Strengthening Reform 15: The Great Mitzvah Muddle
September 26, 2008
Defining Reform | Jewish Living | The Future
(6 comments)
by William Berkson
The latest expression of the principles of Reform Judaism is the six-page "Pittsburgh Principles" of 1999. The book A Vision of Holiness: The Future of Reform Judaism, by Rabbi Richard Levy, begins with this statement, and expands on it to explain it more fully.
One of the questions that was put to focus groups concerned autonomy and mitzvot: "... It is a given that Jews have the autonomous right to choose what beliefs and practices will inform their lives, but for Reform Jews the hard question is the role of Torah and mitzvot in their lives."
The answer in the 1999 "Pittsburgh Principles" is as follows: "We are committed to the ongoing study of the whole array of mitzvot and to the fulfillment of those that address us as individual and as a community. Some of those mitzvot, sacred obligations, have long been observed by Reform Jews; others, both ancient and modern, demand renewed attention as the result of the unique context of our times."
This is not a principle, but a 'punt'. If those practices are sacred obligations, then not following them was a mistake that we should correct. If they are not sacred obligations, ok, we don't have to follow them. Is this "principle" saying we should revive some old customs? If so, on what basis? No answers. Compared to the bracing clarity and forcefulness of the original Pittsburgh Platform, this is a fog.
Rabbi Levy writes that the arguments over the status of tefilin, tallit, etc., were the most heated in discussions of what to put in the 1999 "Principles." This muddy paragraph I think reveals that in fact no clear conclusion was reached. Rabbi Levy in his book does take a dramatic step to clarify the issue of which mitzvot to observe: he clearly and forcefully rejects the long-standing Reform view that ethical and ritual mitzvot have a different status.
Before addressing Rabbi Levy's solution, let me take a step back and see what has led up to Rabbi Levy's dramatic change. The 1885 Pittsburgh Platform says that while Reform Jews accept traditional moral laws as binding, they maintain only "such ceremonies as elevate and sanctify our lives, but reject all such as are not adapted to the views and habits of modern civilization." The 1937 "Columbus Platform," reaffirms this view, though in less clear terms: "Being the products of historical processes, certain of its laws have lost their binding force with the passing of the conditions that called them forth. ... Each age has the obligation to adapt the teachings of the Torah to its basic needs ..." Note that in this language implicitly some rituals are viewed as obligatory, a change from 1885.
The 1976 "Reform Judaism: Centenary Perspective" represents a more significant shift. First, it clearly labels specific rituals as obligatory: "The past century has taught us that the claims made upon us may begin with our ethical obligations but they extend to many other aspects of Jewish living: [a Jewish home, life-long study, public prayer, daily private prayer, keeping Shabbat and holidays, involvement in synagogue and community, promoting survival of Jewish people.]" But it goes on to qualify or contradict this obligation on all Reform Jews with a concluding message: "Reform Jews ... are called on to exercise their individual autonomy, choosing and creating [religious practice] on the basis of knowledge and commitment." How to reconcile the two messages is not entirely clear, but it seems that individual Reform Jews can contradict the general recommendations on ritual, but only if they do so on a basis of being well informed and still committed as Jews.
We went from an 1885 "Platform" to a 1976 "Perspective," and the changes in title I think indicate an increased tentativeness and nervousness about the direction of Reform. The "Perspective" tries to wrestle with increased diversity of practice within Reform by making a virtue of it: "Reform Jews respond to change in various ways according to the Reform principle of autonomy of the individual. However, Reform Judaism does more than tolerate diversity; it engenders it. In our uncertain historical situation we must expect to have far greater diversity than previous generations knew."
This emphasis on "autonomy" it seems is a post-war idea, and perhaps an influence of the extreme individualism that swept the US in the 1960's, and the resulting diversity. "Diversity within unity" is a brave motto of the "Perspective", but as the conflict between forceful direction on ritual and then big qualification shows, the writers of the "Perspective" were not at all clear how that unity could be maintained.
The 1999 Duties of the Soul: The Role of Commandments in Judaism is a thoughtful volume in which many Reform Rabbis try to resolve the mixed messages of obligation and autonomy that were contained in the 1976 "Perspective." However, I think it fair to say that no clear resolution of the issue emerges from the volume.
Now Rabbi Levy has come in his 2005 Vision of Holiness with his dramatic proposal to cut the 'Gordian Knot' of the mitzvah muddle by declaring no distinction between the ethical and ritual mitzvot. While Rabbi Levy's Vision contains much that is beautiful and touching, I think that abolishing the distinction between ritual and ethical mitzvot is a spectacularly bad idea for Reform Judaism. In my next post I will explain why.
Comments
Post a comment
|
Print
Email
Comment
The clarity of Pittsburgh 1885, which guided the movement for half a century, related to things that Reform Jews shouldn't do -- and these were essentially things they didn't want to do.
This had morphed by a hundred years later into an attitude that was essentially, you don't have to do them, but if you want to it's ok. And that took place because some of these were things that Jews who were migrating from other streams wanted to do, but within the context of Reform Judaism.
The schism that made Pittsburgh 1999 nisht milchig nisht fleishig (neither dairy nor meat) was the fending off of any suggestion that would go from may to should, which could lead to the slippery slope of going from should to must.
The issue of autonomy is not the distinction between ethical and ritual. Autonomy is the recognition that neither your rabbi, nor any assembly of rabbis, nor any organization of congregations, has any real sanctions to put forth if some one turns a must into a No Way.
I would be glad to see the movement develop a more stringent roster of Shoulds, accompanied by something that would encourage the Jews in the pews to respond Naaseh v'nishma -- we'll do it and we'll hearken to it. But still the congregational rabbi would have the autonomy to endorse it to the congregation -- or not. Enforce it? Can't happen.