The Halakhic Methodology of Conservative Judaism
In her review of the Conservative Movement’s Humash, Etz Hayyim, Tammi Rossman-Benjamin makes a point about the Movement’s approach to Halakhah that I’ve been arguing since my days in Schechter (via Hirhurim):
Having publicly identified itself with an interpretation of P’shat which denies the unity of the Torah, the Conservative Movement is now in a serious theological quandary. For as a movement which swears fealty to Halakhah, its rejection of the most fundamental theological assumption of the rabbis who derived that Halakhah from the text is seemingly self-contradictory.
…
Not only are rabbinic claims about the divine nature of P’shat the very raison d’etre of the halakhic system, but as the talmudic dictum “ayn hamikra yotzei midey peshuto” makes clear, these claims have always been an integral part of the halakhic process as well.
As with any review that attempts to tackle such wide-ranging issues, there is room to quibble with some of her arguments. In general though, I think she touches on an important theological dilemna. You may not claim the legitimacy of Halakhic Judaism while simultaneously undermining its most important hermeneutical assumption: the divinity of the Torah.
I have certainly seen (and used) this critique. But, in the back of my mind I wonder if it may be an ‘orthodox bias’. We are arguing that it is a religious approach which is not rational. While I understand that this is a problem of internal contradiction, all religions require a certain level of acceptance of the improbable.
Comment by dbs — April 6, 2006 @ 9:51 am
We can distinguish pretty clearly between “internal contradiction” and “acceptance of the improbable”. And it’s not only all religions, by the way. Any theory robust enough to explain the world and our relationship with it will have its share of difficulties. Our tradition, though, is to tackle them, ask hard questions, and give teirutzim as best we can. Anybody who’s learned a Tosafot knows that we don’t shy away from elements of our texts that seem not to make sense (with the obvious exception of idiots who want to sweep objections from science under the rug).
Comment by sagoboulevard — April 6, 2006 @ 11:11 am