
theT
orah.O
necontem
poraryexponentofC
onservativei
isR
abbiJoelR
oth,Professor
ofT
almud
atthe
Jewish
Theological
Sem
inaryof
Am
ericaand
pastchair
ofthe
Conservative
Movem
ent’sC
omm
itteeon
Jewish
Law
andS
tandards.R
abbiR
othadopts
thetheory
oflaw
ofSir
JohnSalm
ondand
Hans
Kelsen
(thetheory
known
as“positivism
”)in
distinguishingbetw
eenlegal
sourcesand
historicalsources.
Legalsources
are“those
sourcesw
hichare
recognizedas
suchby
thelaw
itself”because
theyare
inthe
textsof
alegal
system’s
legalliterature
andhave
beenrecognized
asauthoritative
statements
ofthe
lawby
thosecharged
with
interpretingand
enforcingit.
Historical
sources,on
theother
hand,are
“thosesources
lackingform
alrecognition
bythe
lawitself”
becausethey
donot
appearin
suchtexts
andare
thereforenot
recognizedby
theofficers
ofthe
legaltradition.
The
myriad
tomes
[many
books]of
law,
thecorpora
[bodiesjof
judicialdecisions,
thevarious
stateand
localconstitutions
orcharters
areall
legalsources
ofthe
Am
ericanlegal
system.
As
thesesources
functionw
ithinthe
systemofA
merican
law,
thephilosophical,
political,socio-logical,
oreconom
icfactors
thatm
ayhave
beeninstrum
entalin
theirbecom
inglegal
norms
areconsidered
tobe
irrelevant;these
factorsconstitute
historicalsources,
andare
notaccounted
legallysignificant
bythe
system.
One
readsoccasionally
ofsom
ejudge
who
was
forcedto
rendera
decisionon
thebasis
ofa
validstatute,
theorigin
ofwhich
hadbeen
clearlypredicated
ona
realitydifferent
fromthat
ofthe
present.H
owever,
sincethe
normhad
neverbeen
amended
orabrogated
bythe
system,
itremained
authoritativeand
legal,arid
thejudge
was
compelled
torender
hisdecision
inaccordance
with
it.H
isknow
ledgeof
thehistorical
antecedentsthatgave
riseto
thenorm
inthe
firstplacew
asirrelevant.
He
couldnot
decidelegally
ina
manner
contraryto
itsdictates.
The
Jewish
legalsystem
isno
differentfrom
anyother
inthis
regard.Its
recognizedlegal
norms
operateindependently
ofthe
historicalsources
thatm
ayhave
givenrise
tothem
.So
longas
anorm
hasnot
beenam
endedor
107
ii/106
abro
gate
dby
the
hala
khic
syst
em,
itsor
igin
asa
reac
tion
toR
oman
prac
tice,
as
anem
ulat
ion
[cop
yirig
iof
Rom
anpr
actic
e,or
asa
conc
essi
onto
the
econ
omic
real
ities
ofC
hris
tian
Eur
ope,
tosu
gges
tonl
yse
vera
lpo
ssib
ilitie
s,is
irre
leva
nt
toits
valid
ityas
ano
rmof
the
hala
khic
syst
em.
For
this
reas
on,
hist
oric
also
urce
sar
eof
aun
ique
natu
re.
At
the
poin
tin
time
whe
nth
eyin
flue
nce
the
intr
oduc
tion
ofne
wid
eas
into
the
lega
lsy
stem
they
are
extr
emel
yim
port
ant;
yet
thei
rim
port
ance
rest
sso
lely
onth
efa
ctth
atth
eir
pers
uasi
vepo
wer
sar
esu
ffic
ient
toco
nvin
ceth
eau
thor
itativ
ele
gal
body
(or
bodi
es)
toin
corp
orat
eth
emin
toth
esy
stem
asle
gal
sour
ces.
Bar
ring
such
inco
rpor
atio
n,th
eir
infl
uenc
eon
the
lega
lsy
stem
ism
erel
ypo
tent
ial,
not
actu
al,
and
rega
rdle
ssof
thei
ror
igin
alim
port
ance
,th
eyfa
dein
tole
gal
irre
leva
nce
once
norm
sba
sed
onth
emar
ein
corp
orat
edin
toth
esy
stem
as
lega
lso
urce
s.So
sing
ular
lyun
impo
rtan
tto
the
func
tioni
ngof
the
syst
emar
e
they
,the
n,th
atin
abili
tyto
reco
nstr
uct
the
hist
oric
also
urce
sof
any
lega
lno
rm
has
nobe
arin
gw
hats
oeve
ron
the
bind
ing
and
auth
orita
tive
natu
reof
the
norm
....
From
the
fact
that
hist
oric
also
urce
sar
ele
gally
insi
gnif
ican
t,it
follo
ws
that
the
dem
onst
ratio
nby
scho
lars
that
the
true
hist
oric
also
urce
sof
agi
ven
norm
are
diff
eren
tfr
omw
hat
had
gene
rally
been
assu
med
isan
inte
rest
ing
reve
latio
n,bu
t
lega
llyin
sign
ific
ant.
...24
This
dist
inct
ion
betw
een
lega
lan
dhi
stor
ical
sour
ces
enab
les
Rab
biR
oth
tobe
fully
open
to
stud
ying
the
hist
oric
alor
igin
sof
the
law
,ev
endu
ring
the
time
ofth
eT
orah
,be
caus
eno
thin
g
—lit
eral
ly,
noth
ing
—in
the
hist
ory
ofth
ela
wis
rele
vant
toits
auth
ority
.Th
atco
mes
from
the
grun
dnor
m(b
asic
grou
ndof
auth
ority
)of
the
law
,th
atis,
the
fund
amen
tal
conc
ept
atth
eba
se
ofa
lega
lsy
stem
whi
chgi
ves
itau
thor
ity.
Thos
ew
hoab
ide
bya
lega
lsys
tem
mus
tacc
ept
that
fund
amen
talc
once
ptan
dm
aydo
sofo
ran
yre
ason
whi
chap
peal
sto
them
.W
hyth
eyac
cept
the
lega
lsy
stem
’scl
aim
toau
thor
ityis
a“m
etal
egal
”is
sue
—th
atis,
am
atte
rw
hich
stan
ds
apar
tfr
omth
ele
gal
syst
emits
elf,
usua
llyin
the
real
mof
philo
soph
y,th
eolo
gy,
orhi
stor
y.Th
e
lega
lsy
stem
sva
lidity
,ho
wev
er,
depe
nds
only
onth
efa
ctth
atits
adhe
rent
sac
cept
its
fund
amen
tal
clai
mto
auth
ority
,no
ton
why
they
doso
.
The
conc
ept
ofth
eba
sic
norm
isco
mpl
ex,
yet
indi
spen
sabl
e.Its
com
plex
ity
deri
ves
mai
nly
from
the
fact
that
this
grun
dnor
mis
aton
ce“m
etal
egal
”an
d
“leg
al,”
that
is,w
hile
itsva
lidity
ispr
esup
pose
dby
the
syst
em,
itfu
nctio
ns
lega
llyas
ano
rmof
the
syst
em.
Any
atte
mpt
topr
ove
the
valid
ityof
the
basi
c
norm
mus
tbe
long
toa
real
mot
her
than
the
lega
l.To
the
exte
ntth
atits
valid
ity
can
bepr
oved
atal
l,th
epr
oof
mus
tbe
theo
logi
cal,
philo
soph
ical
,or
met
aphy
sica
l.Y
etit
isth
isno
rmth
atse
rves
asth
eul
timat
eba
sis
ofth
ele
gal
syst
eman
dha
sde
fini
tele
gal
func
tions
.Pu
tsu
ccin
ctly
,th
eor
derl
yfu
nctio
ning
ofan
yle
gal
orde
rre
quir
esof
itsad
here
nts
a“l
eap
offa
ith”
conc
erni
ngth
e
valid
ityof
the
basi
cno
rmof
the
syst
em.
Alth
ough
leap
sof
faith
dono
tfa
ll
with
inth
ere
alm
ofla
w,
such
ale
apof
faith
isth
eul
timat
eva
lidat
ion
ofth
e
lega
lsy
stem
.
Furt
herm
ore,
itis
impo
rtan
tto
gras
pth
atpr
esup
posi
ngth
eex
iste
nce
ofa
grun
dnor
mis
anam
oral
and
nonv
alua
tive
act.
The
fact
that
aty
rant
may
have
prom
ulga
ted
aco
nstit
utio
n,ob
edie
nce
tow
hich
isth
eba
sic
norm
ofa
part
icul
arle
gal
syst
em,
does
not
affe
ctits
stat
usas
agr
undn
orm
.A
post
ulat
ed
grun
dnor
mis
asi
nequ
ano
n[i
ndis
pens
able
cond
ition
Jof
ale
gal
syst
em,
not
ast
atem
ent
ofth
ede
sira
bilit
y,m
oral
ity,
orpo
sitiv
ena
ture
ofth
esy
stem
.In
man
yin
stan
ces,
such
cons
ider
atio
nsw
illva
ryw
ithth
epe
rspe
ctiv
eof
the
view
er.
The
grun
dnor
mof
the
Am
eric
anle
gal
syst
emw
ascr
eate
das
the
resu
lt
ofan
acto
freb
ellio
nag
ains
t ale
gal
sove
reig
n.To
som
e,it
was
ane
cess
ary
and
ethi
calr
ebel
lion;
toot
hers
,it
was
anim
mor
alac
tofr
ebel
lion
agai
nst
the
Brit
ish
crow
n.B
utev
ento
this
latte
rgr
oup,
the
grun
dnor
mis
the
basi
cno
rmof
the
Am
eric
ansy
stem
.Pr
esup
posi
ngth
eba
sic
norm
ofth
eA
mer
ican
syst
emis
nece
ssar
yin
orde
rto
com
preh
end
the
func
tioni
ngof
the
syst
em,
but
carr
ies
no
valu
atio
nal
impl
icat
ions
wha
tsoe
ver
conc
erni
ngth
ere
ctit
ude
ofth
efr
amer
sof
the
Con
stitu
tion
inpo
stul
atin
git.
Thus
,ev
ery
lega
lsy
stem
—de
moc
racy
,
mon
arch
y,di
ctat
orsh
ip,
bene
vole
ntde
spot
ism
—pr
esup
pose
sa
basi
cno
rm;
that
fact
,ho
wev
er,
isin
depe
nden
tof
any
cons
ider
atio
nof
the
desi
rabi
lity
ofth
e
syst
emits
elf.
Wha
t,th
en,
isth
efu
ndam
enta
lco
ncep
twhi
chun
derl
ies
Jew
ish
law
and
give
sit
itsau
thor
ity?
Acc
ordi
ngto
Rab
biR
oth,
itis
this
:7he
docu
men
tca
lled
the
Tor
ahem
bodi
esth
ew
ord
and
will
ofC
od,
whi
chit
beho
oves
man
toob
ey,
and
is,th
eref
ore,
auth
orita
tive.
25
This
imm
edia
tely
esta
blis
hes
the
prio
rity
and
supe
rior
auth
ority
ofan
yst
atem
ento
fth
eT
orah
(de.
orai
ta)
over
late
r,in
terp
retiv
est
atem
ents
ofth
era
bbis
(de-
rabb
anan
),fo
rth
eT
orah
is,or
ispr
esum
edto
be,
“the
wor
dan
dw
illof
God
”w
hile
rabb
inic
stat
emen
tsar
eth
ose
ofhu
man
bein
gsan
d,in
any
case
,de
pend
for
thei
rau
thor
ityon
the
prio
rau
thor
ityof
the
Tor
ahw
hich
the
rabb
isar
ein
terp
retin
gan
dap
plyi
ng.
Mor
eove
r,in
the
hala
khic
syst
em,
asin
any
othe
r
lega
lsy
stem
,th
e“t
ruth
”of
the
fund
amen
tal
conc
ept
onw
hich
the
syst
emba
ses
itsau
thor
ity
isirr
elev
ant t
oth
atau
thor
ity,
acco
rdin
gto
Rab
biR
oth,
once
the
clai
mto
auth
ority
mad
eby
that
fund
amen
tal
conc
ept
isac
cept
ed:
Whe
ther
orno
tit
is“t
rue”
that
the
Tor
ahem
bodi
esth
ew
ord
and
will
ofG
od
isof
grea
thi
stor
ical
and
theo
logi
cal
sign
ific
ance
,bu
tof
nole
gal
sign
ific
ance
.
Even
ifon
eha
str
aced
the
orig
ins
ofth
eT
orah
todo
cum
ents
calle
dJ,
E,P,
and
D,
hem
ayha
veun
cove
red
the
hist
oric
also
urce
sof
the
lega
lno
rms,
but
heha
s
109
108
11
inno
way
abrogatedthe
grundnormof
thehalakhic
system,
which
ispresupposed
bythe
system
.26
Infact,
Rabbi
Roth
isso
convincedthat
historical,biblical
scholarshipis
soirrelevant
tothe
authorityof Jew
ishlaw
—and
yetsoconvinced
thatitis
anim
portantway
ofstudying
thetext
—that
hereform
ulatesthe
fundamental
conceptof Jew
ishlaw
asfollow
s:‘The
document
calledthe
Torah
embodies
thew
ordand
thew
illofG
od,w
hichitbehooves
man
toobey,
asm
ediatedthrough
theagency
ofI,E,P.
andD
,and
is,therefore,
authoritative.”27
Inany
case,note
thatR
abbiR
othultim
atelyaffirm
sthat
theT
orahis
“thew
ordand
will
ofG
od,”thus
placinghim
inC
onservativel.
Note,too,
thathisparticular
theoryof Jew
ishlaw
placesm
oral,econom
ic,social,
andpsychological
concernsoutside
therealm
ofthe
law,
making
them,
inhis
phrase,‘extra-legal.”
Those
who
embrace
thetheories
I shallcall Conservative
IIandIlldo
notsee
therelationship
ofsuch
concernsto
Jewish
lawin
thatway.
Theyinstead
understandm
oral,economic,
social,and
psychologicalissues
tobe
intimately
entwined
inthe
lawatall
itsstages,
includingthe
reasonsw
hythe
laww
asform
ulatedin
thefirst
placeand
thew
aysit
shouldbe
interpretedand
appliednow
—even
tothe
extent,if necessary,
of changingsom
ethingin
theT
orah.
Nobody
seriouslycom
mitted
toJew
ishlaw
will
want
todo
that veryoften,
butR
abbiR
oth’stheory
diminishes
theim
portanceof such
factorsin
interpretingand
applyingthe
lawto
suchan
extentthat
theybecom
ew
eakgrounds
forrevision.
That,though,
isonly
becausehe
definedthe
lawin
thefirst
placeas
thatw
hichappears
inthe
textsof
thetradition.
Most
othersw
ithinthe
Conservative
movem
entunderstand
thelaw
much
more
broadlyas
theproduct
ofthe
ongoinginteractions
among
thetexts
ofthe
tradition,individual
Jews,
theJew
ishcom
munity,
thelarger
world,and
God,
andthat
perspectiveon
theorigins
andnature
ofJewish
lawoften
hassignificant effects
forthe
ways
peoplew
hohold
thatview(prim
arilythose
inC
onservativeIIand
III)interpret
andapply
Jewish
law
.29
Insum
,then,
forC
onservativeI,
God
spokea
message
atSinai,
andbelief
inthe
divineauthority
ofthat
message
isthe
essenceof
Jewish
faith.Such
faithdoes
notpreclude
anobjective,
historicaland
literaryanalysis
ofthe
biblicaltext,
however,
becauseitw
ashum
anbeings
who
wrote
down
theirunderstanding
ofG
od’sw
ordsin
theirow
nlanguage
andconceptual
framew
ork.
3)ConservatIve
II
Thisposition
consistsof
thefollow
ingclaim
s:
a)H
uman
beingsw
rotethe
Torahatvarious
times
andplaces.
That
isw
hythe
Torah
containsdiverse
documents,
laws,
andideas.
b)T
hesepeople
were,
however,
divinelyinspired,
andtherefore
theirw
ordscarry
theinsight
andauthority
ofG
od.
C)
Jewish
laws
andideas
may
bechanged
fortw
oreasons.
First,since
theT
orahisa
combination
ofdivine
inspirationand
human
articulation,w
em
ustdistinguish
thedivine
andhum
anelem
entsin
thetradition
andchange
thelatter
when
circumstances
requireit.
Second,divine
inspirationdid
nothappen
onceand
forallatSinai.T
heT
orahis
thedocum
entonw
hichJudaism
isbased,
andittherefore
hasspecial
importance
forus;
butdivine
inspirationcontinues
onin
theform
ofnewinterpretations
oftheT
orahin
eachgeneration
(notthrough
neww
ordsor
appearancesof
God
—cf.
Sources#6
and#7
inSection
Cof
thischapter).
d)W
henchanges
arem
ade,they
must
bem
adeby
thecom
munity
inthe
two
ways
describedin
Section(5)
—i.e.,through
rabbinicdecisions
andcom
munal
custom.
Only
inthat
way
canthere
beboth
traditionand
change.
Thisposition
isw
idelyheld
inthe
Conservative
Movem
ent,and
youcan
seeits
advantagesalm
ostim
mediately.
On
theone
hand,the
assertionthat
peoplew
rotethe
textsof
thetradition
enablesadvocates
ofthis
approachto
acceptthe
resultsof
historicalresearch
intothose
textsfully
andopenly.
Nobody
needsto
pretendthat
theB
ibleconsists
ofone
sourcew
rittenatone
time
andplace
orthat the
Jews
escapedthe
influencesofoutside
cultures,and
nobodyneeds
tobe
intellectuallyschizophrenic
inapplying
totallydifferent
methods
ofinquiry
tothe
Jewish
traditionfrom
thoseone
usesin
understandingany
otherculture.
Moreover,
youdo
nothave
toblam
eG
odfor
everythingin
theB
ibleor
claimthat
everypassage
thereis
divine,for
thehum
anelem
entin
itcan
bethe
sourceof
thosesegm
entsw
hichw
enow
findobjectionable
andperhaps
subjecttochange.
On
theother
hand,the
factthat
theJew
ishtradition
was
divinelyinspired
givesits
laws
andideas
divineauthority.
Inother
words,
with
thisapproach
youhave
thebest
ofboth
worlds,
theintellectual
andthe
religious.
Thatdoesnotcom
ew
ithoutits
own
price,how
ever.T
hefirstquestion
thatonehas
aboutthis
approachis
simply
this:W
hatdoes
“divineinspiration”
mean?
How
doesit
operate,and
‘1
110111
how
does
itdi
ffer
from
the
insp
irat
ion
ofM
ozar
t,th
ew
isdo
mof
Socr
ates
,or
the
skill
ofa
good
base
ball
play
er?
The
rear
etw
odi
stin
ctan
swer
sto
thos
equ
estio
nsw
ithin
the
Con
serv
ativ
eM
ovem
ent,
and
it
isth
isis
sue
whi
chdi
stin
guis
hes
Con
serv
ativ
eII
from
Con
serv
ativ
eIll
belo
w.
Adv
ocat
esof
Con
serv
ativ
eII
clai
mth
atG
odin
spir
edhu
man
bein
gsw
itha
spec
ific
mes
sage
;th
ose
who
hold
Con
serv
ativ
eIll
mai
ntai
nth
atG
odin
spir
edpe
ople
with
His
pres
ence
byco
min
gin
to
cont
act
with
them
,bu
tGod
did
notr
evea
lco
ncre
tein
stru
ctio
nsth
roug
hth
ein
spir
atio
n.W
e
will
furt
her
defi
nean
dill
ustr
ate
Con
serv
ativ
eIll
shor
tly,
but
now
let
usex
amin
eth
ew
ays
in
whi
chpr
opon
ents
ofC
onse
rvat
ive
IIex
plai
nth
eir
posi
tion.
Perh
aps
the
clea
rest
expo
nent
ofC
onse
rvat
ive
IIis
Rab
biB
enZ
ion
Bok
ser,
z”’I,
who
was
rabb
i
ofFo
rest
Hill
sJe
wis
hC
ente
rin
New
Yor
kan
dse
rved
asC
hair
ofth
eC
omm
ittee
onJe
wis
h
Law
and
Stan
dard
s.In
his
book
juda
ism
:Pr
ofile
ofa
Faith
(196
3),
hew
arns
agai
nst
“tw
o
extr
emes
inth
ein
terp
.eta
tion
ofre
vela
tion
orpr
ophe
cy,”
inw
hich
one
unde
rsta
nds
reve
latio
n
asei
ther
ato
tally
hum
anor
ato
tally
divi
neac
t.It
isbo
th.
The
reis
noco
ntra
dict
ion
betw
een
the
disc
over
yof
ahi
stor
ical
dim
ensi
onin
the
sacr
edte
xts
ofSc
ript
ure
and
the
belie
fth
atth
eyar
edi
sclo
sure
sof
God
’s
reve
latio
n.Th
ehu
man
and
the
divi
neco
mm
ingl
ein
allo
flif
e.T
hefa
rmer
tills
the
soil,
plan
ts,
wee
ds,
harv
ests
,bu
tth
isdo
esno
tco
ntra
dict
adi
men
sion
of
divi
nepr
ovid
ence
atw
ork
inth
esa
me
proc
ess
ofbr
ingi
ngfo
odfr
omth
eea
rth.
For
the
farm
erdi
dno
tcre
ate
the
earth
with
itspo
wer
tofr
uctif
yth
ese
edpl
aced
inits
wom
b,di
dno
tcre
ate
the
econ
omy
ofna
ture
onw
hich
his
labo
rde
pend
s,
hedi
dno
tst
uff
the
sun
with
ener
gy,
nor
fill
the
clou
dsw
ithra
in,
nor
did
he
fash
ion
the
seed
with
itsm
irac
ulou
spo
wer
tore
prod
uce
itsel
f.T
hrou
ghou
t
natu
rew
ew
itnes
sw
hat
isa
card
inal
belie
fin
Juda
ism
,th
atm
anis
God
’s
part
ner
inth
ew
ork
ofcr
eatio
n.
