Speaking of interesting Conservative rabbis, Rabbi Joel Roth is certainly one of them. The YU Commentator has an interview with this individual which sheds some light on some of the essential aspects of the Conservative movement. What makes him so interesting to me is that he is apparently quite a Torah scholar. I’m not exactly sure what getting a PhD in Talmud entails but he has one. He has also authored a book on the ‘Systematic Analysis and Sefer ha-Mordecai: Tractate Kiddushin.’ He is even a Rosh Yeshiva in Israel. A Conservative one. I didn’t even know the Conservative movement had Yeshivos. In short he seems pretty knowledgeable. He is considered by them to be an expert in Halacha.
Among things not discussed in the interview is the key point of how a movement that allows one to treat as allegory the most seminal event in Jewish history, the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai. This most important issue is completely avoided. I’m sure that he would have had some interesting explanations about how one could say that this event never really happened and not be a heretic. But it would have been interesting to hear his personal take on this issue as well as his personal belief.
But, leaving out that one ‘minor’ point, the answers he gave to questions made me wonder whether he would necessarily be disqualified him from Orthodoxy. Here are some examples of his views.
The most controversial is the idea that the Shulchan Aruch is not the last word in Halacha. His view is that as long as the proper Halachic rules were used in Halachic decisions, then we can today Paskin against it. This may seem radical but there are various instances that we in fact do Paskin differently than the Shulchan Aruch. This was pointed out in the recent article by Dr. Marc Shapiro.
The GRA certainly disagreed with the Shulchan Aruch in some areas and his Minhagim reflected it. One example is that he did not say Baruch Hu U’Varuch Shemo when he heard a Bracha despite the Shulcah Aruch’s Psak to say it.
And Dr. Eliezer Berkovits certainly endorsed the concept of the Shulchan Aruch not being static in his book ‘Lo BaShamayim He’. One can dispute him as many have, but as radical as Dr. Berkovits’s ideas seems to be, I do not believe that he has been totally read out of Orthodoxy.
Dr. Roth also laments the fact that the Conservative laity is for the most part non-Observant. He justifiably feels that this is it’s great failing. He believes that observance is critical to the survival of the movement. For those few Conservative Jews who have been inspired to observe Halacha, they either become Conservative rabbis or become Orthodox because there is no communal support: “The problem is that in any given community they so stand out like a sore thumb that they become uncomfortable and decide that they have to be part of the community where their behavior is not so aberrational.” He then makes an astonishing admission. He is no longer sure that the Conservative movement is capable of creating an observant society. If that’s the case he is in essence predicting the demise of the movement itself.
His analysis of Open Orthodoxy, which is the credo of Yeshivat Chovivei Torah is that it is basically the same as that of Conservative Judaism. He sees no difference between the two since they are both behaving in the same way. He says that their claim to the contrary is basically just to avoid ‘being thrown out of the Orthodox world’.
I don’t know that I would go that far. There are serious Halachic differences. But I get where he is coming from and it is why I think that the type Orthodoxy advocated by YCT borders, but does not cross the line into the Conservative movement. I still firmly believe that they are a Halachic movement. And there is that little matter of Torah MiSinai. I don’t think the Open Orthodoxy of YCT denies it in any way. Nor do I think they consider denial an acceptable belief.
Joel Roth. Fascinating interview. Fascinating man.
