Why should I care about an architect of a movement that has legitimized heresy? Well, for one thing their flagship institution, JTS, was not always like that. It was founded as an Orthodox institution. Dr. Ginzberg was an integral part of that institution and helped shape the entire movement. And it is revealing to know whether a founding father of a movement was a Halachic Jew or not. But more significantly it is important that the interests of truth be served. One can have legitimate opinions about whether Dr. Louis Ginzberg contributed to Judaism or harmed it. But such opinions must be based in fact, not conjecture.
On the Main Line has a fascinating post about an incident involving this founding father of the Conservative movement.
What happened was that after telling a colleague who asked him about it, that it is not permitted to use an Elevator on Shabbos, that colleague then walked up many flights of stairs. Dr. Ginzberg waited for the elevator and then used it himself.
Many years later Dr. Ginzberg received a letter from a ‘friend’ that contained a scathing attack against him, labeling him a near Apikores. He was called a “failure”, a “Poresh Min Hatzibur”, and one who “cast(s) aspersion(s) on the Talmud and supported the Kofrim”. He was accused of being responsible for Dr. Mordecai Kaplan, a fellow faculty memebr of JTS. Dr. Kaplan may actually have qualified as an Apikores.
As for the last accusation, the evidence that Dr. Ginzberg supported Kaplan is to the contrary. In his book "Architects of Conservative Judaism", Herbert Parzen clearly demonstrated that Louis Ginzberg was vehemently opposed to Mordecai Kaplan and fought against his ideas. This is very clear. A public denouncement of Dr. Kaplan was published in the weekly Hadoar, upon the publication of the Reconstructionist Siddur. Rabbi Ginzberg was one of the signers. (p.154)
And then there’s this. It's been awhile, but I remember seeing a Sefer by Telzer Rosh HaYeshiva, R. Elia Meir Bloch. In the acknowledgement section he expressed gratitude to "HaGaon R. Levi Ginzberg" for helping him publish the Sefer.
What a contrast between the words in this acknowledgement and the words in that letter.
Louis Ginzberg is considered "The Proponent of the Halacha" by historians of the Conservative movement and actively fought that Halacha be the basis upon which the Conservative Movement was built. He considered it the "heart of Judaism" (p.142)
One can easily see from this his belief in the importance of following Halacha.
Over the years since his death, people have claimed that they, or people they knew, had seen Dr. Ginzberg violate Halacha. Among his alleged indiscretions were things like using the telephone on Shabbos and the above-mentioned elevator story.
If this is indeed true it is certainly "outside the pale" of Orthodox practice. And the elevator story seems hypocritical to say the least.
But perhaps we can be Dan L’Kaf Zechus. Such activity on Shabbos can be understood according to the Shita of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach. Based on his own extensive research and thereby understanding of how electricity worked, Rav Shlomo Zalman concluded that if there is no actual Eish (fire), and if it is not used for a Melacha purpose such as cooking, then there is no Issur Melacha in using electricity on Shabbos.
Although RSZA never Paskin'd this way as Halacha L'Maaseh, he never recanted his view of the reality of electricity. That he didn’t Paskin this way was because he felt it was more important to keep the prohibition in place as a Siyag (fence) so that people wouldn’t mistakenly come to use electricity on Shabbos for cooking which would then be a Melacha D'Oraisa. He also respected, though disagreed with the view of the Chazan Ish who held that electricity involved the Melacha of Boneh and did not want to rule against him.
Back in the twenties or thirties, HaGoan Rav Levi (Louis) Ginzberg could easily have come to the same conclusion as Rav Shlomo Zalman and did not feel the need to keep it as a Siyag. But when asked a Shayla, he Paskin’d L’Chumra because that was the conventional wisdom of the day. And maybe he did not want to take the responsibility upon his shoulders of his own Daas Yechidis Matiring a potential Chilul Shabbos for others.
Was Dr. Ginzberg truly an Ish Halakha? Or did he preach but not practice? I don’t know. History does not seem to confirm either. But isn’t it better to be Dan L’Kaf Zechus? It’s really a shame that more people can’t be more like Rav Elia Meir Bloch, than like this letter writer.