The
part
ners
hip
betw
een
God
and
man
issi
mila
rlyat
wor
kin
brin
ging
forth
the
truth
onw
hich
our
soul
sar
eno
uris
hed.
Man
rece
ives
adi
vine
com
mun
icat
ion
inth
em
omen
twhe
nth
edi
vine
spiri
tres
tson
him
,bu
tm
anm
ust
give
form
to
that
com
mun
icat
ion;
hem
ust
expr
ess
itin
wor
ds,
inim
ages
,an
din
sym
bols
whi
chw
illm
ake
his
mes
sage
inte
lligi
ble
toot
her
men
.O
utof
this
need
togi
ve
form
toth
etr
uth
that
isre
veal
edto
him
the
prop
het
plac
esth
est
amp
ofhi
s
own
indi
vidu
ality
upon
that
trut
h.H
edr
aws
upon
his
own
expe
rien
ce,
upon
the
idio
mcu
rren
tin
his
time;
hecr
eate
sim
ages
that
will
befa
mili
arto
his
peop
le.
Thus
the
truth
beco
mes
pers
onal
ized
;it
take
sup
onits
elf
the
robe
sof
the
wor
ldin
whi
chit
isto
ente
rto
perf
orm
itsw
ork
ofm
oral
and
spir
itual
tran
sfor
mat
ion.
Inth
epr
oces
sof
expr
essi
onan
dtr
ansm
issi
ontr
uth
take
son
a
hist
oric
aldi
men
sion
,whi
chth
ehi
stor
ian
can
exam
ine
byth
eto
ols
ofhi
stor
ical
inve
stig
atio
n,bu
tall
this
inno
way
inva
lidat
esth
ero
leof
the
divi
nefa
ctor
,th
e
initi
al“b
reat
hing
in”
onth
epr
ophe
tof
the
mes
sage
whi
chhe
isca
lled
to
proc
laim
toth
epe
ople
ofhi
stim
e.’°
Wha
tis
the
natu
reof
the
divi
nepa
rtof
prop
hecy
?It
isth
epu
shw
hich
enab
les
one
tobe
crea
tive,
cour
ageo
us,
orin
sigh
tful
beyo
ndhi
sor
her
norm
alpo
wer
s:
Why
does
n’t
God
reve
alhi
mse
lfto
peop
leno
wad
ays
toco
mm
unic
ate
His
will
toth
em?
The
answ
eris
that
He
does
.Pe
ople
who
have
brou
ght
new
visi
ons
oftr
uth
orbe
auty
toth
ew
orld
and
who
have
refl
ecte
don
the
proc
ess
whi
ch
unde
rlie
sth
eir
crea
tive
acts
have
ofte
nsp
oken
ofth
ese
nse
ofre
ceiv
ing
thei
r
idea
sfr
oma
Pow
erbe
yond
them
selv
es...
.
Mai
mon
ides
teac
hes
usth
atev
ery
crea
tive
act
inan
yfie
ldof
hum
anen
deav
or
isan
inst
ance
ofth
esa
me
proc
ess
whi
chw
asat
wor
kin
prop
hecy
....
Inits
mos
tfam
iliar
form
prop
hecy
appe
ars
inth
eex
peri
ence
ofa
“cal
l”w
hich
impe
lsce
rtai
npe
ople
tope
rfor
mhe
roic
deed
sin
the
serv
ice
ofso
me
good
caus
eor
tobe
com
ecr
eativ
ein
the
fiel
dsof
theo
logy
,po
litic
s,sc
ienc
eor
liter
atur
e.M
aim
onid
esde
scri
bes
this
call
inw
ords
that
ring
fam
iliar
toan
yon
e
who
has
prob
edin
toan
yph
ase
ofth
ecr
eativ
epr
oces
s:“A
pers
onfe
els
asif
som
eth
ing
cam
eup
onhi
m,
and
asif
here
ceiv
eda
new
pow
erth
aten
cour
ages
him
tosp
eak.
He
trea
tsof
scie
nce
and
com
pose
shy
mns
,ex
hort
shi
s
fello
wm
en,
disc
usse
spo
litic
alan
dth
eolo
gica
lpr
oble
ms;
all
ofth
ishe
does
whi
leaw
ake
and
inth
efu
llpo
sses
sion
ofhi
sse
nses
....
Wha
tno
rmal
lyre
quir
esla
bori
ous
reas
onin
g,an
d,in
deed
wha
tla
bori
ous
reas
onin
gca
nnot
esta
blis
h,is
gras
ped
intu
itive
lyan
dw
ithan
over
pow
erin
g
sens
eof
cert
ainty
.31
Whe
ther
you
have
such
anex
peri
ence
orno
tde
pend
sin
part
upon
your
own
abili
ties,
prep
arat
ion,
and
sens
itivi
ty.
This
isno
diff
eren
tfr
omcr
eativ
ityin
othe
rpa
rts
ofhu
man
life:
the
unsk
illed
,un
lear
ned,
orun
tale
nted
rare
lyin
vent
sso
met
hing
new
.O
nth
eot
her
hand
,
prop
hecy
isno
tto
tally
with
inth
epo
wer
ofhu
man
bein
gsto
prod
uce:
som
eJe
wis
h
philo
soph
ers
(Mai
mon
ides
,fo
rexa
mpl
e)sa
yth
atyo
uha
veto
prep
are
for
it.O
ther
s(I—
lesc
hel,
for
exam
ple)
clai
mth
atno
prep
arat
ion
ispo
ssib
leor
nec
essa
ry.
32
Bot
hgr
oups
agre
e,
how
ever
,th
atth
ere
can
beno
prop
hecy
unle
ssG
odw
ants
toco
ntac
tyo
u.
Inex
actly
the
sam
ew
ay,
man
ype
ople
can
train
them
selv
esas
sidu
ousl
yfo
ra
give
npr
ofes
sion
,
but
only
som
ew
illbe
inge
niou
scr
eato
rsof
new
insi
ghts
orte
chni
ques
.T
rain
ing
alon
e
cann
otgu
aran
tee
that
.Si
mila
rly,
inhu
man
rela
tions
hips
,yo
uca
ndo
all
inyo
urpo
wer
to
112
113
become
friendsw
ithsom
eoneelse,
but youcannotcreate
thefriendship
byyourself:
theother
personm
ustbew
illingto
respond.W
henw
etalk
aboutrelationshipsto
God,
thathas
tobe
thecase
allthe
more
so.
Still,an
ordinaryperson
canhave
what
Rabbi
Bokser
callsa
“secondaryrevelation’
byim
aginingoneself
inthe
prophet’splace
while
readingthe
prophet’sw
ords:
The
ordinarym
anm
aynot
sensethe
beautyof
asunset
ina
directencounter.B
utw
henhe
readsa
poemor
looksat
apicture
glorifyingthe
sunset,his
perceptivepow
ersm
aybe
ignited,and
hetoo
canbegin
tosee
andfeel
thehaunting
beautyw
hichthe
sunsetdiscloses.
Itis
similar
with
thefruits
ofprophecy.
The
rest ofmankind,notprivileged
toencounter
thedivine
directly,m
aybe
introducedto
itthrough
confrontingthe
words
ofthe
prophets.T
hedivine
hauntsevery
utterancew
hichissues
fromthe
propheticexperience.
The
prophet’sw
ordsare
“magnetized”
with
thedivine
power
which
initiallysent
themforth
intothe
world.
Asecondary
revelationoccurs
whenever
we
studythe
words
of theT
orah,and
we
toocom
eunder
thespell
ofthe
div
ine.
33
Moreover,
theJew
isobligated
totry
tohave
sucha
secondaryrevelation
inthatthe
Jewis
requiredto
studythe
Torah
andfollow
itsprecepts,
thusputting
him/herself
inthe
placeof
theprophet
inboth
thoughtand
act.
Are
thereany
differencesbetw
eeninspiration
andrevelation?
Rabbi
Bokser
saysno:
We
oftenuse
theterm
“inspiration”rather
than“revelation.”
Inspirationm
eansliterally
abreathing
in.B
utw
hois
itw
hobreathes
inupon
theperson
anddirects
himto
comm
unicateto
hisfellow
man?
Everycreative
actw
heretrue
inspirationis
atw
orkis
acontinuation
ofG
od’sdisclosure;
itis
afurther
unfoldingof
thelight w
ithw
hichG
odbegan
theorder
ofcreatio
n.
34
Rabbi
Max
J.R
outtenberg,zi,
pastpresident
ofthe
Rabbinical
Assem
bly,has
identifiedrevelation
with
evenm
oretypes
ofinspiration:
Forthose
who
regardG
od,as
Ido,
asthe
sumtotal
ofthose
forcesin
theuniverse
which
make
forgoodness,
fortruth,
andfor
beauty,any
andevery
manifestation
ofthese
qualitiesis
arevelation
ofG
od.W
henm
anbecom
esaw
are,ashe
frequentlydoes,
sometim
eseven
ina
blindingflash,
ofw
hat“the
Lorddoth
requireof
him”
anditbecom
esa
consuming
firein
hisbones
sothat
hem
ustdo
something
aboutit,
hehas
receiveda
comm
unicationfrom
God.
Man
himselfm
ayverbalize
thisintuition
andascribe
ittoG
od,but
itisa
divineinspiration
nevertheless.Every
impulse
togoodness,
everyquest
fortruth,
everysearch
forbeauty
isa
comm
unicationfrom
God;every
deedof
goodness,every
discoveryof
truth,every
expressionof
beautyis
afulfillm
entof
God’s
comm
andments.
35
On
theother
hand,R
abbiR
obertG
ordis,zi,
aco
neg
ational
rabbi,a
professorat
theSem
inary,andpastpresident
ofthe
Rabbinical
Assem
bly,claim
sthat
thereis
adifference
inthe
scopeof
them
essage:
The
superlativeendow
ment
thatcauses
aShakespeare
toissue
fromsom
eordinary
Englishfarm
ers,and
aM
ozartfrom
some
moderately
talentedm
usicians,w
ecall
“inspiration.”In
restrictingthe
term“revelation”
tothe
sphereofreligious
andethical
truth,while
using“inspiration”
todescribe
otherm
anifestationsofgenius,
we
arenot
[merelyl
yieldingto
convention.T
hereis
aqualitative
differencebetw
eenthe
two
phenomena
notto
beignored.
God’s
creativepow
erenters
man’s
spiritin
countlessareas,
suchas
science,art,
music,
literature,or
thesocial
order,each
ofw
hichis
asegm
entof
ourexistence.
Allthose
whom
He
singlesout
for‘eatn
essin
onearea
oranother
havebeen
Wanted
His
authenticinspiration.
Butw
henG
odreveals
aglim
pseof
His
truth,not
onone
limited
aspectof
life,but
ratheron
man’s
totalrelationship
tothe
universe,when
He
Wants
insightinto
thecharacter
ofm
an’snature
andduty,
thehum
anbeing
thatG
odhas
chosenas
His
spokesman
hasexperienced
Rev
elation.
36
RabbiA
brahamH
eschel,zi,
whose
approachw
eshall
studyin
thenext
section,w
ouldadd
severalotherw
aysin
which
revelationis
differentfrom
inspiration,w
ithw
hichadvocates
ofC
onservativeIIm
ightawee.
Specifically,for
Rabbi
Heschel
arevelation
ofG
oddiffers
fromany
othertype
ofinspirationin
thatthereceiver
ofarevelation
experiencesnotonly
aspecific
message,
butthat
itisG
odw
hois
givingthat
message:
“Seenfrom
man’s
aspect,to
receivea
revelationis
tow
itnesshow
God
isturning
toward
man
.”3’
Moreover,
theprophet
feelsthat
hehim
selfis
beingexperienced
byG
od.
This,itseem
s,w
asthe
mark
ofauthenticity:
thefact
thatprophetic
revelationw
asnotm
erelyan
actofexperience
butan
actofbeingexperienced,
ofbeing
exposedto,called
upon,overw
helmed
andtaken
overby
Him
who
seeksout
thosew
homH
esends
tom
ankind.Itis
notGod
who
isan
experienceof
man;
itism
anw
hois
anexperience
ofG
od.
36
Inother
words,
itissim
ilarto
whatyou
experiencew
henyou
come
intocontact
with
anotherhum
anbeing
youperceive
theother
personand
hisor
herm
essage,and
youalso
knowthat
youare
beingseen
andheard
byhim
orher.
114
115
The
cruc
ial
ques
tion,
thou
gh,
isth
ere
latio
nshi
pbe
twee
nsu
chac
tsof
divi
nein
spir
atio
nan
d
the
law
san
did
eas
inth
eT
orah
.A
fter
all,
the
who
lepo
int
ofas
sert
ing
divi
nein
spir
atio
nin
the
first
plac
ew
asto
impa
rtG
od’s
auth
ority
tobi
blic
alla
wan
did
eolo
gy.
The
refo
re,
in
addi
tion
toou
rqu
estio
nsab
out
the
natu
reof
such
insp
irat
ion,
we
mus
tas
kw
heth
er‘d
ivin
e
insp
irat
ion”
issu
ffic
ient
toin
vest
bibl
ical
law
with
God
’sau
thor
ity.
Itis
that
poin
twhi
chis,
fran
kly,
som
ewha
tstic
kyfo
rth
ead
voca
tes
ofC
onse
rvat
ive
II.Si
nce
the
Bib
leis
aco
mbi
natio
nof
the
hum
anan
ddi
vine
,ho
wdo
you
dist
ingu
ish
the
one
from
the
othe
r?R
abbi
Emil
Fack
enhe
im,
Prof
esso
rof
Philo
soph
yat
the
Heb
rew
Uni
vers
ity,
has
stat
ed
this
poin
twel
lan
dha
spr
opos
edan
answ
er:
The
view
Ihav
esk
etch
edim
plie
sth
atno
tal
l61
3co
mm
andm
ents
are
equa
lly
bind
ing.
Shot
thro
ugh
with
hum
anap
prop
riat
ion
and
inte
rpre
tatio
n,bo
thth
e
Tora
han
dth
esu
bseq
uent
trad
ition
whi
chis
oral
Tor
ahin
esca
pabl
yre
flec
tth
e
ages
ofth
eir
com
posi
tion.
Buti
tals
ofo
llow
sth
atit
isbo
thna
ive
and
un-J
ewis
h
todi
still
,as
still
bind
ing.
“ete
rnal
”co
mm
andm
ents
from
aco
mpl
exco
mpo
sed
ofbo
thet
erna
lan
dti
me-
boun
d”on
es,
the
latte
rsi
mpl
yto
bedi
scar
ded.
(Thi
s
isdo
neby
old-
fash
ione
dlib
eral
ism
,w
ithits
rigi
ddi
stin
ctio
nbe
twee
nth
e
“pri
ncip
les
ofpr
ophe
ticet
hics
and
mer
eex
tern
al“c
erem
onia
l”la
ws,
a
dist
inct
ion
whi
chde
rive
sits
stan
dard
sfr
omex
tern
also
urce
s—
Plat
o,K
ant,
Jeff
erso
n,an
dth
elik
e—
and
cons
ider
sth
est
anda
rds
byw
hich
itju
dges
tobe
supe
rior
tow
hat
isju
dged
byth
em;
this
isan
inve
rsio
nof
the
Jew
ish
view
in
whi
chG
odsp
eaki
ngth
roug
hth
eTo
rah
does
the
judg
ing.
)A
mod
ern
Jew
can
esca
pehi
sow
ntim
e-bo
und
appr
opri
atin
gno
mor
eth
anco
uld
his
fath
ers;
but
his
inte
rpre
tatio
nis
Jew
ishl
yle
gitim
ate
only
ifit
conf
ront
s,an
dlis
tens
to,
the
reve
latio
nre
flec
ted
inth
eTo
rah,
whi
chco
ntin
ues
tobe
acce
ssib
leon
ly
thro
ugh
the
anci
entr
efle
ctio
nw
hich
isth
eT
orah
.O
urm
oder
nap
prop
riat
ing
isbo
thpo
ssib
lean
dne
cess
ary
beca
use
Sina
iis
not
anan
cien
tev
ent
only
:th
e
Tor
ahis
give
nw
hene
ver
Isra
elre
ceiv
esit.
But
the
act
ofpr
esen
tap
prop
riat
ion
ism
edia
ted
thro
ugh
the
orig
inal
Sina
i.It
isth
islis
teni
ngap
prop
riat
ion
whi
ch
crea
tes
hist
oric
alco
nti
nuit
y.
39
Inot
her
wor
ds,
ther
ear
eso
me
part
sof
Jew
ish
law
whi
chup
lift
peop
lem
oral
ly,
enri
chth
em
aest
hetic
ally
,and
give
them
grou
pid
entit
y.T
hose
we
wou
ldlik
eto
call
divi
nean
det
erna
l.
On
the
othe
rha
nd,
ther
ear
epa
rtsof
Jew
ish
law
whi
chse
emto
usto
bem
oral
lyde
grad
ing,
aest
hetic
ally
offe
nsiv
e,an
d/or
soci
ally
usel
ess.
(Exa
mpl
esco
mm
only
give
nar
eth
ebi
blic
al
law
ssa
nctio
ning
slav
ery,
requ
irin
gth
ede
ath
pena
ltyfo
rvi
olat
ions
ofth
eSa
bbat
h,an
d
proh
ibiti
nga
bast
ard
and
his
desc
enda
nts
for
ten
gene
ratio
nsfr
omm
arry
ing
aJe
w.)
Toth
ose,
man
ype
ople
wou
ldlik
eto
deny
divi
nest
atus
,cl
aim
ing
that
they
are
the
prod
uct
ofth
e
limite
dvi
sion
ofhu
man
bein
gsat
apa
rtic
ular
time.
Ath
ird
cate
gory
cons
ists
ofth
ose
law
s
116
inth
etr
aditi
onw
hich
are
mor
ally
, aes
thet
ical
ly,
and
soci
ally
neut
ral.
Tho
sela
ws
mos
tw
ould
bew
illin
gto
cont
inue
obse
rvin
gif
only
topr
eser
veas
muc
hof
the
trad
ition
aspo
ssib
le.
Whi
chla
ws
fall
into
whi
chca
tego
ry?
That
isth
ere
alpr
oble
m.
Rab
biFa
cker
ihei
mcl
aim
sth
at
we
cann
otre
ally
tell
beca
use
our
own
judg
men
tis
limite
dby
the
prej
udic
esof
the
times
.T
he
best
that
we
can
dois
totry
tolis
ten
toth
etr
aditi
onas
wel
las
we
can
and
then
appl
yit
toou
r
own
times
.H
ecl
aim
sth
atea
chin
divi
dual
Jew
shou
lddo
this
.M
ost
ofth
ead
voca
tes
of
Con
serv
ativ
eII
wou
ldag
ree
with
Fack
enhe
imth
atal
lw
eca
ndo
isto
liste
nto
the
Tra
ditio
n
and
try
toap
ply
itap
prop
riat
ely;
but
they
wou
ldcl
aim
,as
the
trad
ition
does
,th
atit
isth
e
rabb
isof
each
gene
rati
onth
atsh
ould
doth
isbe
caus
eon
lyth
eyha
vest
udie
dth
etr
aditi
on
enou
ghto
beab
leto
liste
nto
itse
nsiti
vely
.In
othe
rw
ords
,it
shou
ldbe
ade
cisi
onm
ade
on
beha
lfof
the
com
mun
ityby
itsre
ligio
usle
ader
s,as
itha
sbe
enhi
stor
ical
ly,
and
not
am
atte
r
for
each
indi
vidu
alto
deci
de.
(Itis
not
anac
cide
ntth
atFa
cken
heim
isa
Ref
orm
rabb
i,fo
r,
asw
esh
all
see
belo
w,
the
Ref
orm
mov
emen
tge
nera
llyle
aves
itto
indi
vidu
als
todi
scer
n
God
’sw
ill.)
Isas
king
rabb
isto
dist
ingu
ish
the
hum
anfr
omth
edi
vine
elem
ents
ofou
rtr
aditi
onan
effe
ctiv
e
way
togu
aran
tee
that
the
deci
sion
sth
atar
em
ade
are
anac
cura
teex
pres
sion
ofG
od’s
will
?
That
depe
nds
upon
your
poin
tofv
iew
.A
dvoc
ates
ofC
onse
rvat
ive
IIw
ould
argu
eth
atpu
tting
the
deci
sion
sin
the
hand
sof
the
rabb
isof
each
gene
ratio
ndo
esno
tgu
aran
tee
wis
dom
or
divi
nity
,bu
tit
isth
ebe
stw
eca
ndo
.Li
fedo
esno
tco
me
with
guar
ante
es.
Bes
ides
,th
e
trad
ition
requ
ires
that
we
proc
eed
inth
isw
ay(c
f.So
urce
s1t
6an
d#7
inSe
ctio
nC
abov
e).
4)Co
nser
vativ
eIII
Adv
ocat
esof
this
posi
tion
asse
rtth
efo
llow
ing:
a)R
evel
atio
nis
the
disc
losu
reof
God
Him
self
.It
isno
tth
ede
clar
atio
nof
spec
ific
rule
sor
idea
s,bu
tra
ther
am
eetin
gbe
twee
nG
odan
dhu
man
bein
gs
inw
hich
they
get
tokn
owea
chot
her.
This
mee
ting
isas
sert
edfo
rdi
ffer
ent
reas
ons
and
desc
ribe
din
diff
eren
tw
ays
byth
eex
iste
ntia
list
and
obje
ctiv
ist
thin
kers
ofth
isgr
oup.
(The
sete
rms
will
beex
plai
ned
belo
w.)
