Strengthening Reform 17: Reasons for the Mitzvot
October 23, 2008
Defining Reform | Jewish Living | Torah
(7 comments)
By William Berkson
As I wrote in the last post in this series, because in Reform our sacred texts are no longer regarded as authoritative, the "Reasons for the Mitzvot", ta'amei hamitzvot, have moved from being incidental to being central. In Reform, the reasons for the mitzvot become standards for interpreting, accepting, rejecting, and modifying the mitzvot as expressed in our sacred literature.
That is why I have been alarmed by the latest turn in Reform thinking, as seen in the 1999 Pittsburgh Principles and in Rabbi Richard Levy's A Vision of Holiness, which expands on the Principles. For in this discussion, the predominant philosophy seems to be, as I said, Romantic Individualism. We as individuals 'try on' mitzvot to see if they are spiritually uplifting, and as part of our 'dialogue' with God we are moved to practice the mitzvot or not.
I think that in reflecting on the future it is important to appreciate how rational and progressive the Classical Judaism was. Hillel established rules for legitimate interpretation of text, and several generations later, at Yavneh, the sages decided, in the great 'oven of achnai' debate, that divine inspiration--a 'voice from heaven'--would not have authority to decide halacha, but rather discussion of the texts, and a vote by the sages. These historical events put Judaism clearly in the critical tradition started by Socrates--the tradition which sees rational discussion and debate as a path to the truth. And these discussions are recorded in the Talmud, to be taken up in later generations.
It is because rationality is so critical a part of a progressive and liberal tradition that I think the 'romantic individualist' approach to our tradition is such a wrong turn. Our feelings of closeness or oneness with God, are an essential part of our religion, and inspire us. But these feelings do not always give good specific, concrete direction on how to live, either ethically or as to religious practice. That is why the sages wanted inspiration to be mediated by rational engagement with our tradition and sacred texts, with what those who were previously inspired thought and felt, and then were assessed and developed by later generations. And the sages were also willing to look at what would benefit the community in the present day, in rulings called 'tikkun'.
A second key value of the rationalist tradition is that it creates community, in particular a learning community. The most learned may have the most influence in the final decisions, but individuals throughout the community participate in study and critical assessment, and that has been key to high respect that Judaism has had in the eyes of Jews, in spite of being a minority persecuted very often, over thousands of years.
This is why it is key that the rationalist tradition is central to the future development of Reform. Now you might ask, hasn't Reform been rationalist all along?
The answer is that yes, Classical Reform was rationalist, but it had a dogmatic kind of rationalism. As I mentioned earlier, in the Enlightenment, many in the German tradition thought that "Reason" is a mental faculty that can tell us the right answer. And the German Reformers in the 19th century seem to have largely accepted Kant's outlook. As a result, in America, at any rate, we got not a piecemeal building of Reform Judaism but a set of pronouncements: they knew what was right, no arguments needed. It was a 'platform'--the Pittsburgh Platform.
After WWI, the certainties of the high point of 19th century optimism began to crumble. And two different approaches to the reasons for the mitzvot seem to have developed. One of these is represented in the current 'romantic' approach, perhaps influenced by Buber, which I have just discussed. The other is the development of Reform Responsa, a Reform halacha, as summarized in Jewish Living by Rabbi Mark Warshofsky. Here there is a continuation of the process of rational discussion of sources in Torah and Talmud, with the purpose of resolving contemporary issues. Here the change from traditional discussion is such Reform views such as the fallibility of the texts, and the rejection of the restoration of the Temple as goal. This is all to the good. But this literature has two important shortcomings. One is the general neglect of personal ethics as a topic, and dominant focus on issues of ritual. The only areas of ethics that seem to be explored are medical ethics, and the issue of the treatment of homosexuality. The second shortcoming is the lack of consideration of what science has to say on these issues, in particular psychology and sociology. Since Reform at its foundation is an attempt to synthesize the Enlightenment, including the insights of science, and Judaism, this is a serious omission.
In the next post in this series, I will put forward a better basis for ethical mitzvot than either simply the feelings of individuals or only the consideration of past texts. Following that I will put forward a better basis for consideration of ritual mitzvot.
Comments
Post a comment
|
Print
Email
Comment
The question I continue to pose -- is the glass half empty, or half full? Whatever the shortcomings of Reform circa 2008/5769, what's out there that's better?
One of the problems I'm having with this current exposition is that I find it an over-simplification to address the big quesiions of (Reform) Judaism as either ethical or ritual. At a parallel level, we have to consider the tension between individual behavior and community behavior. Whether the sh'elah (the question) falls in the realm of the ethical or the ritual, the t'shuvah, the responsum, is totally unenforceable on the individual, and only slightly more enforceable at the congregational level.
In this context, on a congregation by congregation basis, standards can be developed that not only set the direction of both ritual and ethical practice for the congregation, but that role model appropriate Reform Jewish behavior for congregants. Thus, the brit kodesh (sacred covenant) between congregation and clergy also sets a standard for mutual respect and consideration in the secular workplace (ethical mitzvot). Not serving "forbidden" foods or combinations of foods at congregational functions models the mitzvah of the table as an altar without attaching the myriad chumrot (stringencies) of OU kashrut.
Beyond medical ethics and homosexuality, I suggest two other areas that are points of pride for contemporary Reform -- the most obvious being gender egalitarianism, the other being a multi-faceted direction shift in our relationships with k'lal Yisrael, the totality of our people. We are more open than was once the case in our intra-faith dialogue; we are more committed, at least on paper, to our connectedness with world Jewry. (Is kol Yistrael arevim zeh lazeh, all Israel are responsible one for the other, an ethical mitzvah? I suppose so, but it's also something more, I think.)
After you've taken the next step in addressing the questions of ethical/ritual mitzvot, I hope you'll give us your view on the individual vs. the collective -- and also your suggestions on institutionalizing your conclusion.