Inot
her
wor
ds,
ther
ear
eva
rtan
tun
ders
tand
ings
ofth
eac
tofr
evel
atio
n.
b)B
oth
scho
ols
agre
e,ho
wev
er,
onth
ena
ture
ofth
ete
xts
ofre
vela
tion:
the
Tor
ahis
the
reco
rdof
how
hum
anbe
ings
resp
onde
dto
Cod
whe
nth
eyca
me
into
cont
actw
ithth
eE
tern
al.
117
‘I!
‘I I
C)
Jewish
lawhas
authorityfor
theJew
bothbecause
itrepresentsthe
attempt
ofthe
Jewish
Peopleto
spellout
God’s
will,
asrevealed
inthe
ongoingencounter
with
God,
andalso
becauseJew
sare
mem
bersof
acovenanted
comm
unityand
haveobligations
underthat covenant
toG
odand
tothe
Jewish
comm
unityofthe
past,present, and
future.T
hedivine
andcom
munal
aspectsof
Jewish
lawm
akeit
aseries
ofm
itzvot(com
mandm
ents),and
notjust
minhagim
(customs),
incontradistinction
tothe
positionof
Conservative
IVbelow
.For
Conservative
ill,both
God
andthe
Jewish
comm
unitycom
mand
aJew
toact
inaccordance
with
Jewish
lawas
itis
interpretedin
eachgeneration, and
theJew
gainsa
personal contact with
bothG
odand
theJew
ishcom
munity
everytim
ehe
orshe
abidesby
them
itzvot.
d)H
owever, since
theTorah
was
written
byhum
anbeings,
ifwe
wantto
learnabout
theorigins
andm
eaningof
theB
ible,w
em
ustuse
thetechniques
ofbiblical
scholarshipas
thoroughlyand
honestlyas
we
can.
e)M
oreover,because
theB
ibleis
thehum
anrecording
ofthe
encounterbetw
eenhum
anbeings
andG
odduring
times
past,the
specificideas
andJaw
scontained
thereinreflect
thepractices,
values,and
attitudesof
thosetim
es.T
heym
ayno
longerbe
anadequate
expressionof
ourow
nunderstanding
ofw
hatGod
demands
ofusnow
.W
ein
ourday
havenot
onlythe
right,butthe
responsibility,to
make
appropriatechanges
inthe
Tradition
thathas
come
down
tous
sothat
itw
illreflect
God’s
will
asaccurately
aspossible
andaccom
plishItas
effectivelyas
possiblein
thecontem
poraryw
orld.Since
God
canbe
presumed
toknow
andtake
accountof
them
oral,social,
economic,
andpsychological
factorsw
hichinfluence
thew
ayin
which
thelaw
will
functionin
society, we,
ininterpreting
God’s
will,
must
takethose
factorsinto
accountas
well.
Inother
words,
thesanctity
andauthority
ofH
alakhahattaches
tothe
bodyof
law,
nottoeach
lawseparately;
human
beingshave
theright and
responsibilityto
evaluatethe
laws
which
havecom
edow
nto
usand
changethem
ifpressing
moral,
social,econom
ic,or
psychologicalfactors
requirethat.
f)W
hileevery
personm
ayhave
hisor
herow
nrelationship
with
God,
itis
God’s
encounterw
iththe
Jewish
Peopleas
aw
holethat
isof
primary
importance.
The
comm
unalcharacter
ofrevelation
is,in
fact,a
distinguishingfeature
ofJudaism
.C
onsequently,changes
inthe
laws
ofJudaism
must
bem
adeby
therabbis
onbehalf
ofthecom
munity,
asthe
traditionrequires,
andnot
byindividuals
ontheir
own.
But
theentire
bodyof
Jewish
law,
asinterpreted
bythe
rabbisof
ourtim
es,is
bindingon
everyJew
asa
mem
berof
thecom
munity
covenantedw
ithG
odand
with
generationsof
Jews,
past,present,
andfuture.
This
viewis
alsow
idelyheld
inthe
Conservative
Movem
ent,It
ispopular
forthe
same
reasonsthat
Conservative
IIis
—nam
ely,because
itcombines
objectivestudy
ofthe
textsof
theTradition
with
divineauthority
forits
laws
andideas.
Advocates
ofC
onservativeIlloften
explainthatone
oftheirprim
arym
otivationsin
adoptingthis
approachis
topreserve
asense
ofm
itzvah,of
beingcom
manded
byG
od,w
henobserving
Jewish
laww
hileyet
retainingintellectual
honesty.Since
theydo
notbelievethat
God
gavea
specificm
essagefor
alltim
e,they
alsotend
tobe
more
willing
thanthose
who
holdC
onservativeIor
Iltom
akechanges
inJew
ishJaw
.
Theyw
ould,how
ever,encourage
cautionin
making
suchchanges
fortw
oreasons.
Firstofall,forthe
advocatesofC
onservativeill,as
forthe
restofthe
Conservative
movem
ent,Jewish
lawem
bodiesw
hatw
eunderstand
God
tow
antof
us,and
itisa
chieffactor
indefining
usas
people.W
etherefore
needto
conservethe
Jawm
orethan
we
needto
changeit;
infact,
theburden
ofproofrestsw
iththe
onew
how
antsto
altera
law,
notw
iththe
onew
how
antsto
maintain
thepractices
which
havecom
edow
nto
us.Second,
sincew
edo
notknow
what
partsofthe
systemare
responsiblefor
itsdurability,
we
shouldnot
tamper
with
ittoom
uch.In
otherw
ords,advocates
ofthis
positionw
illbe
more
interestedin
theresults
ofthe
proposedchanges
thanin
thestrength
ofthe
precedentsjustifying
thechanges.
Therefore,
oncertain
issues,they
may
bem
oreconservative
-thatis,
lessw
illingto
make
changes-
thanthose
who
takea
more
assuredstand
onthe
divinityof
theorigin
ofthe
law.
Advocates
ofConservative
liiagreeon
allof
thepoints
statedabove,
includingthe
tenetthat
theauthority
ofJewish
lawis
inpart
divineand
inpart
comm
unal.H
owever,
Conservative
iiiincludes
two
differentw
aysof
describingthe
divineaspect
ofJew
ishlaw
anda
correspondingdifference
inem
phasison
divineand
comm
unalfactors.
a)T
heE
xistentialists:O
negroup
within
Conservative
illdepends
heavilyon
theexistentialist
traditionin
philosophy,w
hichem
phasizesthe
individual‘s
experience.T
hinkersin
thisgroup
speakoften
ofthe
personalencounters
which
individualshave
with
God.
On
theother
hand,advocates
ofthis
positionw
antto
preservejew
ishlaw
,w
hichis
comm
unalin
nature.M
oreover,the
most
important
Jewish
contactsw
ithG
odin
revelationand
historyw
ereinteractions
between
God
andthe
Jewish
Peopleas
aw
hole.T
hereforeexistentialist
exponentsofC
onservativeIlloften
citethe
work
ofFranz
Rosenzw
eig,w
hoem
phasizedthe
importance
ofhaving
arelationship
with
God
andalso
consideredlaw
tobe
anaid,
ratherthan
anobstacle,
tothatrelationship.4°
Theirtraditional
leanings,how
ever,m
akethem
more
comm
unallyoriented
thanR
osenzweig’s
thoughtis
—although
theyoften
donotrecognize
thatthey
differfrom
Rosenzw
eigin
thisw
ay.
118119
Letu
sco
nsid
era
few
exam
ples
ofth
ispo
sitio
n.R
abbi
Loui
s Jac
obs,
rabb
iof
the
New
Lon
don
Syna
gogu
ein
Lon
don,
Eng
land
,ha
sex
plai
ned
itw
ell:
Bot
hdo
ctri
nes
—th
atof
trad
ition
and
that
of“p
rogr
essi
vere
vela
tion
’—
see
reve
lati
onin
prop
ositi
onal
term
s.A
ccor
ding
toth
etr
aditi
onal
view
,G
od
reve
aled
cert
ain
prop
ositi
ons
all
aton
ce,
whe
reas
acco
rdin
gto
“pro
gres
sive
reve
latio
n”th
eory
He
reve
aled
them
grad
ually
.In
mor
ere
cent
times
ave
ry
diff
eren
t(a
ndto
man
ym
inds
far
mor
esa
tisfa
ctor
y)vi
ewof
reve
latio
nha
s
gain
edgr
ound
.O
nth
isvi
ew,r
evel
atio
ndo
esno
tm
ean
that
God
conv
eys
to
man
deta
iled
prop
ositi
ons
atal
l,bu
tra
ther
that
He
enab
les
men
toha
vean
enco
unte
rw
ithH
imof
asp
ecia
llyin
tens
efo
rm.
Itis
God
Him
self
who
is
disc
lose
din
reve
latio
n.R
evel
atio
nis
anev
ent,
not
ase
ries
ofpr
opos
ition
s
abou
tG
odan
dH
isde
man
ds.
The
Bib
leis
the
reco
rdof
how
men
wer
eco
nfro
nted
with
God
....F
oral
lth
e
hum
anco
lour
ing
ofth
est
ory,
for
all
that
Gen
esis
isa
book
like
othe
rbo
oks
and
soam
enab
leto
liter
ary
and
hist
oric
alan
alys
is,
itis
inth
isbo
okth
atG
od
isre
veal
ed.
IfG
odis,
then
He
isto
befo
und
inth
eB
iblic
alre
cord
;no
whe
re
else
inhu
man
liter
atur
eis
He
told
ofso
clea
rly.
Wha
tapp
lies
toth
eG
enes
is
narr
ativ
eap
plie
sto
the
rest
ofth
eB
ible
.It
isal
lth
ere
cord
ofa
peop
le’s
trem
endo
usat
tem
pt—
the
belie
verd
ecla
res
asu
cces
sful
atte
mpt
—to
mee
tG
od.
The
vari
ous
prop
ositi
ons
are,
then
,no
tth
emse
lves
reve
latio
nbu
tar
eth
e
by-p
rodu
ctof
reve
latio
n....
Rev
elat
ion
can
thus
bese
enas
the
disc
losu
reof
God
Him
self
.T
heru
les
and
regu
latio
ns,
the
Tora
han
dpr
ecep
ts,p
rovi
deth
evo
cabu
lary
byw
hich
the
God
who
isdi
sclo
sed
isto
bew
orsh
ippe
d,in
the
broa
dse
nse
ofth
ete
rm.
The
yar
e
are
pert
oire
whi
chha
sev
olve
din
resp
onse
toth
eim
pact
ofth
eor
igin
al
disc
losu
re...
.
The
prec
epts
ofth
eT
orah
are
bind
ing
beca
use
they
prov
ide
the
voca
bula
ryof
wor
ship
—al
way
sun
ders
tand
ing
wor
ship
inits
wid
est
sens
e.G
oddi
d
“com
man
d”th
em,
butn
otby
dire
ctco
mm
unic
atio
n—
asin
the
trad
ition
alvi
ew
—bu
tthr
ough
the
hist
oric
alex
peri
ence
sof
the
peop
leof
Isra
el.
The
Rab
bis
had
wha
tw
ew
ould
toda
yca
llth
e“f
unda
men
talis
t”vi
ew.
The
ybe
lieve
din
the
doct
rine
of“v
erba
lin
spir
atio
n....
[But
]th
eid
eaof
a“c
omm
and”
thro
ugh
man
—of
God
,as
itw
ere,
givi
ngth
eTo
rah
not
som
uch
toIs
rael
asth
roug
hIs
rael
—is
note
ntir
ely
fore
ign
toR
abbi
nic
Juda
ism
soth
ata
crea
tive
Jew
ish
theo
logy
can
build
onit.
...
The
grea
tdif
ficu
lty,
asw
eha
veno
ted,
for
upho
lder
sof
the
bind
ing
char
acte
r
ofJe
wis
hla
ws
isth
ele
apfr
omth
ein
tens
ely
pers
onal
mee
ting
with
God
,of
whi
chth
eB
ible
isth
ere
cord
,to
the
full
acce
ptan
ceof
the
deta
iled
law
s.T
hese
belo
ngno
tto
the
actu
alre
vela
tion
but
toits
falli
ble
hum
anre
cord
ing.
Why
,
then
,sh
ould
they
behe
ldto
bebi
ndin
g?...
The
final
wor
k,w
ithits
cont
radi
ctio
nsan
der
rors
,is
the
resu
ltof
ate
achi
ng
proc
ess,
freq
uent
lyun
cons
ciou
s,in
whi
chth
ere
cord
was
draw
nup
ofIs
rael
’s
ques
tfo
rG
odan
dof
God
allo
win
gH
imse
lfto
befo
und.
Such
an
unde
rsta
ndin
gpr
eser
ves
the
dyna
mic
qual
ityof
the
proc
ess.
Rev
elat
ion
isst
ill
tobe
seen
asG
od’s
self
-dis
clos
ure
but
wha
tw
eha
veca
lled
the
“voc
abul
ary
ofw
orsh
ip”
isas
muc
ha
sign
ific
ant
fact
orin
the
proc
ess
asth
eor
igin
al
disc
losu
re.
Itne
edha
rdly
besa
idth
atth
evi
eww
eha
vead
opte
dis
cert
ainl
yno
tth
e
trad
ition
alon
e.B
utit
does
pres
erve
the
idea
—of
the
utm
ost
sign
ific
ance
for
the
Jew
ish
relig
ion
—th
atto
lead
the
good
life
isto
obey
God
’sw
ill.
The
idea
ofth
em
itzva
h,th
edi
vine
Com
man
d,ca
nan
dsh
ould
bem
aint
aine
dev
en
thou
ghin
telle
ctua
lho
nest
yco
mpe
lsus
toin
terp
ret
reve
latio
nin
non-
prop
ositi
onal
term
s.4’
Ano
ther
impo
rtan
t pro
pone
ntof
this
view
isR
abbi
Ism
arSc
hors
ch,
Cha
ncel
loro
fth
eJe
wis
h
Theo
logi
cal S
emin
ary
ofA
mer
ica.
For
him
,to
o,th
eau
thor
ity
ofth
eco
mm
andm
ents
deri
ves
from
two
sour
ces,
the
ongo
ing
rela
tions
hip
—or
“dia
logu
e”—
betw
een
God
and
the
Jew
ish
Peop
lean
dth
eco
ntin
uing
deci
sion
sof
the
Jew
sof
ever
yag
eto
expr
ess
thei
rre
spon
seto
that
dial
ogue
insp
ecif
icfo
rms
ofac
tion,
the
mit
zvot
:
For
me,
God
isbo
thtr
ansc
ende
ntan
dim
man
ent,
inco
mpr
ehen
sibl
ean
d
know
able
.Ig
nora
nce
does
not
depr
ive
me
ofa
sens
eof
rela
tions
hip.
God
is
ave
rb,
not a
noun
,an
inef
fabl
epr
esen
ceth
atgr
aces
my
life
with
ada
ilyto
uch
ofet
erni
ty.
tha
veno
doub
tth
atth
eSa
bbat
his
afo
reta
ste
ofth
ew
orld
-to-
com
e.T
heho
lyis
foun
dth
roug
hth
em
ediu
mof
com
mun
ityan
d
com
man
dmen
ts
Ide
emT
orah
tobe
the
gran
dre
cord
ofth
ein
itial
and
form
ativ
edi
alog
ue
betw
een
God
and
Isra
el,
abo
okth
atsp
arkl
esw
ithth
ein
tens
ityof
ongo
ing
relig
ious
expe
rien
ce.
Itsle
gal
core
,se
tin
anex
quis
ite
narr
ativ
efr
amew
ork,
repu
diat
edth
eva
lues
and
belie
fsof
the
anci
ent
wor
ldev
enas
itbo
rrow
ed
heav
ilyfr
omth
em.
Wha
tul
timat
ely
mad
eit
sacr
edan
dbi
ndin
gw
asits
publ
ic
acce
ptan
ceat
the
time
ofEz
ra(a
ndof
ten
ther
eaft
er).
Not
for
noth
ing
did
the
rabb
isre
gard
him
asth
eeq
ual
ofM
oses
.
As
aC
onse
rvat
ive
Jew
,I
live
the
Juda
ism
fash
ione
dou
tof
the
Bib
leby
the
rabb
isin
Pale
stin
ean
dB
abyl
or,ja
from
the
1stt
oth
e6t
hce
ntur
ies.
Whi
leth
ey
turn
edth
eTo
rah
into
the
foun
datio
nte
xtof
Juda
ism
,as
sym
boli
zby
its
.iII I’ll12
0
121
centralrole
inthe
synagogue,they
didriot
hesitateto
modify,
expand,and
evenabrogate
itthrough
interpretation.In
theprocess,
theyachieved
theparadox
ofa
canon[that
is,a
set,authoritative
bodyof
writingsl
without
closure,a
dynamic
exegetical[interpretive]
culturem
arkedby
equalam
ountsof
reverenceand
responsiveness.T
hedialogue
between
God
andIsrael
animates
theferm
entof
rabbinicljerture....T
heoIOgically,
Ibelieve
thatC
onservativeJudaism
isheir
tothe
mantle
ofrabbiriic
Judaism
....42
Probablythe
most
famous
modern
proponentof
thisview
isR
abbiA
brahamJoshua
Heschel,
Professorof Jew
ishEthics
andM
ysticismat the
jewish
Theological
Sem
inaryof
Am
ericafrom
1945to
hisdeath
in19
72.
On
theone
hand,R
abbiH
eschelm
akesstatem
entslike
this,in
which
heseem
sto
holdthat
God
utteredw
ordsduring
actsof
revelation,w
hichw
ouldplace
histhought
inthe
rubricI have
calledC
onservativeI:
...“God
spoke”is
nota
symbol.
Asym
boldoes
notraise
aw
orldout
ofnothing.
Nor
doesa
symbol
calla
Bible
intobeing.
The
speechof
God
isnot
lessbut
more
thanliterally
real....
The
extraordinaryqualities
of thedivine
word
isin
itsm
ysteryof
omnipotence.
Out
ofG
odw
entthe
mystery
ofH
isutterance,
anda
word,
asound,
reachedthe
earof
man.
The
spiritof
His
creativepow
erbrought
am
aterialw
orldinto
being.the
spiritof
His
revealingpow
erbrought
theB
ibleinto
being....
The
Bible
isholiness
inw
ords....Som
epeople
may
wonder:
why
was
thelight
ofG
odgiven
inthe
formof
language?H
owis
itconceivable
thatthe
divineshould
becontained
insuch
brittlevessels
asconsonants
andvow
els?....And
yet,it
isas
ifG
odtook
theseH
ebreww
ordsand
breathedinto
themof
His
power,
andthe
words
became
alive
wire
chargedw
ithH
isspirit.
To
thisvery
daythey
arehyphens
between
heavenand
earth.
What
otherm
ediumcould
havebeen
employed
toconvey
thedivine?
Picturesenam
eledon
them
oon?Statues
hewn
outof
theR
ockies?W
hatis
wrong
with
thehum
anancestry
ofscriptural
vocabulary?...
If God
isalive,
thenthe
Bible
isH
isvoice.
No
otherw
orkis
asw
orthyof
beingconsidered
am
anifestationof
His
will.
There
isno
otherm
irrorin
thew
orldw
hereH
isw
illand
spiritualguidance
isas
unmistakably
reflected.If
thebelief
inthe
imm
anenceof
God
innature
isplausible,
thenthe
beliefin
theim
manence
ofG
odin
theB
ibleis
com
pellin
g.
44
Forhim
revelationdid
not,in
contrastto
Conservative
II,consist
inan
inspirationlike
thatw
hichcreative
peopleoften
feel,for
severalreasons.
First,inspirations
areusually
impersonal:
peoplew
hohave
themdescribe
themby
saying.“It
came
overm
e.”B
iblicalprophets,
onthe
otherhand,
arekeenly
aware
thatthey
arebeing
addressedby
adivine
Person,by
God
Him
self.C
onsequentlythe
prophetsthem
selvesdescribe
theirexperiences
ofG
odw
iththe
words,
“Sosaid
God!”
Second,
inspirationsoften
donot
involvea
message:
inspiredpeople
experiencea
forcethat
carriesthem
beyondtheir
normal
powers,
butinspirations
donot
generallyconsist
ofw
ords.T
heyare
more
ofteninchoate
feelingsor
energy,like
beingcarried
alongby
aw
ave.P
rophecy,how
ever,consists
ofw
ordsthat
arespoken
andheard
anda
burningdesire
totransm
itthem
toothers.
And
finally,inspirations
areoften
“one-time
things”;even
when
peopleexperience
severalinspirations,
theydo
notusually
thinkof
themas
beingrelated,
andthe
contentof
theseveral
inspirationsis
generallydissim
ilar.B
ycontrast,
prophetsoften
connectany
givenrevelation
with
allprevious
onesthat
theyhave
had—
thatis,
theythem
selvessee
theirvarious
visionsas
beingrelated
experiences—
andthe
contentof
severalrevelations
isconsistent.
Consequently,
revelationis
notthe
same
asinspiration:
Incontrast
tothe
inspirationof
thepoet,
which
eachtim
ebreaks
forthsuddenly,
unexpectedly,from
anunknow
nsource,
theinspiration
ofthe
prophetis
distinguished,not
onlyby
anaw
arenessof
itssource
andof
aw
illto
impart
thecontent
ofinspiration,
butalso
bythe
coherenceof
theinspired
messages
asa
whole
(with
theirconstant
implication
ofearlier
comm
unications),by
theaw
arenessof
beinga
linkin
thechain
ofthe
prophetsw
hopreceded
him,
andby
thecontinuity
which
linksthe
revelationshe
receivesto
oneanother.
The
words
thatcom
eto
himform
acoherence
ofclosely
relatedrevelations,
allreflecting
theillum
inationand
thesense
ofm
issionshed
bythe
call.T
hereis
botha
thematic
anda
personalunity
ofexperience....W
hatis
important
inprophetic
actsis
thatsom
ethingis
said....Prophecy
isan
experienceof
arelationship,
thereceipt
ofa
messag
e.45
All
thesepassages
make
Rabbi
Heschel
soundas
ifhe
istaking
theposition
Ihave
calledC
onservativeI,
andthat
isindeed
where
Iplacedhim
inthe
firsteditionof
thishook.
Throughout
hislife,
however,
Rabbi
Heschel
always
describedhim
selfas
aphenom
enologist,that
is,of
theschool
ofphilosophy
which
assertsthat
we
human
beingsexperience
phenomena
andcan
onlyrespond
tothem
inadequatelythrough
ourconcepts
andw
ords.M
oreover,in
otherpassages,
Rabbi
Heschel
indicatesthat
theB
ible’scitations
ofG
od’sw
ordsshould
notbe
understoodliterally
asG
odspeaking
physical,audible
words,
butrather
suchlanguage
inthe
Bible
isonly
ahum
anretelling
ofthe
experienceofG
odin
human
terms,
thusplacing
himsqarely
inC
onservativeIll:
122123
As
are
port
abou
tre
vela
tion
the
Bib
leits
elf
isa
mid
rash
.T
oco
nvey
wha
tth
e
prop
hets
expe
rien
ced,
the
Bib
leco
uld
use
eith
erte
rms
ofde
scri
ptio
nor
term
s
ofin
dica
tion.
Any
desc
ript
ion
ofth
eac
tofr
evel
atio
nin
empi
rica
lca
tego
ries
wou
ldha
vepr
oduc
eda
cari
catu
re.
Tha
tis
why
all
the
Bib
ledo
esis
tost
ate
that
reve
lati
onha
ppen
ed;
how
itha
ppen
edis
som
ethi
ngth
eyco
uld
only
conv
eyin
wor
dsth
atar
eev
ocat
ive
and
sugg
estiv
e.
The
sam
ew
ord
may
beus
edin
eith
erw
ay.
The
soun
dis
the
sam
e,bu
tth
e
spir
itis
diff
eren
t.“A
ndG
odsa
id:
Lett
here
belig
ht”
isdi
ffer
ent
insp
irit
from
ast
atem
ent
such
as“A
ndSm
ithsa
id:
Let
ustu
rnon
the
light
.’T
hese
cond
stat
emen
tco
nvey
sa
defi
nite
mea
ning
;th
efi
rst
stat
emen
tev
okes
anin
ner
resp
onse
toan
inef
fabl
em
eani
ng.
The
stat
emen
t‘M
ansp
eaks
”de
scri
bes
a
phys
iolo
gica
lan
dps
ycho
logi
cal
act;
the
stat
emen
t“G
odsp
eaks
”co
nvey
sa
mys
tery
.It
calls
upon
our
sens
eof
won
der
and
amaz
emen
tto
resp
ond
toa
mys
tery
that
surp
asse
sou
rpo
wer
and
com
preh
ensi
on.
The
rear
esp
iritu
alfa
cts
whi
char
ew
holl
yir
redu
cibl
eto
verb
alex
pres
sion
and
com
plet
ely
beyo
ndth
era
nge
ofei
ther
imag
inat
ion
orde
fini
tion
.
Itw
asno
tes
sent
ial
that
His
will
betr
ansm
itte
das
soun
d;it
was
esse
ntia
lth
at
itbe
mad
ekn
own
tous
.T
heso
und
orsi
ght
isto
the
tran
scen
dent
even
tw
hat
am
etap
hor
isto
anab
stra
ctpr
inci
ple.
...
[The
prop
het’
sw
ords
]ar
eno
tpo
rtra
its,
but
clue
s,se
rvin
gus
asgu
ides
,
sugg
esti
nga
line
ofth
inki
ng.
Thi
sin
deed
isou
rsi
tuat
ion
inre
gard
toa
stat
emen
tsu
chas
“God
spok
e.”
Itre
fers
toan
idea
that
isno
tat
hom
ein
the
min
d,an
dth
eon
lyw
ayto
unde
rsta
ndits
mea
ning
isby
resp
ondi
ngto
it.W
e
mus
tada
ptou
rm
inds
toa
mea
ning
unhe
ard
ofbe
fore
.T
hew
ord
isbu
ta
clue
;
the
real
burd
enof
unde
rsta
ndin
gis
upon
the
min
dan
dso
ulof
the
reader.
4”
Thu
sR
abbi
Hes
chel
appr
ovin
gly
cite
sR
abbi
Sol
omon
ibn
Adr
et(c
.12
35-
c.13
10)
of
Bar
celo
na,
Spai
nan
dR
abbi
Juda
hL
oew
ofPr
ague
(C.
1525
-160
9)to
indi
cate
that
“The
lead
ing
expo
nent
sof
Jew
ish
thou
ghte
xhor
tus
nott
oim
agin
eth
atG
odsp
eaks
,or
that
aso
und
ispr
oduc
edby
Him
thro
ugh
orga
nsof
spee
ch,”
47
for,
says
Rab
biH
esch
el,
...th
isis
the
axio
mof
Bib
lical
thin
king
:G
odw
hocr
eate
dth
ew
orld
isun
like
the
wor
ld.
Tofo
rman
imag
eof
Him
orH
isac
tsis
tode
nyH
isex
iste
nce.
Not
all
real
ityis
mat
eria
l;no
tal
lrea
lac
tsar
epe
rcep
tibl
eto
our
bodi
lyse
nses
.It
is
not
only
byhi
sea
rth
atm
anca
nhe
ar.
Itis
not
only
the
phys
ical
soun
dth
atca
n
reac
hth
esp
irit
ofm
an.
46
Thu
she
says
that
the
hum
anbe
ings
who
wer
epr
ophe
ts(i
nclu
ding
Mos
es)
reco
rded
wha
tth
ey
unde
rsto
od,
and
thus
Rab
biH
esch
elm
akes
his
beli
efin
the
hum
anau
thor
ship
ofth
eT
orah
very
expl
icit:
The
prop
hets
bear
wit
ness
toan
even
t.T
heev
ent
isdi
vine
,bu
tth
efo
rmul
atio
n
isdone
byth
ein
divi
dual
prop
het.
Acc
ordi
ngto
this
conc
epti
on,
the
idea
is
reve
aled
;th
eex
pres
sion
isco
ined
byth
epr
ophe
t.T
heex
pres
sion
“the
wor
d
ofG
Od”
wou
ldno
tre
fer
toth
ew
ord
asa
soun
dor
aco
mbi
nati
onof
soun
ds.
Inde
ed,
itha
sof
ten
been
mai
ntai
ned
that
wha
tre
ache
dth
eea
rof
man
was
not
iden
tica
lw
ith
wha
tha
sco
me
out
ofth
esp
irit
ofth
eet
erna
lG
od.
For
Isra
el
coul
dno
tpo
ssib
lyha
vere
ceiv
edth
eT
orah
asit
cam
efo
rth
from
the
mou
thof
the
Lor
d,fo
r...t
hew
ord
ofG
odin
itsel
fis
like
abu
rnin
gfl
ame,
and
the
Tor
ah
that
we
rece
ived
ism
erel
ya
part
ofth
eco
alto
whi
chth
efl
ame
isat
tach
ed...
.
Out
ofth
eex
peri
ence
ofth
epr
ophe
tsca
me
the
wor
ds,
wor
dsth
attr
yto
inte
rpre
tw
hat
they
perc
eive
d....
The
Bib
lere
flec
tsits
divi
neas
wel
las
itshu
man
auth
orsh
ip.
Exp
ress
edin
the
lang
uage
ofa
part
icul
arag
e,it
addr
esse
sits
elft
oal
lag
es;
disc
lose
din
part
icul
ar
acts
,its
spir
itis
ever
last
ing.
The
will
ofG
odis
inti
me
and
inet
erni
ty.
God
borr
owed
the
lang
uage
ofm
anan
dcr
eate
da
wor
ksu
chas
nom
enha
dev
er
made.
49
Inlin
ew
ithhi
sbe
lief
inth
ehu
man
auth
orsh
ipof
the
Bib
le,
Rab
biH
esch
elis
emph
atic
in
stat
ing
that
the
Bib
lem
ust
beun
ders
tood
asa
liter
a,’,’
wor
k,w
ithm
any
leve
lsof
mea
ning
.an
d
usin
glit
erar
yan
alys
isan
din
terp
reta
tion
:
The
sure
stw
ayof
mis
unde
rsta
ndin
gre
vela
tion
isto
take
itlit
eral
ly,
toim
agin
e
that
God
spok
eto
the
prop
het
ona
long
-dis
tanc
ete
leph
one.
Yet
mos
tof
us
succ
umb
tosu
chfa
ncy,
forg
etti
ngth
atth
eca
rdin
alsi
nin
thin
king
abou
t
ultim
ate
issu
esis
liter
al-m
inde
dnes
s.
The
erro
rof
liter
al-m
inde
dnes
sis
inas
sum
ing
that
thin
gsan
dw
ords
have
only
one
mea
ning
.T
hetr
uth
isth
atth
ings
and
wor
dsst
and
for
diff
eren
tm
eani
ngs
indi
ffer
ent
situ
atio
ns...
.
The
mea
ning
ofw
ords
insc
ient
ific
lang
uage
mus
tbe
clea
r,di
stin
ct,
unam
bigu
ous,
conv
eyin
gth
esa
me
conc
ept
toal
lpe
ople
.In
poet
ry,
how
ever
,
wor
dsth
atha
veon
lyon
em
eani
ngar
eco
nsid
ered
flat.
The
righ
tw
ord
isof
ten
one
that
evok
esa
plur
alit
yof
mea
ning
san
don
eth
atm
ust
beun
ders
tood
on
mor
eth
anon
ele
vel.
Wha
tis
avi
rtue
insc
ient
ific
lang
uage
isa
fail
ure
in
poet
icex
pres
sion
.
124
125
Isit
correctto
insistthat
Biblical
words
must
beunderstood
exclusivelyaccording
toone
literalm
eaning?It
oftenseem
sas
ifthe
intentionof
theprophets
was
tobe
understoodriot
inone
way,
onone
level,but
inm
anyw
ays,on
many
levels,according
tothe
situationin
which
we
findourselves.
And
ifsuchw
astheir
intention,w
em
ustnotrestrictour
understandingto
onem
eanin
g.
5o
But even
heis
not completely
convincedof
thefruitfulness
ofm
odernbiblical
scholarship—
especiallyin
comparison
totraditional Jew
ishinterpretations
of Scripture:
Israel’sunderstanding
ofthe
word
was
notcheaply
oridyllically
won.
Itwas
acquiredat
theprice
ofa
millennia
ofw
restling,of
enduranceand
bitterordeals
ofa
stubbornpeople,
ofunparalleled
martyrdom
andself-saaifice
ofm
en,wom
enand
children,ofloyalty,
loveand
constantstudy.
What
modern
scholarcould
view
iththe
intuitionof
sucha
people?T
heT
orahis
not onlyour
mother,
it is“our
lifeand
thelength
ofour
days;we
will
meditate
(onher
words)
dayand
night”(Evening
liturgy).
Without
ourcontinuous
strivingfor
understanding,the
Bible
islike
paperm
oneyw
ithoutsecurity.
Yet
suchunderstanding
requiresaustere
disciplineand
canonly
beachieved
inattachm
entand
dedication,in
retainingand
relivingthe
originalunderstanding
asexpressed
bythe
prophetsand
theancient
sages.
5’
Thusalthough
Rabbi
Heschel
sayssom
ethings
which
would
put himsquarely
inC
onservativeI, on
balanceitappears
thathe
belongsinstead
toC
onservativeIll,w
hereitis
notG
od,but
human
beings,w
hoprovide
thew
ordsto
describeand
respondto
theirm
utualencounter.
Rabbi
Neil
Gillm
an,professor
of Jewish
philosophyat
theJew
ishT
heologicalSem
inaryof
Am
erica,takes
asim
ilarview
butw
itha
decidedlydifferent
twist.
Insteadof
usingthe
languageof relationship
comm
onto
existentialistslike
Martin
Buber
andFranz
Rosenzw
eig,as
Rabbis Jacobs
andSchorsch
do,or
thelanguage
ofm
ysteryas
Rabbi
Heschel
does,R
abbiG
illman
employs
ideasand
languagefrom
anthropology,the
academic
studyof
human
physicaland
culturaldevelopm
ent.In
thathe
resembles
theobjectivists
who
will
bedescribed
below,
forthey
tootry
tobase
theirclaim
sfor
beliefin
God
andfor
theauthority
ofJew
ishlaw
inphenom
enathat
canbe
studiedand
evaluatedby
anyone,just
asanthropologists
do.R
abbiG
illman’s
viewof truth,
though,is
decidedlyan
existentialist onein
thattruthclaim
sabout
God
cannotbe
verifiedor
falsifiedby
agroup
ofpeople;
theycan
onlybe
trueor
falsefor
theindividual.
His
approach,then,
isa
goodbridge
between
theexistentialists
andthe
objectivistsof C
onservativeIll.
When
we
saythat
something
isa
myth,
we
usuallym
eanthat
itis
afalsehood,
as,for
example,
inthe
sentence,“The
economic
recoverym
uchtouted
bythe
currentadm
inistrationis
inreality
am
yth.”R
abbiG
iliman,
though,uses
theterm
asanthropologists
doto
mean
astory
which
bespeaksour
perceptionsof
thew
orldand
thevalues
we
findin
it.In
am
yth,m
anyofthe
charactersare
metaphors
forallofus,sothat,forexam
ple,the
storyof
Adam
andEve
isintended
tobe,
atleast
insom
ew
ays,the
storyof
allm
enand
wom
en,describing
aspectsofw
how
eare
andthe
world
inw
hichw
efind
ourselves.
Suchstories
arenot
justentertainm
ent;they
arethe
ways
inw
hicha
cultureconveys
itsdeepest
beliefsand
valuesto
allof
itsm
embers
—a
much
more
effectivem
odeof
comm
unication,in
fact,than
anyphilosophical
argument
would
be.T
hey“reveal”
—that
is,they
display—
aspectsof
thew
orldw
hichw
eencounter,
tyingthem
togetherin
thespecific
way
inw
hicha
particularculture
seesthem
.T
heT
orahis
“revelation”in
thatsense,
forR
abbiG
illman:
itis
thew
ayin
which
ourancestors
expressedthe
truthsw
hichthey
discoveredabout
thew
orldand
theirresponses
tothose
truthsin
feelingand
action.
Note
thatsuchm
ythsare
notjustthefigm
entsofour
ancestors’im
aginations;they
areinstead
ways
inw
hichour
ancestorscom
municated
what
istrue
andim
portantaboutlife.
Jewish
law,
then,gets
itsauthority
fromthe
factthat
itarticulates
thevalues
we
discoverin
ourencounter
with
realityand
alsofrom
itsroots
inthe
Jewish
comm
unity’sparticular
way
ofresponding
tothose
values.In
otherw
ords,for
Rabbi
Gillm
an,as
forthe
otherthinkers
inC
onservativeIll,the
authorityof
thelaw
comes
fromtw
orelated
sources,nam
ely,firstthat
itcontains
therules
ofour
jewish
comm
unity,and
second,those
rulesare
basedon
ourperception
ofreality
(thetruth
asw
eknow
IV.It
is,in
otherw
ords,how
we,
asa
Jewish
comm
unity,have
perceivedand
respondedto
thefacts
andvalues
which
we
findin
ourexperience.
Note,
though,that
Rabbi
Gillm
anthinks
thatwe
eachindividually
perceivetruth
andjoin
thatcomm
unityw
hichbest
expressesour
own
individualvision,
andso
eventhough
we
must
expressour
Jewish
comm
itments
ina
comm
unity,they
arerooted
inour
own,
individualexperiencesofG
od—
som
uchso
thatfor
Rabbi
Gillm
anthere
isno
way
toverify
orfalsify
suchclaim
sabout
God
objectively,but
onlyexistentially
andindividually:
Whenever
Iamasked
ifIbelieve
inG
od,Irespond,
“Tellm
ew
hatyoum
eanby
God
andI’lltell
youifIbelieve
inthatG
od.”O
nthis
issue,Iinsist
thatG
odtranscends
human
understandingand
language.T
hatis
what
makes
God
God.
To
believethat
human
beingscan
comprehend
God
isidolatry,
thecardinal
Jewish
sin.
The
alternativeto
idolatryor
worshipful
silenceis
theclaim
thatall
characterizationsof
God
arem
etaphorscrafted
byhum
anbeings.
Metaphors
ci
126127
com
bine
tofo
rmm
yths
.To
the
inva
riab
lequ
estio
n,‘D
ow
eth
enin
vent
God
?’
Ires
pond
,‘N
o,w
edi
scov
erG
odan
dcr
eate
the
met
apho
rs/m
yths
whi
chre
flec
t
our
varie
dhu
man
expe
rien
ces
ofG
od.”
My
faith
isth
atth
ese
expe
rien
ces
are
true,
noti
nan
yob
ject
ive
sens
eof
that
term
but
subj
ectiv
ely,
exis
tent
ially
.O
ur
hum
anex
peri
ence
sof
God
are
obje
ctiv
ely
neith
erve
rifi
able
nor
(als
ifia
ble.
Fina
lly,
bym
yth,
Imea
nno
t afic
tion
butr
athe
rast
ruct
ure
ofm
eani
ngw
here
by
hum
anbe
ings
mak
ese
nse
ofth
eir
life-
expe
rien
ce.
How
ever
‘bro
ken,
”th
at
myt
hre
mai
nsve
rym
uch
aliv
efo
rm
e.
Muc
hof
the
com
plex
met
apho
rica
lsy
stem
thro
ugh
whi
chJe
ws
have
port
raye
d
God
rem
ains
vita
lfo
rm
e.Ia
ffirm
that
God
isun
ique
,pe
rson
al,
tran
scen
dent
;
that
God
care
sde
eply
abou
thum
anlif
ean
dhi
stor
y;th
atG
odha
sen
tere
din
to
asp
ecia
lre
latio
nshi
pw
ithth
eJe
wis
hpe
ople
;an
dth
atG
odcr
eate
s,re
veal
s,
and
will
ultim
atel
yre
deem
.T
hese
met
apho
rsfl
owfr
omou
ran
cest
ors’
vari
ed
expe
rien
ces
ofG
odin
natu
re,
hist
ory,
and
inth
eir
indi
vidu
alliv
es,
and
they
have
intu
rnco
ntin
ued
toin
form
the
expe
rien
ceof
gene
ratio
nsof
Jew
sto
this
day.
Met
apho
rsca
nre
veal
,bu
tthe
yca
nal
sobl
ind.
The
refo
reIa
lso
affir
mou
row
n
right
and
resp
onsi
bilit
yto
disc
ard
thos
em
etap
hors
whi
chco
ntra
dict
our
own
expe
rien
ces
ofG
odan
dre
plac
eth
emw
ithot
hers
.Ev
ery
myt
hen
joys
ace
rtai
n
plas
ticity
;th
epr
oces
sw
here
byJe
ws
refo
rmul
ate
the
cont
ents
ofth
eir
myt
his
wha
tw
eca
llm
idra
sh.
The
clai
mth
atT
orah
is“r
evea
led’
byG
odre
flect
sou
ran
cest
ors’
unde
rsta
ndin
g
ofho
wan
dw
hyth
eir
dist
inct
ive
way
ofvi
ewin
gth
emse
lves
and
thei
rw
orld
was
acce
pted
asau
thor
itativ
e.Th
ebi
blic
alac
coun
tof
reve
latio
nis
clas
sic
myt
h—
hist
orio
grap
hy,n
othi
stor
y—
or,
asA
brah
amJo
shua
Hes
chel
put
it,its
elf
am
idra
sh.
Tor
ahth
enre
pres
ents
the
cano
nica
lst
atem
ent
ofou
rm
yth
and
our
guid
efo
rco
nduc
ting
our
indi
vidu
alan
dco
llect
ive
lives
inth
elig
htof
that
visi
on...
.
The
ultim
ate
auth
ority
for
wha
ten
tere
din
toT
orah
abin
itlo
[fro
mth
e
begi
nnin
g],
and
ther
efor
eth
eul
timat
eau
thor
ityfo
rw
hat
inT
orah
rem
ains
bind
ing
for
any
futu
rege
nera
tion,
isa
Jew
ish
com
mun
ity—
not
all
Jew
sat
one
time,
but
thos
eJe
ws
inan
yge
nera
tion
for
who
mth
em
yth
rem
ains
aliv
e.
Inev
itabl
y,th
ere
will
bem
any
diff
eren
t,eq
ually
valid
Jew
ish
read
ings
ofth
at
myt
h,an
dhe
nce
man
ydi
ffer
ent
equa
llyau
then
ticJe
wis
hco
mm
uniti
es.
The
deci
sion
asto
wha
trea
ding
sar
eau
then
tical
lyJe
wis
his
arri
ved
atco
nsen
sual
ly
with
ina
com
mitt
edco
mm
unity
ofJe
ws
who
have
ast
ake
inth
epr
oces
san
din
itsoutc
om
e.52
Seve
ral
theo
logi
ans
inth
eR
efor
mM
ovem
ent
have
also
deve
lope
dth
eolo
gies
base
dup
on
exis
tent
ialis
m,
espe
cial
lyin
the
mod
eof
Ros
enzw
eig,
,an
dit
isin
stru
ctiv
eto
note
how
thei
r
unde
rsta
ndin
gan
dus
eof
exis
tent
ialis
man
dR
osen
zwei
gdi
ffer
from
thos
eof
the
advo
cate
s
ofC
onse
rvat
ive
III.
The
Ref
orm
ers
who
use
this
appr
oach
spea
kab
out
the
indi
vidu
al’s
iden
tific
atio
nw
ithth
eco
vena
ntbe
twee
nG
odan
dIs
rael
,bu
tth
eyas
sert
and
stre
ssth
atin
the
end
itis
the
indi
vidu
alw
hode
cide
sho
wth
eco
vena
ntis
tobe
inte
rpre
ted
and
appl
ied,
not
the
com
mun
ity.
Sofo
rex
ampl
e,R
abbi
jako
bPe
tuch
owsk
i,z”
l,w
how
asPr
ofes
sor
of
Rab
bini
csan
dJe
wis
hT
heol
ogy
atH
ebre
wU
nion
Col
lege
inC
inci
nnat
i,sa
ys
“Leg
isla
tion”
isso
met
hing
that
is“o
nth
ebo
oks.
”A
“com
man
dmen
t,”on
the
othe
rha
nd,
isad
dres
sed
tom
epe
rson
ally
.N
ow,
itm
ayw
ell
beth
atm
uch
of
the
legi
slat
ion
foun
din
the
Tor
ahor
igin
ated
as“c
omm
andm
ents
”ex
peri
ence
d
byan
cien
tIs
rael
.B
utit
isal
sotr
ueth
at,
inth
eco
urse
oftim
e,it
did
beco
me
“leg
isla
tion,
”an
d,as
such
,app
licab
leon
lyto
the
ever
yday
life
ofa
com
mun
ity
gove
rned
byth
isle
gisl
atio
n.
The
mod
ern
Jew
,as
we
have
defi
ned
him
,la
cks
the
awar
enes
sof
livin
gin
such
aco
mm
unity
,an
d,th
eref
ore,
also
the
prer
equi
site
for
re-t
rans
latin
gth
eco
ld
lette
rsof
legi
slat
ion
into
the
pers
onal
lym
eani
ngfu
lan
dsi
gnif
ican
tso
unds
of
com
man
dmen
ts.
Thi
sis
not
tosa
yth
atth
em
oder
nJe
wre
ject
sth
eid
eaof
“com
mun
ity”
assu
ch.
Even
the
non-
relig
ious
Jew
inA
mer
ica
isof
ten
very
com
mun
ity
min
ded.
But
itju
stis
nolo
nger
the
kind
ofco
mm
unit
yw
hich
wou
ldac
cept
a16
th-c
entu
ry, o
rev
ena
3rd-
cent
ury,
form
ulat
ion
ofJe
wis
hLa
w
asits
cons
titut
iona
lba
sis.
...
Byth
usst
atin
gth
edi
agno
sis
we
have
alre
ady
hint
edat
the
cure
.In
the
first
plac
e,th
em
odem
Jew
mus
tre
gain
the
fram
eof
min
din
whi
chhe
isab
leto
expe
rien
ceth
e“c
omm
andm
ent’
addr
esse
dto
him
.It
isa
fram
eof
min
dw
hich
the
Rab
bis
ofol
dat
tem
pted
tocr
eate
,w
hen
they
insi
sted
that
the
Rev
elat
ion
atSi
nai
mus
tbe
asto
pica
lto
the
Jew
asif
itha
dha
ppen
edto
him
“tod
ay.”
It
isal
soa
fram
eof
min
dto
whi
chth
em
oder
nJe
wca
nat
tain
,as
has
been
dem
onst
rate
dby
Fran
zR
osen
zwei
g,bo
thin
his
thou
ghts
and
inhi
sw
ayof
life.
...
Of c
ours
e,al
loft
his
will
bem
arke
dby
ahi
ghde
gree
ofsu
bjec
tivity
.T
here
is
init
none
ofth
ece
rtai
nty
whi
chO
rtho
doxy
prom
ises
itsad
here
nts,
none
ofth
e
mat
ter-
of-f
actn
ess
ofco
mpl
ying
with
the
esta
blis
hed
legi
slat
ion
ofa
body
polit
ic.
One
indi
vidu
al’s
obse
rvan
ceof
the
Sabb
ath,
for
exam
ple,
isun
likel
y
tobe
iden
tical
with
that
ofan
othe
rin
divi
dual
.T
hefo
rmer
mig
htco
nsid
erth
at
tobe
forb
idde
n“w
ork”
whi
chfo
rth
ela
tter
isan
indi
spen
sabl
ein
gred
ient
ofhi
s
Sabb
ath
“del
ight
.”B
utth
isis
the
pric
ew
hich
will
have
tobe
paid
.Fo
rth
e
maj
ority
ofm
oder
nJe
ws,
itw
illei
ther
beth
isor
noth
ing
atal
l.
r
I
128
129
Itis
astate
ofaffairs
well
describedby
FranzR
osenzweig,
when
hesaid
thatw
hatw
ehave
incom
mon
nowadays
isthe
landscape,and
nolonger
thecom
mon
roadon
which
Jews
walked
inunity
fromthe
closeof
theT
almud
tothe
dawn
ofE
mancipation.
The
bestw
ecan
dotoday
isto
work
atour
individualroads
inthe
comm
onlandscape.
Perhapsthe
futurew
illagain
knowof
acom
mon
road,or,
more
likely,of
acom
mon
systemof
roads.
There
is,however,
alim
itto
toom
uchsubjectivity,
justas
thereis
theneed
topreserve
the“com
mon
landscape.”In
thefirstplace,
itm
ustnot
beforgotten
thatthe
modern
Jewish
individuals,w
ithall
theirdiversities,
will,
ifthey
areinterested
inT
orahat
all,share
acom
mon
groundand
acom
mon
aspiration.W
hatdoes
itm
atterif
thereare
variationsin
them
inutiaeof
observance,as
longas
thereis
aw
illingnessto
“observe”at
all?!Itshould
beborne
inm
indthat w
eare
speakingofthe
modern
Jeww
hois
anxiousto
findhis
way
backto
theT
orah,and
notof
himw
hois
tryingto
runaw
ayfrom
it.
The
secondconsideration
isthat
thevery
natureof
Torah
makes
itim
possiblefor
them
odernJew
torem
ainan
isolatedindividual.
Jewish
living,in
oneform
oranother,
iscom
munity
living.T
heJew
ishherm
itis
inconceivable.(T
henearest
approachw
eever
hadto
“hermits,”
thesectarians
who
shunnedJerusalem
andw
entto
livenear
theD
eadSea,
livedthere
inhighly
organizedcom
munities.
The
nowfam
ousD
eadSea
Scrollsarose
within
acom
munity
framew
ork.)A
nd,if
theold
formof
thecom
munity
hasbroken
down
atthe
beginningof
them
odernera,
if itssurviving
remnants
appearto
betoo
artificialto
comm
andthe
modern
Jew’s
devotion,a
newform
ofthe
“holycom
munity”
isalready
inthe
making.
The
Torah
was
givento
theP
eopleof
Israel.G
od’scovenant
is,as
we
haveseen, w
iththe
“chosenpeople.”
Israel’stask
isto
be“a
kingdomof
priestsand
aholy
people.”B
utifthe
historicalidentity
ofIsrael,
inspace
andin
time,
isto
remain
intact,because
without
thepeople
therew
ouldbe
nocovenant,
itfollow
sthat,
overand
abovethe
“comm
andments”
which
them
odemJew
ishindividual
acceptsas
hispersonal
obligation,there
will
beothers
tow
hichhe
submits
asa
mem
berof
theP
eopleof
Israel.33
Rabbi
Eugene
Borow
itz,Professor
ofE
ducationand
Jewish
Religious
Thought
atH
ebrewU
nionC
ollegein
New
York
andC
hairof
thecom
mittee
thatdrafted
thelatest
(1976)statem
ent onR
eformideology
forthe
Reform
Movem
ent,is
anotherR
eformtheologian
who
usesthe
notionofcovenant
extensively.H
owever,
likeP
etuchowski,
healso
emphasizes
theultim
ateauthority
ofthe
individualin
determining
thecontent
ofthe
covenantin
modern
times:
The
traditionalJew
,looking
atm
yobservance,
will
findm
anyof
itsfeatures
strange.H
ew
illbe
particularlyperplexed
that!
interpretbrit
[covenant]in
personalrather
thanin
legalterm
s.B
uthe
shouldbe
ableto
recognize(and
thatis
increasinglym
yexperience)
thatw
hatunites
himand
me
isgreater
thanw
hatseparates
us.W
estand
aspart
ofthe
same
Jewish
peopleunited
inthe
same
basicrelationship
with
thesam
eG
od....We
bothbelieve
thatthis
Covenant
relationshipauthorizes
andrequires
comm
unaland
individualaction.
We
differonly
—though
itisa
greatJewish
“only”—
onw
hatconstitutes
thatrequiredaction,
itssubstance,
hierarchy,and
religiousw
eig
ht.
54
Jewish
faithincreasingly
cannotbe
thepassive
continuationof
asocial
heritagew
hichis
what
itessentially
was
inprevious
Jewish
generations.T
hem
orem
odernone
is,the
more
oneinsists
thatit
isa
matter
ofresponsible
willing.
One
shouldchoose
tobe
Jewish
andresist
asnon-
determinative
theclaim
sof
family,
history,or
personalsentim
ent.T
hatchoice,
particularlysince
itis
afundam
entalcom
mitm
entof
one’slife,
must
bem
adeautonom
ouslyto
beau
then
tic.55
Inhis
latestandm
ostdevelopedstatem
entofhis
own
theology,R
abbiB
orowitz
distinguishesbetw
eenJew
sand
othersin
thetype
ofrelationship
theindividual
hasw
ithG
od:“L
ikeall
humankind
(thebenei
noah),Jew
ishselves
(thebenei
yisrael)have
agrounding
personalrelationship
with
God;
butw
herethe
beneinoah
relateto
God
aspart
ofa
universalcovenant,
thebenel
yisraelhave
aparticular,
ethnicC
ovenantw
ithG
od,”and
thus
Incontrast
tocontem
poraryprivatistic
notionsof
selfhood,the
Jewish
self,responding
toG
odin
Covenant,
acknowledges
itsessential
historicityand
sociality....With
heritageand
folkessential
toJew
ishness,w
iththe
Jewish
serviceof
God
directedto
historiccontinuity
lastinguntil
messianic
days,the
Covenanted
selfknow
sthatJew
ishexistence
must
bestructured.
Yetas
longas
we
honoreach
Jew’s
selfhoodw
itha
contextuallydelim
itedm
easureof
autonomy,
thisneed
forcom
munal
forms
cannotlead
usback
tolaw
asa
required,corporatelydeterm
inedregim
en.Instead,
we
must
thinkin
terms
ofa
self-disciplinethat,
becauseof
thesociality
ofthe
Jewish
self,becom
escom
munally
focusedand
shaped.T
heresult
isa
dialecticalautonom
y,a
lifeof
freedomexercisedin..covenant56
That
is,Jew
sare
individualsand
make
theirdecisions
ontheir
own
(theyexercise
“autonomy”);
theydo
notdefer
torabbis
engagingin
ahalakhic
processof
interpretation,even
ifthoserabbis
happento
belib
eral-min
ded
.57
Jews,
though,are
notjust
human
beingslike
allothers;
Jews
areborn
(orconverted)
intoa
specialJew
ishC
ovenantw
ithG
od.In
responseto
thatC
ovenant,Jew
sshape
theirindividual
choicesin
Jewish
ways.
(Shouldthis
130
131
last
sent
ence
read
that
inre
spon
seto
the
Jew
ish
Cov
enan
tin
divi
dual
Jew
ssh
ould
orm
ust
shap
eth
eir
indi
vidu
alch
oice
sin
Jew
ish
way
s?R
abbi
Bor
owitz
isno
tcl
ear
onth
is—
oron
why
the
impe
rativ
esin
volv
edin
wor
dslik
e“s
houl
d”or
‘mus
t”w
ould
appl
yto
the
Jew
ish
Cov
enan
tas
heco
ncei
ves
it.)
Inan
yca
se,
inth
een
dit
isth
ein
divi
dual
who
deci
des
how
and
whe
n—
leta
lone
,if
—sh
eor
heis
goin
gto
resp
ond
toG
odin
trad
ition
alJe
wis
hw
ays.
One
can
see
inth
isre
stat
emen
tof
Rab
biB
orow
itz’s
unde
rsta
ndin
gof
Jew
ish
indi
vidu
alis
m
are
flec
tion
ofre
cent
deve
lopm
ents
inR
efor
mJu
dais
m,
whe
rein
crea
sing
num
bers
ofR
efor
m
Jew
sar
eta
king
ontr
aditi
onal
prac
tices
beca
use
they
reco
gniz
eth
at“t
heso
cial
ityof
the
Jew
ish
self”
requ
ires
com
mun
alfo
cus
and
shap
ing.
Att
hesa
me
time,
thou
gh,
Rab
biB
orow
itzan
d
thos
eR
efor
mJe
ws
who
are
now
mor
etr
aditi
onal
inth
eir
life
patte
rns
reaf
firm
wha
tha
s
alw
ays
been
the
chie
fch
arac
teri
stic
ofR
efor
mJu
dais
m,
nam
ely,
the
belie
fth
atul
timat
e
auth
ority
for
Jew
ish
choi
ces
rest
sin
the
indi
vidu
al.
Con
tras
tth
ese
stat
emen
tsby
Rab
bis
Petu
chow
ski
and
Bor
owitz
with
Rab
biSc
hors
ch’s
insi
sten
ceth
atw
hat
mak
esth
eT
orah
and
itssu
bseq
uent
inte
rpre
tatio
ns“s
acre
dan
dbi
ndin
g
was
...[t
heir]
publ
icac
cept
ance
atth
etim
eof
Ezra
(and
ofte
nth
erea
fter
),”an
dco
nsid
erto
o
the
follo
win
gtw
oci
tatio
ns,
the
first
byR
abbi
Jaco
bsan
dth
ese
cond
byR
abbi
Gill
man
:
We
belie
vein
the
God
who
spea
ksto
usou
tof
Isra
el’s
expe
rien
ce;
Isra
el,
the
cove
nant
peop
le,
dedi
cate
dto
God
’sse
rvic
ean
dth
efu
lfillm
ent
ofH
ispu
rpos
e.
We
belie
vein
the
God
who
,as
Fran
kel
said
,rev
eals
Him
self
not
alon
eto
the
prop
hets
butt
hrou
ghK
elal
Yis
rael
,the
Com
mun
ityof
Isra
el,a
sit
wor
ksou
tan
d
appl
ies
the
teac
hing
sof
the
pro
ph
ets.
5°
The
notio
nth
atto
bea
Jew
isto
bebo
und
toa
cove
nant
that
enta
ilssp
ecif
ic
oblig
atio
nsis
the
corn
erst
one
ofth
ecl
assi
cJe
wis
hm
yth.
Inou
rda
y,th
e
indi
vidu
alJe
wis
free
toch
oose
his
orhe
rco
mm
unity
,an
don
eof
the
crite
ria
for
sodo
ing
isa
dete
rmin
atio
nof
whi
chco
mm
andm
ents
are
bind
ing
for
that
indi
vidu
al.
The
Jew
mak
esth
atde
cisi
onou
tof
the
pers
onal
expe
rien
ceof
bein
gco
mm
ande
d,bu
tal
sow
ithin
the
cont
ext
ofJe
wis
hco
mm
uniti
esof
the
past
and
aJe
wis
hco
mm
unity
toda
y.U
ltim
atel
y,th
ough
Ibe
lieve
inse
lf-
oblig
atio
n,Ic
anno
tfun
ctio
nas
are
ligio
usJe
ww
ithou
ta
min
yan,
i.e.,
with
out
aco
mm
unit
y.59
Rab
biG
illm
anhe
reco
mes
clos
eto
Rab
biB
orow
itzin
asse
rtin
gth
ata
mod
ern
Jew
’s
com
mitm
ent
toJe
wis
hla
wis
ultim
atel
ya
‘sel
f-ob
ligat
ion,
’be
caus
ein
mod
ern
dem
ocra
cies
ever
yone
isfr
eeto
choo
sew
heth
er,
and
how
,to
bere
ligio
us.
Nev
erth
eles
s,fo
rR
abbi
Gill
man
,in
cont
rast
toR
abbi
Bor
owitz
,th
atin
divi
dual
ism
isve
rym
uch
rest
rict
edby
the
fact
that
“Ica
nnot
func
tion
asa
relig
ious
Jew
with
outa
min
yan,
i.e.,
with
out
aco
mm
unity
,”an
d
132
soth
ein
divi
dual
Jew
’sex
pres
sion
ofhi
sor
her
Juda
ism
issh
aped
muc
hm
ore
sign
ific
antly
by
the
trad
ition
and
the
com
mun
ityfo
rR
abbi
Gili
man
than
itis
for
Rab
bis
Bor
owitz
or
Petu
chow
ski.
Tha
tco
mm
unal
role
inde
term
inin
gth
eco
nten
tof
Jew
ish
law
inou
rda
yis
even
mor
eob
viou
sin
the
form
ulat
ions
ofR
abbi
sJa
cobs
and
Scho
rsch
.T
hus
the
trad
ition
al
Con
serv
ativ
eem
phas
ison
the
com
mun
ityan
dth
ech
arac
teri
stic
Ref
orm
conc
entr
atio
non
the
indi
vidu
alar
ecl
earl
yin
evid
ence
inth
edi
ffer
ent
way
sin
whi
chC
onse
rvat
ive
and
Ref
orm
thin
kers
inte
rpre
tan
dap
ply
anex
iste
ntia
lap
proa
chto
Judai
sm.
b)T
heO
bjec
tMst
s:
The
othe
rgr
oup
ofth
inke
rsof
Con
serv
ativ
eIll
are
mor
ein
the
obje
ctiv
ist
trad
ition
of
philo
soph
y—
that
trad
ition
whi
chtr
ies
toan
alyz
eex
peri
ence
ina
deta
ched
,ob
ject
ive
way
,
appe
alin
gto
reas
on(“
ratio
nalis
ts”)
and
the
expe
rien
ces
(“em
piric
ists
”)th
atw
eal
lsh
are
as
muc
has
poss
ible
.T
hat
isno
tto
say
that
obje
ctiv
ist
thin
kers
deny
pers
onal
,em
otio
nal
expe
rien
ces
orth
atex
iste
ntia
lists
negl
ectr
easo
nan
dsh
ared
expe
rien
ces
entir
ely:
both
scho
ols
mus
t acc
ount
for
both
our
deta
ched
,ob
ject
ive
expe
rien
ces
and
our
invo
lved
,pe
rson
alon
esif
they
are
tore
flec
thu
man
expe
rien
cead
equa
tely
.B
utea
chem
phas
izes
and
uses
one
type
ofex
peri
ence
mor
eth
anth
eot
her
incr
eatin
gits
inte
rpre
tatio
nof
expe
rien
ce(—
its
philo
soph
y).
App
lyin
gth
isno
wto
Jew
ish
law
,w
efin
dth
atw
hile
the
obje
ctiv
ist
thin
kers
ofC
onse
rvat
ive
IIIm
ayw
ell
have
pers
onal
expe
rien
ces
with
God
,pe
rhap
sev
enin
tens
eon
es,
they
hesi
tate
toba
seth
eau
thor
ityof
the
trad
ition
onth
embe
caus
esu
chen
coun
ters
diff
ersu
bsta
ntia
llyin
natu
rean
dim
port
from
pers
onto
pers
on.
Mor
eove
r,w
ere
ally
dono
tkn
oww
hat
happ
ened
atSi
nai,
and
itdo
esno
the
lpto
call
ita
mys
tery
:w
ew
ant
firm
ergr
ound
sth
anth
atif
we
are
goin
gto
base
our
lives
onth
eJe
wis
htr
aditi
on.
Con
sequ
entl
y,ad
voca
tes
ofth
ispo
siti
onba
se
mor
eof
the
auth
orit
yof
the
trad
itio
non
itsac
cept
ance
byth
eco
mm
unit
yof
Isra
elth
anon
the
even
tat
Sina
i.O
nth
eot
her
hand
,th
eyre
cogn
ize
the
fact
that
only
are
ligi
ous
stan
ce
adeq
uate
lyac
coun
tsfo
rm
any
aspe
cts
ofou
rex
peri
ence
,an
dth
eyal
soat
trib
ute
asp
ecia
lch
arac
ter
toJe
wis
hla
w.
Inot
her
wor
ds,
thei
rex
peri
ence
mak
esth
emw
ant
toas
sert
both
com
mun
alan
ddi
vine
auth
ority
for
Jew
ish
law
wit
hout
basi
ngit
ona
reve
lato
ryev
ent.
Inst
ead,
they
poin
tto
othe
rfe
atur
esof
our
expe
rien
cew
hich
indi
cate
God
’spr
esen
cein
,an
dth
esp
ecia
lna
ture
of,J
ewis
hla
w.
Som
eex
ampl
esw
illm
ake
this
clea
r.R
abbi
Dav
idLi
eber
,Pr
esid
ent E
mer
itus
ofth
eU
nive
rsity
ofJu
dais
min
Los
Ang
eles
and
curr
ent
Pres
iden
tof
the
Rab
bini
cal
Ass
embl
y,cl
earl
yem
ploy
san
obje
ctiv
istm
etho
dolo
gyin
his
unde
rsta
ndin
gof
God
,an
dhe
emph
asiz
esth
eco
hesi
vene
ssan
dsh
ared
expe
rien
ces
ofth
eco
mm
unity
,an
othe
rch
arac
teri
stic
ofan
obje
ctiv
ist
posi
tion.
For
Rab
biLi
eber
relig
ion
isne
cess
ary
toha
vean
adeq
uate
unde
rsta
ndin
gof
hum
anity
,to
133
.1 it
Ii
“providea
way
outofthe
egocentricpredicam
ent”—
thatis,togive
human
beingsan
externalview
ofthem
selvesand
ofhum
anityas
aw
holeand
therebyto
demonstrate
why
peoplecannot rely
onthem
selvesalone
orhave
concernfor
themselves
alone.A
she
says,“W
ithouta
transcendentpoint
ofreference,
itis
difficultfor
me
tosee
howhum
anbeings
canbe
persuadedto
make
thepersonal
sacrificesrequired
tokeep
therace
fromecological
disasteror
avoida
strugglefor
decreasingresources.”61
Religion
isalso
necessaryto
providean
objectof
aspiration,a
setof
worthy
goalsfor
which
tostrive.
The
law,
then,is
specialbecause
itattem
ptsto
expressthe
transcendentin
life(that
is,that
which
goesbeyond
ourhum
anunderstanding
cwabilities)
andbecause
itisnecessary
ifwe
aregoing
tobe
ableto
continueas
acovenanted
comm
unity:
I considerm
yselftobe
a“m
odernist”for
whom
reasonand
experienceare
thetouchstones
ofknow
ledge, andnotthe
authorityofa
textortradition,
hallowed
thoughitm
aybe
bycenturies
ofsaints
andscholars.
At the
same
time,
Icannotaccept
them
ethodseither
ofthe
behavioralscientists
orof
thephilosophical
analystsas
adequateto
anunderstanding
ofthe
conditionof
man.
Nor
doI
believethatthey
canprovide
aw
ayoutof
theegocentric
predicament
inw
hichm
anpresently
findshim
self.M
oreover,Iam
impressed
bythe
moral
andspiritual
insightsw
hichhave
resultedfrom
authenticreligious
experiences,as
well
asby
theirpow
erto
move
men
andm
ountainsand
reshapeentire
civilizations.
Fundamentally,
then, God,the
sourceof
allexistence,
isunknow
nand
foreverunknow
able.A
tthe
same
time,
He
doesseem
toreveal
Him
selfin
human
experiencein
unexpectedm
oments
andin
avariety
ofcircum
stances.In
anycase,
He
functionsas
thesym
bolofallhum
anaspirations
forself-transcendence
asthe
ideallim
itofm
an’snotion
ofsupreme
value.H
eis
“the‘beyond’
inour
midst,”
andfaith
inH
imisan
awareness
oftheideal
possibilitiesof
human
life,and
ofm
an’sability
tofashion
hislife
inthe
light ofthem
..,.
Form
yself,Iaccept
thenotion
ofa
religiouslaw
asbeing
acorollary
of,and
flowing
from,
thenotion
ofthe
covenant.A
comm
unitym
usthave
rulesand
regulationsto
function;its
individualm
embers
must
beguided
bynorm
s,standards,
andlaw
s.Furtherm
ore,since
Ido
recognizethe
desirabilityof
maintaining
continuityw
iththe
past,as
well
asa
measure
ofunity
with
Jews
thew
orldover,
Iamprepared
toguide
myself
bythose
rulesand
regulationsw
hichhave
beenaccepted
throughthe
ages,provided
theydo
notconflict
with
my
ethicalor
aestheticsensibilities.
Beyond
that,Iam
anxiousto
reexamine
thew
holecorpus
of Jewish
lawto
pointup,
wherever
possible,its
relevanceto
contemporary
socialand
personalissues
—such
asw
arand
peace,the
rightsofm
inoritiesand
ofm
ajorities—
andto
expandit
sothat
itmay
speakto
thosequestions
forw
hichthe
traditionoffers
noguidance
todate.
Idothis
infull
consciousnessof
thefact
thatIdo
notbelieve
thelaw
andits
detailsto
beofdivine
origin,butrather
Israel’sresponse
tow
hatitconsidered
tobe
thedivine
call.O
nthe
whole,
Ithink
thatthis
responsew
asunexceptionable
andthat
ithaselevated
andennobled
Jewish
lifethroughout
theages,
Tothe
extent,how
ever,that
thedevelopm
entof
thelaw
became
anend
initself,
andthe
fundamental
principlesupon
which
itw
asbased
were
forgotten,itdid
become
necessaryfrom
time
totim
efor
courageousreligious
leadersand
teachersto
setthem
selvesagainst
thetrend.
They
hadto
blazenew
pathsso
thatthefundam
entalrespect
ofthe
peoplefor
thelaw
would
notbe
destroyed,and
Judaismm
ightrem
ainrelevant
tothe
Jews’
highestaspirations
andm
eettheneeds
generatedby
newages
andnew
surroundings.O
urs,itseem
sto
me,
isjust
suchan
age.
Rabbi
ElliotOcrff,
theauthor
ofyoursourcebook
andR
ectorand
Professorof
Philosophyat
theU
niversityofJudaism
inLos
Angeles,
subscribesto
thisposition
ina
somew
hatdifferent
way.
Forhim
,revelationcan
occurin
anyevent
fromthe
mostcom
mon
tothe
most
unusual:w
hatmarb
aneventas
arevelation
ofGod
isnotthatthe
eventitself
isof
aspecial
character,butthatitis
interpretedas
suchby
ahum
ancom
munity.
So,for
example,
theH
olocaustm
aybe
justanotherugly
war
form
ostof
thew
orld,but
itmay
bea
revelationby
God
ofa
614thC
omm
andment
forthe
Jewish
Peopleas
Emil
Fackenheimw
ouldclaim
—a
Com
mandm
entnotto
giveH
itlera
posthumous
victo
ry.
Whether
itisa
revelationofG
odor
notdepends
uponw
hetherthe
Jewish
comm
unityaccepts
itassuch.
Similarly,
thedecision
ofaparticular
rabbiabout
am
atterofJew
ishlaw
may
bejust
hisor
heropinion
(andperhaps
onew
hichshould
bequickly
forgotten!),oritm
aybe
arevelation
fromG
odH
imself:w
hichitis
dependsupon
howthe
Jewish
comm
unitytreats
it.M
oreover,the
Jewish
comm
unitydeterm
inesnot
onlyw
hatevents
shallcount
asrevelations;
italsodecides
howthose
revelationsare
tobe
interpretedand
applied.
Jewish
law,then,
isofhum
anauthorship,
ahum
an,com
munal
responseto
eventsw
hichthe
Jewish
comm
unityaccepts
asrevelatory,
Thelaw
isdivine
becauseof
itsinternal
wisdom
(itssoundness
asa
way
ofliving,
as.demonstrated
byexperience),
itsm
oralgoodness,
andits
durability(strength).
Here,
asusual,w
isdom,
power,
andgoodness
arecharacteristics
which
we
calldiv
ine.
The
authorityof
Jewish
lawfor
theJew
isthen
afunction
ofboth
itscom
munal
acceptanceand
itsdivinity.
Note
thatwhile
Rabbi
Gilim
anm
aintainsthat
“My
faithis
thatthese
experiencesare
true,not
inany
objectivesense
ofthat
termbut
subjectively,existentially,”
forR
abbiD
orffreligiousclaim
sare
indeedobjectively
true—
atleastas
objectivelyas
anyhum
anclaim
sto
truthcan
be.
I/
134135
Inpr
actic
alsc
ienc
ew
eca
nus
e‘th
esc
ient
ific
met
hod”
topr
ove
ordi
spro
veso
met
hing
,bu
t
asso
onas
we
gobe
yond
the
parti
cula
rto
the
leve
loft
heor
y(i
nclu
ding
scie
ntif
icth
eory
),th
at
met
hod
will
not
wor
k.In
stea
d,w
eju
dge
betw
een
com
peti
ngth
eori
esin
term
sof
thei
r
clar
ity,
thei
rad
equa
cyto
the
fact
sof
the
case
,th
eir
cons
iste
ncy,
thei
rco
here
nce,
and
thei
r
mor
alim
port.
That
met
hod
for
dete
rmin
ing
whi
chth
eory
is“t
rue”
—or
atle
asta
str
ueas
we
can
tell
—is
used
invi
rtua
llyev
ery
area
ofin
quir
y.So
,fo
rex
ampl
e,w
ew
ould
use
thos
e
crit
eria
tode
cide
the
hist
oric
alqu
estio
nof
whe
ther
the
Am
eric
anre
volu
tion
was
caus
ed
prim
arily
byec
onom
icfa
ctor
sor
byid
eolo
gica
lon
es,
orth
eec
onom
icqu
estio
nof
whe
ther
ana
tion
’sec
onom
yis
best
eval
uate
dan
dst
imul
ated
thro
ugh
conc
ern
with
the
amou
ntof
mon
eyin
circ
ulat
ion
orth
eam
ount
ofgo
ods,
orth
elit
erar
yqu
estio
nof
whe
ther
Shak
espe
are’
sTh
eM
erch
anto
fV
enic
eis
anan
ti-Je
wis
hpo
lem
icor
asa
tire
ofth
eA
nglic
an
Chu
rch
indi
sgui
sed
form
,or
the
lega
lqu
estio
nof
whe
ther
agi
ven
pers
onis
inno
cent
or
guilt
y,or
the
scie
ntif
icqu
estio
nof
whe
ther
light
isbe
stco
ncei
ved
asa
seri
esof
wav
esor
pack
ets.
For
Rab
biD
orff
,we
can
and
shou
ldev
alua
tere
ligio
uscl
aim
sin
the
sam
ew
ayw
eas
sess
othe
r
theo
ries
abou
tou
rex
peri
ence
.W
hen
one
does
that
,on
eca
nan
dsh
ould
mai
ntai
nth
at
vary
ing
relig
ious
desc
ript
ions
ofre
ality
are
not
equa
llytr
ue,
ortr
uefo
rva
ryin
gpe
ople
exis
tent
ially
indi
ffer
ing,
indi
vidu
alw
ays.
We
can
and
shou
ldha
vere
spec
tfor
othe
rre
ligio
ns,
for
peop
leca
nbe
inte
llige
ntan
dm
oral
and
yete
valu
ate
the
evid
ence
diff
eren
tlyfr
omth
ew
ay
inw
hich
Jew
sdo
.In
deed
,w
eca
nof
ten
lear
nfr
omth
est
reng
ths
and
wea
knes
ses
ofth
e
appr
oach
esof
othe
rre
ligio
ns.
Ulti
mat
ely,
thou
gh,
bein
ga
Jew
mea
nsth
atw
ebe
lieve
that
the
Jew
ish
desc
ript
ion
ofre
ality
and
the
Jew
ish
resp
onse
toou
rpe
rcep
tions
inth
ough
t,
feel
ing,
and
actio
nar
etr
uean
dm
oral
lyap
prop
riat
e,at
leas
tas
muc
has
we,
the
Jew
ish
com
mun
ity,
can
disc
ern:
1)H
uman
mor
al,
inte
llect
ual
and
aest
hetic
facu
lties
dist
ingu
ish
hum
anbe
ings
from
the
anim
als,
inde
gree
ifno
tin
kind
.A
ssu
ch,
thes
eca
pabi
litie
sar
ea
touc
hof
the
divi
new
ithin
hum
anity
inth
ero
otse
nse
of“d
ivin
e”as
pow
er,
for
they
enab
lehu
man
bein
gsto
know
,fe
el,
and
doth
ings
that
othe
ran
imal
s
cann
ot.
2)T
hest
ruct
ure
ofth
ew
orld
isan
obje
ctiv
eba
sew
hich
serv
esas
acr
iteri
on
for
the
eval
uatio
nof
any
philo
soph
icth
eory
orm
oral
code
;an
dsi
nce
I hol
d
that
the
wor
ldw
asdi
vine
lycr
eate
dat
leas
tin
the
sens
eth
atits
crea
tion
invo
lves
pow
ers
beyo
ndou
rco
ntro
l,I
wou
ldbe
will
ing
tosa
yth
atG
od
info
rmed
usab
out
divi
nity
and
the
wor
ldan
dga
veus
Jew
ish
law
inan
indi
rect
way
,sp
ecifi
cally
,by
crea
ting
the
wor
ldin
such
aw
ayth
atce
rtai
nfo
rmul
atio
ns
ofth
ough
tand
prac
tice
fitth
epa
ttern
ofcr
eatio
nbe
tter
than
othe
rs.
The
yar
e,
inth
atse
nse,
wis
erth
anan
yal
tern
ativ
ew
ays
ofth
inki
ngan
dac
ting.
136
3)I
mai
ntai
n,ho
wev
er,
that
the
spec
ific
cont
ent
ofhu
man
theo
logi
cal
idea
s
and
code
sof
prac
tice
iscr
eate
dby
hum
anbe
ings
and
henc
eis
subj
ect
toer
ror
and
chan
ge.
I agr
eew
ithW
illia
mT
empl
e’s
anal
ysis
that
reve
latio
noc
curs
in
even
tsw
hich
hum
anbe
ings
inte
rpre
tto
bere
vela
tory
oftr
uths
orno
rms
of
cond
uct,
and
ther
efor
ean
yev
ent
coul
dbe
aso
urce
ofre
vela
tion,
alth
ough
som
em
aybe
mor
eim
pres
sive
lyso
than
othe
rs.
I wou
ldal
sow
ant
tost
ress
that
,w
ithin
Juda
ism
,it
isth
eJe
wis
hco
mm
unity
ofth
epa
stan
dpr
esen
tw
hich
deci
des
whi
chev
ents
are
reve
lato
ryan
dw
hat
the
cont
ent o
fth
atre
vela
tion
is,
and
that
this
com
mun
alch
eck
prev
ents
reve
latio
nfr
ombe
ing
sim
ply
the
figm
ento
fso
meo
ne’s
imag
inat
ion.
...
4)I
wou
ldth
enob
serv
eJe
wis
hla
w(t
hat
is,Je
wis
hla
ww
ould
atta
inits
auth
orit
yfo
rm
e)bo
thbe
caus
eit
isth
ew
aym
ype
ople
have
unde
rsto
odth
e
dem
ands
of
Cod
inth
epa
stan
ddo
sono
wan
dbe
caus
eof
itsow
nin
trin
sic
wis
dom
asa
prog
ram
for
satis
fyin
ghu
man
need
san
dm
axim
izin
ghu
man
pote
ntia
lin
the
wor
ldas
we
know
it.Si
mila
rly, J
ewis
hph
ilos
ophi
cvi
ews
from
the
Bib
leto
mod
ern
times
have
spec
ial
rele
vanc
eto
me
beca
use
they
repr
esen
tth
ew
aym
ype
ople
have
unde
rsto
odG
od,
hum
anbe
ings
,an
dth
ew
orld
.B
oth
Jew
ish
law
and
Jew
ish
thou
ght
thus
requ
ire
atte
ntio
nto
God
,th
eJe
wis
hpe
ople
,an
dth
ein
tera
ctio
nbe
twee
nth
em...
.
Sinc
eI i
dent
ify
cons
cien
tious
lyas
aC
onse
rvat
ive
Jew
,th
e“c
omm
unity
”w
hose
idea
san
dpr
acti
ces
defi
neG
od’s
wor
dfo
rm
ein
our
time
isth
ebo
dyof
Con
serv
ativ
era
bbis
and
lay
peop
lew
hoac
tivel
yliv
eC
onse
rvat
ive
Juda
ism
inw
hat
they
thin
k,sa
y,an
ddo
.O
nle
gal
issu
esth
isis
defi
ned
byth
ede
cisi
ons
ofth
eC
onse
rvat
ive
Mov
emen
t’s
Com
mitt
eeon
Jew
ish
Law
and
Stan
dard
s,an
don
philo
soph
ical
issu
esth
epa
ram
eter
sw
ere
defi
ned
byth
eC
omm
issi
onon
the
Philo
soph
yof
the
Con
serv
ativ
eM
ovem
ent
inits
docu
men
t,E
met
Ve-
Em
unah
:
Stat
emen
tof
Prin
cipl
esof
Con
serv
ativ
eJu
dais
m.
Dec
idin
gm
atte
rsof
Jew
ish
law
and
thou
ght
with
inth
eco
ntex
tof
aJe
wis
hco
mm
unity
narr
ower
than
all
Jew
sm
ayno
tbe
idea
l,bu
tit
isth
ew
ayJe
wis
hla
wha
sbe
enap
plie
dan
dpr
actic
edfo
rm
ost
ofits
hist
ory,
albe
itw
ithgr
eate
rco
here
nce,
and
itis
inev
itabl
ein
the
plur
alis
ticso
ciet
ies
inw
hich
we
live
toda
y.
5)W
hen
apa
rtic
ular
law
isno
tm
oral
orw
ise,
I mus
tbe
prep
ared
toch
ange
itin
cons
ort w
ithth
ere
stof
the
Con
serv
ativ
eco
mm
unity
,ta
king
due
rega
rdof
the
wei
ght
oftr
aditi
onin
the
proc
ess.
The
sam
eis
true
for
spec
ific
Jew
ish
belie
fs...
.Eva
luat
ing
trad
ition
alla
ws
and
conc
epts
mus
tbe
done
delib
erat
ely,
and
com
mitm
ent t
oth
etra
ditio
nre
quir
esth
atth
ebu
rden
ofpr
oofr
ests
with
the
one
who
wan
tsto
chan
geit.
Mor
eove
r,th
ene
edfo
rco
mm
unal
conc
urre
nce
shou
ldhe
lpto
guar
dag
ains
tpr
ecip
itous
chan
ges.
No
mec
hani
smca
ngu
aran
tee
wis
dom
insu
chev
alua
tions
,ho
wev
er,
and
nosi
mpl
eru
les
can
beap
plie
dto
dete
rmin
ew
hen
toch
ange
anel
emen
tin
the
trad
ition
and
whe
nno
t
137
:14lj
to....That
isw
hyw
em
ust entrust suchdecisions
toa
comm
itteew
hichis
calledupon
touse
theircollective
judgment.
We
clearlyuse
ourow
nindividual
experienceand
reasonw
henresponding
tothe
tradition,but
forJudaism
toretain
continuityand
coherence,w
em
ustdiscuss
ourevaluations
with
theother
mem
bersof
ourcom
munity
andm
akedecisions
asa
group.Thatdoes
notguarantee
wisdom
,but
sincehum
anbeings
arenot
omniscient,
thatm
ethodis
theone
which
holdsthe
most
promise
forus
inknow
ingthe
true,the
good,and
theholy.
6)Even
thoughfor
lackof
knowledge
Im
ustsuspend
judgment
asto
what
actuallyhappened
atSinai,
thereare
elements
ofthe
textsattributed
tothat
event which
inducem
eto
attacha
divinequality
tothem
.T
heseinclude
theirscope,their
inherentw
isdom,
andespecially
thedem
onstratedviability
ofthetradition
which
theyfostered
overthe
centuriesand
throughoutm
anyregions
ofthe
world.
This
clearlydoes
notm
eanthat
Judaism’s
understandingof
lifeis
theonly
possibleone.
There
areobviously
othertraditions
which
claimsim
ilarauthority
fortheir
philosophiesof
lifeand
which
haveundergone
along
period.of
intersubjedivetesting,
too.Judaism
itselfrecognizes
theexistence
ofprophets
andsaints
among
non-jews
anddoes
notrequire
Jewish
beliefor
practiceof
non-Jews,
evenin
judgingw
hohas
them
eritofattaining
aplace
inthe
world
tocom
e.In
theend,
alldescriptions
ofthe
world
andhow
we
shouldlive
init
must
besubjected
tothe
same
criteriaof
truthw
euse
totest
theoriesin
history,econom
ics,science,
literature,and
anyother
academic
discipline—
namely, their
clarity,theiradequacy
tothe
facts,their
consistency,their
coherence,and
theirm
oralim
port.To
assertthetruth
ofJudaism,
inother
words,
we
must
beprepared
tosubject
ittothe
same
standardsof
truthand
goodnessw
hichw
ew
oulduse
inevaluating
anyother
civilization’sview
ofthe
world
andits
patternof
action.
When
Ido
that,the
amazing
adaptabilityand
enduranceof
Jewish
lawand
ideologyover
theages
andin
many
placesindicate
tom
ethat
Jews
haveapparently.hitupon
apattern
oflifeand
thought thatfitsthe
structureof
human
beingsand
naturew
ell,and
soIascribe
truthto
Judaism’s
claims.
Infact,
itappears
tom
ethatJudaism
fitsthe
structureof
realityso
well
thatIdoubt
thatit
couldsim
plybe
theproduct
ofhum
anm
inds.C
onsequently,although
Icannot unequivocally
affirmcx
denybeliefin
averbal
comm
unicationat
Sinai,I
dow
antto
claimthat
theJew
ishtradition
embodies
adegree
offoresight,
insightandsheer
wisdom
which
isabnorm
alfor
human
beings,even
especiallysensitive
ones,and
thatin
thissense
atleast
itis
arevelation
ofdivine
(super-human)
truthand
will.
65
138
IN
otethatthese
more
objective,detachedargum
entson
behalfofJewish
beliefand
Jewish
lawdo
notmean
thatthethinkers
who
proposethem
areblind
tothe
personalaspects
ofreligious
comm
itment.
On
thecontrary,
Rabbi
Dorff
andother
exponentsof
anobjectivistapproach
have,in
theirw
ritings,describedhow
thepersonal
andobjective
factorsof
theirreligious
faithin
tertwin
e.It
isjust
thatthese
“objectivist”exponents
ofC
onservativeIII
chooseto
emphasize
publiclyobservable
factsrather
thanprivate,
personalexperiences
inarguing
forJew
ishbelief
andobservance.
5.ConservatIvelY
(=Reconstructlonlsttendencyf
The
fourthposition
onthe
sourceand
authorityof
Jewish
laww
ithinthe
Conservative
Movem
entisthis:
a)H
uman
beln
wrote
thetexts
ofthe
Tradition.
The
authorsw
ere,in
many
casestrying
tocapture
theexperience
ofthe
sacredin
writing
what
theydid,
butGod
isnotthe
author.
b)A
lltalk
ofa
Chosen
Peopleis
bothin
errorand
dangerous:other
peopleshave
theirow
nspecial
vocationto
developand
expresstheir
own
traditions,w
hichare
notnecessarilyw
orsethan
ours,andso
tocall
ours“chosen
byG
od”is
erroneous;m
oreover,doing
sorisks
thatJews
will
thinkof
themselves
asm
orallysuperior
andthatothers
will
hateus
forthatattitude.
c)N
evertheless,Jewish
lawhas
authorityfor
us,depending
uponthe
specificlaw
,either
asa
moral
normor
asone
ofthe
“foikways”
(minhagim
,custom
s)ofour
People.In
general,Jewish
lawshould
beobserved
inorder
togive
ourP
eoplecontinuity
andcoherence,
Ifparticularlaw
sbecom
eoffensive
orfall
intodisuse,
however,
theyshould
bechanged
ordropped.
d)Ifthe
Jewish
comm
unitysucceeds
inorganizing
itselfinto
acohesive,
activegroup
asthe
Kehillab
was
inm
edievalE
urope,then
comm
unalm
ethodsfor
deadingissues
inJew
ishlaw
andcom
munal
sanctionsfor
itwould
make
sense.U
ntilsuch
time,
theindividual
Jeww
illm
akethese
decisions.T
hatis
asit
shouldbe
inthe
areaof
ritualpractices,
forin
adem
ocraticsociety
with
freedomofreligion
anyattem
ptto
coerceJew
sto
obeyJew
ishlaw
would
notw
orkand
would
infact
becounterproductive.
Inthe
realmof
moral
norms,
however,
thatinability
toenforce
thelaw
isnot
desirable,and
we
must
striveto
createa
Jewish
comm
unityw
ithreal
initiativeand
authorityin
suchm
atters.
139
Rab
biM
orde
cai
Kap
lan,
z”l,
was
the
crea
tor
and
clea
rly
the
maj
orsp
okes
man
for
this
view
,
whi
chhe
nam
ed“R
econ
stru
CtiO
fliSm
.”A
few
para
grap
hsfr
omtw
oof
his
wri
tings
will
artic
ulat
eth
isap
proa
chni
cely
:
Inst
ead
ofas
sum
ing
the
Tor
ah“t
obe
divi
nere
vela
tion,
”Ia
ssum
eit
tobe
the
expr
essi
onof
anci
ent
Isra
el’s
atte
mpt
toba
seits
life
ona
decl
arat
ion
of
depe
nden
ceup
onG
od,
and
ona
cons
titut
ion
whi
chem
bodi
esth
ela
ws
acco
rdin
gto
whi
chG
odex
pect
edan
cien
tIs
rael
toliv
e.T
hede
clar
atio
nis
spel
led
outi
nth
ena
rrat
ive
part
ofth
eTo
rah,
and
the
cons
titut
ion
issp
elle
dou
t
inth
ela
wco
deof
the
Tora
h.
Our
posi
tion
isth
atth
ose
mit
zvot
whi
ch,
intr
aditi
onar
ede
scri
bed
asap
plyi
ng
“bet
wee
nm
anan
dG
od”
shou
ldbe
obse
rved
,in
sofa
ras
they
help
tom
aint
ain
the
hist
oric
cont
inui
tyof
the
Jew
ish
Peop
lean
dto
expr
ess
orsy
mbo
lize
spir
itual
valu
esor
idea
lsw
hich
can
enha
nce
the
inne
rlif
eof
Jew
s.T
heir
obse
rvan
ce,
how
ever
,sh
ould
bere
ckon
edw
ith,
not
inth
esp
irit
ofju
ridi
cal
law
,w
hich
isco
erci
ve,
but
inth
esp
irit
ofa
volu
ntar
yco
nsen
sus
base
don
a
gene
ralr
ecog
nitio
nof
thei
rva
lue.
We
shal
l,th
eref
ore,
refe
rto
our
appr
oach
toJe
wis
hri
tual
obse
rvan
ceas
the
volu
ntar
ista
ppro
ach.
Inad
voca
ting
that
appr
oach
toJe
wis
hri
tual
,w
ear
eno
tta
king
anan
tinom
ian
attit
ude
[tha
tis,
one
whi
char
gues
for
havi
ngno
law
sat
all],
asD
r.[R
ober
t]
Gor
dis
cont
ends
that
we
do.
We
insi
stth
atth
eco
ncep
tof
Jew
ish
peop
leho
od
whi
chis
basi
cto
the
who
leR
econ
stru
ctiO
flist
posi
tion
invo
lves
the
tran
slat
ion
ofet
hica
lpr
inci
ples
into
conc
rete
law
san
din
stitu
tionS
.W
ede
plor
ean
dar
e
ende
avor
ing
toco
rrec
tth
eco
mm
unal
diso
rgan
izat
ion
whi
chha
sm
ade
the
Jew
ish
Peop
leim
pote
ntto
enfo
rce
stan
dard
sof
ethi
cal
beha
vior
inth
ere
latio
ns
ofm
anto
man
....
Toac
hiev
eth
epu
rpos
esof
ritua
l,ev
enfr
omth
evo
lunt
aris
tvi
ewpo
int,
calls
for
afo
rmul
atio
nof
norm
sor
stan
dard
s.T
hese
norm
sm
ust
bede
term
ined
byth
e
two-
fold
purp
ose
ofco
ntri
butin
gsi
mul
tane
ousl
yto
Jew
ish
surv
ival
and
the
enri
chm
ent
ofth
eJe
wis
hsp
iritu
allif
e....
The
seco
nsid
erat
ions
,ra
ther
than
hala
khic
prec
eden
tan
dle
galis
ticin
terp
reta
tion,
shou
ld,
inou
rop
inio
n
dete
rmin
eth
ede
velo
pmen
tof
Jew
ish
ritu
alfo
rth
eJe
wof
today
.6
Rab
biIr
aE
isen
stei
n,z’
l,th
efir
stpr
esid
ent
ofth
eR
econ
stru
ctio
flis
tR
abbi
nica
lC
olle
geaf
ter
itsfo
undi
ngin
1968
,vo
iced
asi
mila
rvi
ew:
Des
pite
wha
tthe
Tora
hcl
aim
sfo
rits
elf—
and
wha
tso
me
peop
lest
illcl
aim
for
it—
Ibel
ieve
that
itis
ahu
man
docu
men
t,re
flec
ting
the
atte
mpt
ofits
auth
ors
toac
coun
tfo
rth
ehi
stor
yof
the
Jew
ish
peop
le,
and
for
the
mor
alan
det
hica
l
140
insi
ghts
whi
chits
geni
uses
acqu
ired
duri
ngth
eco
urse
ofth
athi
stor
y.It
is
“sac
red
liter
atur
e”in
the
sens
eth
atJe
ws
have
alw
ays
seen
init
the
sour
cean
d
the
auth
ority
for
that
way
oflif
ean
dth
atvi
ewof
hist
ory
whi
chga
vem
eani
ng
and
dire
ctio
nto
thei
rliv
es.
I can
unde
rsta
ndw
hyou
ran
cest
ors
belie
ved
the
Tor
ah(a
ndits
auth
orita
tive
inte
rpre
tati
ons)
toha
vebe
en“d
ivin
ere
vela
tion.
”Fo
rm
e,ho
wev
er,
thos
e
conc
epts
and
valu
esex
plic
itly
conv
eyed
orim
plie
din
itw
hich
I can
acce
ptas
valid
repr
esen
tdis
cove
ry,
part
ial
and
tent
ativ
egl
imps
esin
toth
etr
uena
ture
of
hum
anlif
e.If
ind
inth
eT
orah
adum
brat
ions
[out
lines
iof
idea
sw
hich
Ibel
ieve
tobe
ofen
duri
ngw
orth
,an
dtr
uein
sigh
tsin
toth
eun
ique
law
sw
hich
gove
rn
the
rela
tions
ofpe
ople
and
peop
les.
Som
eof
thes
eid
eas
and
valu
es—
that
man
iscr
eate
din
the
imag
eof
the
divi
ne,
that
life
issa
cred
,th
atm
anis
his
brot
her’
ske
eper
,th
atso
ciet
ym
ust
beru
led
byla
w,
that
just
ice
and
com
pass
ion
are
the
high
est
virt
ues,
that
mor
al
resp
onsi
bilit
yis
the
mos
tau
then
tic
form
ofet
hics
,th
atm
anm
ust
serv
eas
a“p
artn
erto
God
”in
perf
ectin
gth
isw
orld
,et
c.—
have
exer
ted
atr
emen
dous
infl
uenc
eup
onW
este
rnci
viliz
atio
n.I d
ono
t,ho
wev
er,
infe
rfr
omth
isfa
ctth
at
the
Jew
sar
eth
ech
osen
peop
le.
Isee
noju
stif
icat
ion
for
ascr
ibin
gm
etap
hysi
cal
stat
usto
wha
tis
mer
ely
hist
oric
alfa
ct.
Nor
doI
belie
veth
atth
eJe
ws
are
entr
uste
dw
ithan
yki
ndof
mis
sion
inth
ese
nse
ofa
preo
rdai
ned
func
tion
inth
isw
orld
.Id
o,ho
wev
er,
belie
veth
atJe
ws,
asa
peop
le,
have
anop
port
unit
y
tom
ake
aco
ntri
butio
nto
soci
ety
whi
chis
uniq
uely
thei
row
n.
7°
Rab
biA
rthu
rG
reen
,w
hose
rved
aspr
esid
ento
fthe
Rec
onst
ruct
ioni
stR
abbi
nica
lC
olle
geaf
ter
Rab
biE
isen
stei
n,m
oved
Rec
onst
ruct
ioni
smto
wel
com
em
ore
mys
ticis
min
toits
theo
logy
,
cont
rary
toth
eid
entif
icat
ion
ofG
odw
ithna
ture
(nat
ural
ism
)in
the
thou
ght
ofK
apla
nan
d
Eise
nste
in,
but
his
view
ofth
eau
thor
ityof
the
com
man
dmen
tsre
mai
nssi
mila
rto
thei
rs:
lnw
ays
Ido
not
clai
mto
unde
rsta
nd,
Uni
vers
alM
ind
isal
soU
nive
rsal
Hea
rt;
we
reac
hin
war
dto
war
dit
byem
otio
nal
open
ness
asw
ell
asby
cont
empl
ativ
ede
tach
men
t.A
war
enes
sof
this
unde
rlyi
ngan
dal
l-pe
rvas
ive
onen
ess
ofbe
ing
lead
sm
eto
feel
ings
ofaw
ean
dw
onde
r,to
ade
sire
tobe
pres
ent
toit
alw
ays.
...It
thus
caus
esth
eim
puls
ew
ithin
usto
need
relig
ious
expr
essi
onan
dto
crea
tefo
rms
thro
ugh
whi
chw
eal
lat
tain
deep
erkn
owle
dge
and
awar
enes
sof
the
One
.In
that
sens
eyo
um
aysa
yth
atth
ees
sent
ial
form
sof
our
relig
ion
are
“rev
eale
d”:
they
are
our
hum
ancr
eativ
ere
spon
seto
the
divi
nepr
esen
ceth
atm
akes
itsel
fkn
own
with
inus
....
Ibel
ieve
that
the
mos
t ess
entia
lm
essa
geof
Juda
ism
isth
atea
chof
usis
crea
ted
inth
eim
age
ofG
od.
We
exis
tfo
rth
epu
rpos
eof
teac
hing
that
mes
sage
...In
141
I
I
theirim
perativeform
,these
self-expressionsof
theO
nereveal
themselves
asten
comm
andments,
thebinding
power
ofw
hichIfully
affirm.
As
atradition-em
bracingJew
,Ihear
thevoice
ofm
yB
eloved[G
od]...calling
tom
efrom
within
many
ofthecom
mandm
ents,custom
s,and
teachingsof
theJew
ishpeople.
That
same
Beloved,ofcourse,
alsocalls
tom
efrom
treetops,from
within
greatm
usic,and
from“behind
thelattice-w
ork”of
theSong
ofSongs...
Note
that inRabbiG
reen’sform
ulationofthe
Reconstructionistideology,
more
thanin
eitherR
abbiK
aplan’sor
Rabbi
Eisenstein’s,the
mitzvot
arem
uchm
oreclearly
responsesto
experiencesof
God
(inthat w
ayhe
isclose
tothe
theologiesof
Conservative
Illthinkers),
butalso
notethathe
nevertalks
aboutthose
responsesbeing
mediated,
much
lessregulated,
bythe
Jewish
comm
unity;they
areinstead
personalresponsesof
individualJews
(andin
thatway
heis
closerto
Reform
thinkers).
Rabbi
David
A.
Teutsch,
currentpresident
ofthe
Reconstructionist
Rabbinical
College,
stresses,in
contrastto
Rabbi
Green,
thatG
odis
tobe
foundin
natureand
thathalakhic
decisionsare
tobe
made
incom
munity,
andin
thesew
ayshe
returnsto
theideology
ofM
ordecaiK
aplan,w
homhe
mentions
bynam
e:
Iverym
uchfeel
thepresence
ofthedivine
innature,
incom
munity,
andin
thew
orkingsofm
yow
nheart.
Itisup
tous
toseek
God,
however,
becauseG
odis
notadivine
personW
hointrudes
inour
lifeor
makes
individualdecisions,
butratherthe
unifyingdim
ensionof
ourreality
thatis
theground
ofm
eaningand
morality....
The
Torah
representsthe
recordof
theearliest
effortsof
theJew
ishpeople
todiscover
thedivine
inhum
anhistory
andshape
ourshared
lifein
lightof
thedivine.
Thusthe
Torahreflects
bothits
historicalcontext
andprofound
insightsinto
moral
andspiritual
truth.T
heshared
comm
unallife
thathas
developedout
ofJewish
interpretationsof
Torah
embodies
them
oraland
spiritualtasks
thathave
longbeen
centralto
theJew
ishpeople’s
comm
itments.
Ibelievethat M
ordecaiM
.K
aplan,the
founderof
Reconstructionism
,w
asright
when
hesaid
thatoneofthe
uniquecharacteristics
ofthe
Jewish
peopleis
ourconcern
with
whathas
ultimate
importance
inhum
anlife.
Them
itzvahsystem
leadsto
anaw
arenessof
thetranscendent
valuein
human
lifeand
guidesus
toliving
ina
moral
andspiritual
fashionthat
hasredem
ptivepow
ernot
onlyfor
usas
individuals,but
forus
asa
collective.T
hoseactions
recomm
endedby
Jewish
tradition—
bothold
andnew
—w
hichachieve
that endare
trulym
itzvot.T
hoseparts
which
areonly
historicallybound
orout
ofkeeping
with
thebest
142
valuesand
practicesof
ourtim
eare
nolonger
mitzvot.
Central
toour
struggleasJew
sis
theobligation
todistinguish
thoseparts
ofour
inheritedtradition
thatcontinueto
havem
eaningfrom
thosethat
donot.
Thisstruggle
canonly
takeplace
authenticallyin
thecontextofJew
ishcom
munity,
which
providesthe
essentialexperiences
thatshapeour
inheritanceofJudaism
,our
consciousness,and
ourintuition.
Itisthe
comm
unitythat
providesa
senseof
continuityand
thefundam
entalcontext
forthe
development
ofJew
ishidentity.
Itis
alsothe
comm
unitythat
asa
collectivecan
pointtow
ardthe
divineand
make
moral
andspiritual
demands
uponits
mem
bers.
72
Finally,Rabbi
Harold
Schulweis,
Rabbi
ofC
ongregationV
alleyB
ethShalom
inLos
Angeles,
sharesthis
view.
Inthe
following
heattacks
some
ofthe
weaknesses
ofthe
otherpositions
thatwe
haveconsidered:
...The
Torah
isthe
selectiverecord
ofIsrael’s
extraordinaryreligious
interpretationof
itscollective
experienceduring
theform
ativeperiod
ofits
career.The
originofTorah
liesnot
inan
extramundane
sourcew
hichhas
castdow
nabsolute
truthsupon
areceiving
people,nor
isitthe
arbitraryprojection
ofhuman
inventivenessflung
upward.
Torah
isrooted
inthe
matrix
ofa
livingorganism
,in
apeople
which
discoversout
ofits
experiencew
ithfailure
andfortune
thepow
ersof
godlinessresiding
within
itand
itstotal
environment.
Torah
asrevelation
isthe
productofIsrael’s
creativetransaction
with
history....The
sanctityof
Torah-revelation
liesnot
inthe
perfectionof
itsauthorship
norin
itsabsolute
finality.T
heT
orahis
holynot
becauseit
isthe
lastw
ord,but
becauseitis
thefirstself-conscious
word
ofJudaismw
hichreveals
thedirection
ofitsm
oralthrust.
The
holinessof
Torah
doesnotrequire
thatits
contentsbe
heldas
infallibleor
imm
utable....
Toargue,
asis
fashionableam
ongso
many
contemporary
theologicalstatesm
en,thatTorah
admits
ofsome
human
elements
andthen
tooffer
now
ayof
determining
where
divineinitiative
endsand
where
human
interpretationenters,
isto
avoidthe
heartof
thequestion.
Toclaim
thatrevelation
occursw
ithoutcom
mitm
entto
followw
hatrevelationdem
ands,or
toproclaim
thew
illof
God
without
offeringgrounds
fordistinguishing
truefrom
falserevelation,
isto
offera
vacuousform
-revelationw
ithoutcontentor
criteria.In
my
interpretation,thedivine
element
ofT
orah-revelationcom
esnot
verticallyfrom
asuperperson
whose
will
descendsupon
us,but
horizontallyfrom
apeople
engagedin
theprocess
ofcom
plexinteraction
within
history.R
ealevents
andideal
visionsacting
uponeach
otheryield
thesancta
ofJudaism,
andthese
valuesnam
edsacred
areever
beingvalidated
inthe
experienceof
thispeople....
143
11it
.1I
T9
Whi
leon
eca
nun
ders
tand
the
psyc
holo
gica
lva
lue
ofsu
chbe
lief
[inIs
rael
as
the
chos
enpe
ople
ldu
ring
year
sof
isol
atio
nan
dhu
mili
atio
n,on
eca
nnot
on
such
prag
mat
icgr
ound
sju
stify
itsm
oral
ityor
trut
h.M
oder
nat
tem
pts
toho
ld
onto
the
conc
ept
of“c
hose
npe
ople
,”bu
tto
rede
fine
itsco
nten
tsre
mai
n
unco
nvin
cing
.T
here
are
thos
ew
hoex
plai
nth
atG
od-c
hose
nnes
sdo
esno
t
esta
blis
hpo
litic
alsu
peri
ority
buto
nly
resu
ltsin
ano
bles
seob
lige
dire
ctiv
eto
lead
alif
eof
holin
ess;
but
this
fails
tore
cogn
ize
that
such
acl
aim
tohi
gher
spir
itual
oblig
atio
nre
mai
nsan
aris
tocr
atic
conc
eit
whi
chde
mea
nsal
lot
her
peop
les
bylo
wer
ing
our
mor
alex
pect
atio
nof
thei
rbe
havi
or.
The
effo
rtat
com
pens
ator
ypa
rcel
ing-
out
ofdi
vine
lyde
sign
ated
raci
alor
natio
nal
gifts
—e.
g.,
philo
soph
yto
the
Gre
eks,
adm
inis
trat
ion
toth
eR
oman
s,
relig
ious
geni
usto
the
Jew
s—
both
cari
catu
res
natio
nsan
dpe
ople
san
d
pres
umpt
uous
lyof
fers
the
grea
test
priz
eto
Isra
elas
God
’sw
itnes
son
eart
h.
The
mod
ern
sugg
estio
nth
atG
od’s
choo
sing
ofIs
rael
real
lym
eans
Isra
el’s
choo
sing
ofG
odis
asva
lida
trans
latio
nas
turn
ing
X’s
owin
gV
mon
eyin
toV
’s
owin
gX
mon
ey.
The
prop
ositi
ons
are
clea
rly
not
sym
met
rica
l.M
oreo
ver,
if
tobe
chos
enm
eans
toch
oose
,th
enw
hich
grou
pho
ldin
ga
conc
ept
ofG
odis
not
equa
llych
osen
byG
od?.
..
Rej
ectio
nof
the
doct
rine
ofch
osen
ness
inrio
way
deni
esth
eun
ique
ness
or
valu
eof
ape
ople
,its
styl
eof
life
inth
eory
and
prac
tice.
Uni
quen
ess
mus
tno
t
beco
nfou
nded
with
the
theo
logi
cal
clai
mth
aton
epe
ople
isdi
stin
guis
hed
by
God
from
allo
ther
sas
He
dist
ingu
ishe
slig
htfr
omda
rkne
ss,t
hesa
cred
from
the
prof
ane,
the
Sabb
ath
from
the
wee
kday
.’3
8.R
efor
m
InC
hapt
erII
we
disc
usse
dth
ew
ayin
whi
chth
eea
rly
(or
‘cla
ssic
al”)
Ref
orm
Mov
emen
t
inte
rpre
ted
Jew
ish
hist
ory.
You
will
rem
embe
rth
atfo
rth
eR
efor
mth
inke
rsof
the
nine
teen
th
cent
ury
and
the
first
four
orfiv
ede
cade
sof
the
twen
tieth
,th
ees
senc
eof
Juda
ism
was
cons
true
das
mor
ality
and
belie
fin
God
,a
com
bina
tion
dem
onst
rate
dm
ost
clea
rly
inth
e
liter
atur
eof
the
Prop
hets
.T
hele
gald
evel
opm
ents
duri
ngth
eta
lmud
icpe
riod
and
the
Mid
dle
Age
sw
ere
tem
pora
rym
easu
res
desi
gned
fort
hose
peri
ods
only
;th
eyha
veno
auth
ority
toda
y,
whe
nJe
ws
nolo
nger
need
law
sto
enab
leth
emto
surv
ive
unde
rgo
vern
men
tsho
stile
toJe
ws.
On
the
cont
rary
,th
ego
vern
men
tsof
Wes
tern
Eur
ope
and
Am
eric
aar
efa
irto
all
beca
use
of
the
Enl
ight
enm
ent
idea
son
whi
chth
eyar
eba
sed.
We
shou
ldre
spon
din
kind
,ta
king
an
activ
ero
lein
mod
ern
soci
ety
and
embr
acin
gth
eE
nlig
hten
men
tem
phas
eson
the
indi
vidu
al
and
onre
ason
.M
any
ofth
eri
tual
sof
Juda
ism
shou
ldbe
disb
ande
dbe
caus
eth
eyhi
nder
the
inte
grat
ion
ofJe
ws
into
mod
ern
soci
ety.
144
The
theo
ryof
reve
latio
nw
hich
acco
mpa
nied
that
inte
rpre
tatio
nof
hist
ory
isca
lled
‘pro
gres
sive
reve
latio
n.”
Acc
ordi
ngto
that
doct
rine
,G
odre
veal
sH
isw
illto
hum
anbe
ings
thro
ugh
the
use
ofhu
man
reas
onan
dm
oral
stri
ving
.Ea
chin
divi
dual
can
beth
ere
cipi
ent
of
reve
latio
n(in
that
sens
e)if
heor
she
will
only
pay
atte
ntio
nto
the
evid
ence
sof
God
inth
e
natu
rala
ndm
oral
orde
rsof
the
univ
erse
and
dedu
cefr
omth
atw
hat
God
requ
ires
ofhi
mor
her.
(You
can
see
stro
ngE
nlig
hten
men
tinf
luen
ces
here
inth
eem
phas
ison
the
indi
vidu
alan
d
onm
oral
ity.)
Mor
eove
r,as
hum
anity
has
mor
ean
dm
ore
expe
rien
ceon
this
eart
h,hu
man
know
ledg
eof
wha
tis
and
ough
tto
begr
ows,
and
soth
esc
ope
and
accu
racy
ofre
vela
tion
prog
ress
esas
tim
ego
eson
(hen
ceth
ena
me
“pro
gres
sive
reve
latio
n”).
Thi
s,th
en,
expl
ains
why
Jew
ish
law
ofpr
evio
user
asis
not
bind
ing,
and
why
itis
the
indi
vidu
alw
hode
cide
sw
hat
toob
serv
ein
Ref
orm
Juda
ism
.Se
vera
lpl
anks
ofth
eC
olum
bus
Gui
ding
Prin
cipl
esof
1937
,
whi
chw
asth
ese
cond
offi
cial
ideo
logi
cal
stat
emen
tof
the
Ref
orm
Mov
emen
t(a
fter
the
Pitts
burg
hPl
atfo
rmof
1885
),w
illill
ustr
ate
this
theo
ryan
dits
impl
icat
ions
:
1937
Col
umbu
sG
uidi
ngP
rindple
s
Nat
ure
oflu
dais
m.
Juda
ism
isth
ehi
stor
ical
relig
ious
expe
rien
ceof
the
Jew
ish
peop
le.
Tho
ugh
grow
ing
out
ofJe
wis
hlif
e,its
mes
sage
isun
iver
sal,
aim
ing
at
the
unio
nan
dpe
rfec
tion
ofm
anki
ndun
der
the
sove
reig
nty
ofG
od.
Ref
orm
Juda
ism
reco
gniz
esth
epr
inci
ple
ofpr
ogre
ssiv
ede
velo
pmen
tin
relig
ion
and
cons
ciou
sly
appl
ies
this
prin
cipl
eto
spir
itual
asw
ell
asto
cultu
ral
and
soci
al
life.
Juda
ism
wel
com
esal
ltr
uth,
whe
ther
wri
tten
inth
epa
ges
ofsc
ript
ure
or
deci
pher
edfr
omth
ere
cord
sof
natu
re.
The
new
disc
over
ies
ofsc
ienc
e,w
hile
repl
acin
gth
eol
der
scie
ntif
icvi
ews
unde
rlyi
ngou
rsa
cred
liter
atur
e,do
not
conf
lictw
ithth
ees
sent
ial
spiri
tof
relig
ion
asm
anif
este
din
the
cons
ecra
tion
of
man
’sw
ill,
hear
tand
min
dto
the
serv
ice
ofG
odan
dof
hum
anity
....
Tora
h.G
odre
veal
sH
imse
lfno
tonl
yin
the
maj
esty
,be
auty
and
orde
rlin
ess
of
natu
re,
but a
lso
inth
evi
sion
and
mor
alst
rivin
gof
the
hum
ansp
irit.
Rev
elat
ion
isa
cont
inuo
uspr
oces
s,co
nfin
edto
noon
egr
oup
and
tono
one
age.
Yet
the
peop
leof
Isra
el,t
hrou
ghits
prop
hets
and
sage
s,ac
hiev
edun
ique
insi
ght
inth
e
real
mof
relig
ious
trut
h.T
heT
orah
,bo
thw
ritte
nan
dor
al,
ensh
rine
sIs
rael
’s
ever
-gro
win
gco
nsci
ousn
ess
ofG
odan
dof
the
mor
alla
w.
Itpr
eser
ves
the
hist
oric
alpr
eced
ents
,sa
nctio
nsan
dno
rms
ofJe
wis
hlif
e,an
dse
eks
tom
old
it
inth
epa
ttern
sof
good
ness
and
ofho
lines
s.B
eing
prod
ucts
ofhi
stor
ical
proc
esse
s,ce
rtai
nof
itsla
ws
have
lost
thei
rbi
ndin
gfo
rce
with
the
pass
ing
of
the
cond
itio
nsth
atca
lled
them
forth
.B
utas
ade
posi
tory
ofpe
rman
ent
spiri
tual
idea
ls,
the
Tora
hre
mai
nsth
edy
nam
icso
urce
ofth
elif
eof
Isra
el.
Each
age
has
the
oblig
atio
nto
adap
tth
ete
achi
ngs
ofth
eT
orah
toits
basi
cne
eds
in
cons
onan
cew
ithth
ege
nius
ofJu
dais
m...
.
745
.1
The
Religious
Life.Jew
ishlife
ism
arkedby
consecrationto
theseideals
ofJudaism
.Itcalls
forfaithful
participationin
thelife
ofthe
Jewish
comm
unityas
itfindsexpression
inhom
e,synagogue
andschool
andin
allother
agenciesthat
enrichJew
ishlife
andprom
oteits
welfare....
Judaismas
aw
ayof
liferequires, in
additionto
itsm
oralandspiritual
demands,
thepreservation
ofthe
Sabbath,festivals
andH
olyD
ays,the
retentionand
developmentofsuch
customs,
symbols
andcerem
oniesas
possessinspirational
value,the
cultivationofdistinctive
forms
of religiousartand
music
and. theuse
ofH
ebrew,
togetherw
iththe
vernacular,in
ourw
orshipand
instruction.T
hesetim
elessaim
sand
idealsofour
faithw
epresent anew
toa
confusedand
troubledw
orld.W
ecall
uponour
fellowJew
sto
rededicatethem
selvesto
them,and,
inharm
onyw
ithall
men,
hopefullyand
courageouslyto
continueIsrael’s
eternalquest
forG
odand
His
kin
gdom
.74
Atthe
conferenceof
Reform
rabbisat w
hichthe
Colum
busG
uidingPrinciples
were
adopted,R
abbiSam
uelSchulm
an,one
ofthe
most
respectedand
scholarlyliberals
ofhis
time,
proposeda
substituteversion
becausehe
recognizedand
objectedto
thegreat
stresson
individualismand
reason:
...we
must
courageouslyconfront
theissue
ofabsolute
andunlim
itedindividualism
inour
own
body;but
ifthereare
suchabsolute
individualists,then
letus
continuew
ithoutaplatform
becauseplatform
s,w
hilethey
seemingly
unite,also
divideifthey
arew
rittenw
ithstrength.
Therefore,
Iw
rotethe
paragraphon
authority.Individualism
hadto
bem
et;therefore
Isaidthat
scienceis
notself-sufficient,
thatit
doesnot cover
thew
holeof
life,itis
notthe
whole
of truth
.75
The
Guiding
Principlesw
ereadopted
without
hisam
endment,
however,
bya
voteof
110to
5.
Tw
othings
shouldbe
notedabout
this.Firstofall,the
theoryof
progressiverevelation
shouldnot
beconfused
with
thedoctrine
of“continuousrevelation”
which
characterizespositions
IIandIllin
theC
onservativeM
ovement.
“Continuous
Revelation’
means
thatG
odcontinues
tom
anifestH
isw
illthrough
therabbinic
interpretationsofthe
Torahin
eachgeneration.
Thatm
ayinvolve
changesin
thelaw
,but
thenew
lawis
notnecessarily
betteror
worse
thanthe
previouslaw
.M
oreover,it
isthe
rabbisacting
onbehalf
ofthe
comm
unitythat
definethe
contentof
God’s
revelationin
ourday.
Incontrast,
“ProgressiveR
evelation”assum
escontinual
progressin
thatw
ew
illgetto
knowm
oreand
more
ofGod’s
will
forhum
anityas
time
goeson.
Moreover,
inthis
theoryitis
the
individualw
hodeterm
inesthe
contentof
revelationas
ithas
progressedto
ourday
byapplying
heror
hisreason
tonature
asw
ellas
tothe
textsof
theJew
ishand
othertraditions.
Thus
thetw
otheories
differin
(a)the
peoplew
hoare
consideredthe
modern
recipientsof
revelationand
who
areentrusted
with
decidingits
content(the
rabbisor
individualsof
eachgeneration);
(b)the
methods
thosepeople
aresupposed
touse
inm
akingtheir
decision(reason,
attempting
toapply
pastJewish
lawto
modern
circumstances,or
reasonapplied
toeverything
inhum
anexperience);
and(C)
thedegree
ofdesirabilityof
maintaining
practicesand
ideasin
pastrecords
ofrevelation.
Ineach
ofthese
ways,
thetheory
ofcontinuous
revelationhas
greaterrespect
forthe
pastthan
thetheory
ofprogressive
revelationhas,
andthose
who
believein
continuousrevelation
will,
asa
result,exert
astronger
effortto
incorporatethe
wisdom
andpractices
ofthe
Jewish
pastinto
ourthought
andaction
inthe
present.
The
secondpoint
thatshould
benoted
isthat
Reform
Judaismhas
changedin
thelast
fortyyears
orso,
with
adecided
shiftto
more
traditionalpatterns
ofobservance.
Anum
berof
Reform
Jews
(male
andfem
ale)now
wear
skuilcaps(kippot)
duringservices,
much
more
Hebrew
isused
inR
eformliturgy
nowthan
was
previouslythe
case,and
some
Reform
Jews
observethe
dietarylaw
s(kashrut).
Ingeneral,
thehostility
tom
anyrituals
hasdissolved,
andin
itsplace
thereis
anopenness
anda
willingness
toexperim
entw
ithvarious
elements
oftraditional
practice.A
longw
iththis
hascom
ea
newrespect
forthe
classicalJew
ishsources:
othersources
ofknow
ledgeand
morality
arestill
tobe
used,of
course,but
theT
orah,T
almud,
Midrash,
andC
odesare
takenm
oreseriously
now.
This
development
isstill
largelyconfined
tothe
rabbis,how
ever,and
eventhey
areby
nom
eansunanim
ousin
thisshift.
Moreover,
theclassical
Reform
insistencethat
itis
theindividual
who
must decide
whatto
observeisas
strongas
ever.This
was
clearlyin
evidencein
1985,w
henthe
Central
Conference
ofA
merican
(Reform
)R
abbispassed
bya
largem
ajoritya
resolutiondisparaging
intermarriage;
inview
ofthe
Reform
emphasis
onautonom
y,though,
itwas
leftto
individualrabbis
todecide
whether
toofficiate
atthem
ornot.
Incontrast,
Conservative
rabbism
aynot
evenbe
presentatan
intermarriage,
letalone
officiateat
one.In
otherareas
asw
ellthere
remains
asignificant
differencebetw
eenthe
Reform
andC
onservativeM
ovements
inthe
degreeto
which
classicalJew
ishlaw
isobserved
byboth
rabbisand
laypeople.
Both
thechanges
andthe
elements
which
haverem
ainedconstant
inthe
Reform
approachare
manifest
inthe
theoriesofrevelation
andJew
ishlaw
ofR
abbisPetuchow
skiand
Borow
itz,discussed
incontrast
tothe
existentialistversion
ofC
onservativeIII
above.T
heconstancies
146
147
V.
and
chan
ges
with
inR
efor
mJu
dais
mov
erth
ela
stfo
uror
five
deca
des
are
also
appa
rent
inth
e
late
st,o
ffici
alid
eolo
gica
ldo
cum
ento
fthe
Ref
orm
Mov
emen
t,‘R
efor
mJu
dais
m:
AC
ente
nary
Pers
pect
ive,
’ad
opte
din
june
,19
76.
As
you
read
abr
ief
exce
rpt
from
itbe
low
,no
tice
the
exte
ntto
whi
chth
est
atem
ent
spec
ifie
sth
eJe
wis
hob
serv
ance
sit
enco
urag
es.
Tak
epa
rtic
ular
note
ofth
ela
stse
nten
cein
this
exce
rpt,
whi
chca
refu
lly
bala
nces
,on
the
one
hand
,a
duty
ofal
lR
efor
mJe
ws
to“c
onfr
ont
the
clai
ms
ofth
eJe
wis
htr
aditi
on”
whi
leat
the
sam
eti
me
upho
ldin
ga
para
llel
duty
toex
erci
seon
e’s
own
auto
nom
yin
telli
gent
ly,w
ithco
mm
itm
ent
and
know
ledg
e.T
hedo
cum
ent
thus
embo
dies
ast
rong
erap
prec
iati
onof
the
trad
itio
nth
an
appe
ared
inth
ePi
ttsbu
rgh
(188
5)or
even
inth
eC
olum
bus
(193
7)pl
atfo
rms,
even
toth
e
poin
tof
stat
ing
that
itm
akes
clai
ms
onus
,bu
tit
expl
icit
lypr
eser
ves
the
auto
nom
yw
hich
is
atth
ehe
art
ofth
eR
efor
map
proa
chto
Juda
ism
:
Ref
orm
Juda
ism
:A
Cen
tenar
yP
ersp
ecti
ve
(197
6):
Tor
ah.
Tor
ahre
sults
from
the
rela
tion
ship
betw
een
God
and
the
Jew
ish
peop
le.
The
reco
rds
ofou
rea
rlie
stco
nfro
ntat
ions
are
uniq
uely
impo
rtan
tto
us.
Law
give
rsan
dpr
ophe
ts,
hist
oria
nsan
dpo
ets
gave
usa
heri
tage
who
se
stud
yis
are
ligi
ous
impe
rati
vean
dw
hose
prac
tice
isou
rch
ief
mea
nsto
hoiln
ess.
Rab
bis
and
teac
hers
,ph
ilos
ophe
rsan
dm
ystic
s,gi
fted
Jew
sin
ever
y
age
ampl
ifie
dth
eT
orah
trad
ition
.Fo
rm
ille
nnia
,th
ecr
eati
onof
Tor
ahha
sno
t
ceas
edan
dJe
wis
hcr
eativ
ityin
our
tim
eis
addi
ngto
the
chai
nof
trad
itio
n.
Our
Obl
igat
ions
:re
ligi
ous
prac
tice
.Ju
dais
mem
phas
izes
acti
onra
ther
than
cree
das
the
prim
ary
expr
essi
onof
are
ligi
ous
life,
the
mea
nsby
whi
chw
e
stri
veto
achi
eve
univ
ersa
lju
stic
ean
dpe
ace.
Ref
orm
Juda
ism
shar
esth
is
emph
asis
ondu
tyan
dob
liga
tion
.O
urfo
unde
rsst
ress
edth
atth
eJe
w’s
ethi
cal
resp
onsi
bili
ties
,pe
rson
alan
dso
cial
,ar
een
join
edby
God
.T
hepa
stce
ntur
y
has
taug
htus
that
the
clai
ms
mad
eup
onus
may
begi
nw
ithou
ret
hica
l
oblig
atio
ns,
but
they
exte
ndto
man
yot
her
aspe
cts
ofJe
wis
hliv
ing,
incl
udin
g:
crea
ting
aJe
wis
hho
me
cent
ered
onfa
mily
devo
tion
;lif
e-lo
ngst
udy;
priv
ate
pray
eran
dpu
blic
wor
ship
;da
ilyre
ligio
usob
serv
ance
;ke
epin
gth
eSa
bbat
han
d
the
holy
days
;ce
lebr
atin
gth
em
ajor
even
tsof
life;
invo
lvem
ent
with
the
syna
gogu
ean
dco
mm
unity
;an
dot
her
activ
ities
whi
chpr
omot
eth
esu
rviv
alof
the
Jew
ish
peop
lean
den
hanc
eits
exis
tenc
e.W
ithin
each
area
ofJe
wis
h
obse
rvan
ceR
efor
mJe
ws
are
calle
dup
onto
conf
ront
the
clai
ms
ofJe
wis
h
trad
itio
n,ho
wev
erdi
ffer
ently
perc
eive
d,an
dto
exer
cise
thei
rin
divi
dual
auto
nom
y,ch
oosi
ngan
dcr
eati
ngon
the
basi
sof
com
mit
men
tan
d
know
ledg
e.76
148
QU
EST
ION
S:
1)W
hich
ofth
epo
sitio
nsdo
you
find
mos
tsa
tisfy
ing?
leas
tsa
tisfy
ing?
Inea
chca
se,
why
?
2)A
sfa
ras
you
can
tell,
does
any
ofth
epo
sitio
nsre
quir
esp
ecif
icbe
liefs
abou
tth
ena
ture
ofG
od?
the
Peo
ple
Isra
el?
Zio
nism
?Je
wis
har
t?
3)W
hat
unit
esth
efo
urC
onse
rvat
ive
posi
tion
s?T
hat
is,
wha
tdo
they
shar
e?W
hat
dist
ingu
ishe
sth
emas
agr
oup
from
the
Ort
hodo
xan
dR
efor
mpo
sitio
ns?
4)In
each
ofth
efo
llow
ing
issu
es,
try
tode
term
ine
whe
ther
the
four
Con
serv
ativ
e
posi
tions
wou
ldbe
able
toco
me
toa
com
mon
deci
sion
orw
ould
have
diff
icul
tydo
ing
that
.In
each
case
,ex
plai
nyo
uran
swer
.
a)U
sing
Eng
lish
inse
rvic
es.
b)A
llow
ing
wom
ento
read
the
Tor
ahdu
ring
serv
ices
.
c)P
rohi
biti
ngcr
emat
ion.
d)H
avin
ga
Bat
Mitz
vah
cere
mon
yfo
rgi
rls.
e)P
erm
itti
ngtr
avel
toth
esy
nago
gue
onS
habb
atfo
rth
ose
who
cann
otw
alk
ther
e.
149
E.
Liv
ing
Jewish
Law
as
aC
onserv
ative
Jew
AC
TIV
ITY
:
work
ing
ingroups
oftwo
orthree,
filloutthefollow
ingw
orksheetsum
marizing
thesix
views
ofrev
elation
andlaw
which
we
havestudied
inthis
chapter.
Acco
rdin
gto
thisTH
EN
ATU
RE
AU
TH
OR
ITY
OF
MA
NS
AB
ILITY10
view
OF
THE
BIBLE’SLA
WS
CH
AN
GE
THE
.“
REV
ELATIO
NA
ND
IDEA
SBIBLE’S
LAW
S
CO
NS
ER
VA
TIV
EI
CO
NS
ER
VA
TIV
EII
RE
FO
RM
I
CO
NS
ER
VA
TIV
EIII
cnI.J
cR
vA
rIvc
IY
Inthe
previoussections
ofthis
chapter,w
ehave
discussedthe
historicaldevelopm
entof
Jewish
lawand
thew
aysit
changedthroughout
history(S
ectionsB
andC
).W
ehave
alsodiscussed
thebasis
ofauthority
forJew
ishlaw
andthe
abilityto
changeit
asseen
byfour
differentpositions
within
Conservative
Judaism(Section
D).
Those
discussionsw
erecrucial
forunderstanding
howthe
Conservative
Movem
entm
akesdecisions
inJew
ishlaw
,w
hichw
ew
illdescribe
inthis
section.
Because
theC
onservativeM
ovementhas
triedfrom
itsbeginning
topreserve
Judaismas
ithas
developedhistorically,
youneed
toknow
thehistory
ofhow
Jewish
lawhas
developed.A
syou
will
see,the
method
which
theC
onservativeM
ovement
usesto
make
itsdecisions
com
bin
esthe
major
methods
usedin
thepast,
andits
entireapproach
of“tradition
andchange”
(or“tradition,
includingchange”)
continuesthe
viewand
methods
ofthe
rabbisof
the
lasttw
othousand
years.Y
oualso
needto
knowthe
varyingpositions
within
theC
onservativeM
ovement
regardingrevelation,
theauthority
ofthe
law,
andthe
abilityto
changelaw
inorder
tobe
ableto
understandw
hyC
onservativerabbis
andsynagogues
varyin
theirpractices
inspecific
areasof
Jewish
law.
How
,then,
aredecisions
inJew
ishlaw
mad
ew
ithinthe
Conservative
Movem
ent?T
hefirst
important
thingto
realizeabout
thistopic
—and
perhapsthe
most
important
—is
this:since
actingin
accordancew
iththe
mitzvot
hasalw
aysbeen
akey
factorin
what
itm
eansto
bea
Jew,
Conservative
judaismrequires
observanceofthe
laws
ofclassicalJudaism,
includingthe
dietarylaw
s(kashrut),
theS
abbathsand
Festivals,
dailyw
orship,and
them
oralnorm
sof
the
Torah,
Prophets,and
Sages.
That
isw
hyw
eare
calledthe
“Conservative”
Movem
ent,or,
inH
ebrew,
“Masorti”
(traditional):w
eintend
toconserve
thetradition
bystudying
itand
practicingit.6
Only
throughsuch
observancecan
oneidentify
authenticallyw
ithw
hatJudaism
hasstood
forover
thecenturies.
Consequently,
theM
ovement
investsas
much
talentand
energyas
possibleinto
Jewish
educationof
allsorts
andon
alllevels,
includingschools,
youthgroups,cam
ps,conventions,
educationaltrips
toIsrael
andother
Jewish
comm
unities,adult
educationprogram
s,and
publicationssuch
asthis.
The
emphasis
and
major
effortsof
Conservative
Judaism,
then,is
NO
Thow
we
canor
shouldchange
Jewish
law;
itis
ratheron
motivating
andhelping
jews
toobserve
it.
150
151
