Well, it could have been worse.

[rymenhild]

The news from the CJLS (the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, in charge of determining religious law for the rabbis of Judaism's Conservative Movement, in case you haven't been following along here) regarding same-sex marriages and ordination of gay and lesbian clergy is apparently no news. The committee asked the authors of the submitted opinions to revise their proposals; the issue will be treated again the next time the CJLS convenes in December.

ETA: The Forward has more details, including news of a recent change in the CJLS policies that requires 80% unanimity, instead of the more usual 24%, to approve legal opinions on "particularly momentous" issues (i.e., given the issues facing the Conservative Movement lately, gays, gays and gays!).

Edited again, on March 7, to add: Either the Forward article was unclear or I misread it. The New York Times article post-non-vote explains that only the most radical proposal on the table, which advocated a complete change (takanah) in Jewish law, would require an 80% vote to pass. The other three opinions only need the normal 24%.

Comments

Can't say I'm surprised

[(Anonymous)]

They've been trying to avoid deciding one way or another on this one (and either alienate the right-wing or left-wing side of the movement), for what? 10 years now? 20? The women-as-rabbis decision spun off the Reconstructionist movement (when they took too long to decide) on the left and United Torah Judaism (when they let women in) on the right, and now they don't want to alienate anyone. Though it is entertaining to thing of the next right-wing splinter: "the movement that's OK with women in the rabbinate but draws the line at gays"


And is there anyone else who's annoyed that they spend this much time obsessing over homosexual sex and say NOTHING FOR FIFTY YEARS on heterosexual sex without going to the mikveh first? When, exactly, did that Torah law get revoked? And do they talk about it? And how many congregants who get all riled up about homosexual sex have any idea about how to count white days, or what veset days are?


E

Re: Can't say I'm surprised

[shirei-shibolim.livejournal.com]

The women-as-rabbis decision spun off the Reconstructionist movement (when they took too long to decide) on the left and United Torah Judaism (when they let women in) on the right, and now they don't want to alienate anyone.

I think you're a bit confused. The Reconstructionist movement predated the Conservative debate by decades, and the "UTJ" that formed in response to the decision to admit women was the Union for Traditional Judaism, not United Torah Judaism. (The Union for Traditional Judaism currently consists of a handful of faculty members operating out of a house in Teaneck. Barring unforeseen changes, it won't last another generation.)

Though it is entertaining to thing of the next right-wing splinter: "the movement that's OK with women in the rabbinate but draws the line at gays"

Much of the opposition to ordination of gay rabbis, like most of the lay support for female rabbis, is based on societal norms rather than halakhah. Of course, there are those who base such views on halakhic arguments, but they seem to be few and far between. It would be interesting to see the makeup of such a group, which would probably be a combination of homophobic women's libbers, strict halakhists who accept egalitarian theory, and some folks who mix the two just a bit (i.e., those who believe that the Torah forbids homosexual rabbis but can't coherently explain why they count women in a minyan).

And is there anyone else who's annoyed that they spend this much time obsessing over homosexual sex and say NOTHING FOR FIFTY YEARS on heterosexual sex without going to the mikveh first? When, exactly, did that Torah law get revoked? And do they talk about it? And how many congregants who get all riled up about homosexual sex have any idea about how to count white days, or what veset days are?

You're mistaken as to the way the CJLS works. Note that they've never in their history issued a statement on the kashrut status of pork. Does that mean that the Conservative Movement permits bacon consumption? No. It means that either (1) they are tacitly supporting the traditional halakhah or (2) any innovations or leniencies have been ruled upon by individual rabbis who did not feel the need to contact the CJLS for a ruling.

Re: Can't say I'm surprised

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

You're mistaken as to the way the CJLS works. Note that they've never in their history issued a statement on the kashrut status of pork. Does that mean that the Conservative Movement permits bacon consumption? No. It means that either (1) they are tacitly supporting the traditional halakhah or (2) any innovations or leniencies have been ruled upon by individual rabbis who did not feel the need to contact the CJLS for a ruling.

The problem with tacitly supporting the traditional halakha of mikveh, as I understand it, is that traditional Orthodox halakha of mikveh involves all sorts of interesting superstitions and weirdnesses. Those non-Orthodox mikveh-observant women of my acquaintance whom I've talked to about the issue have all told me stories about how they're sure something's wrong with the Artscroll mikveh rules, but they have no idea what. In almost all cases, these women went to their rabbis and asked for specific rulings on what they were supposed to do -- and the rabbis were nearly as confused as they were. I think a ruling on how the Conservative movement treats mikveh, for those people who do observe it, would make matters much clearer. It wouldn't surprise me if the CJLS just doesn't want to go there, though.

Re: Can't say I'm surprised

[naomichana.livejournal.com]

It's possible to sort through a lot of the mikveh material on one's own, but it's a bit like peeling an onion: no discernible core and a lot of incidental crying. (Normal people probably do ask their rabbi things, don't they? Hmmm.) At the very least, though, some kind of educational outreach on taharat ha-mishpacha would be a Good Thing.

Re: Can't say I'm surprised

[shirei-shibolim.livejournal.com]

. . . but it's a bit like peeling an onion: no discernible core and a lot of incidental crying.

Wow. You win a cookie.

At the very least, though, some kind of educational outreach on taharat ha-mishpacha would be a Good Thing.

That's . . . kind of complicated. The problem is that a lot of people (including many JTS students) find the notion of taharat hamishpahah to be offensive at best. It is therefore a difficult subject to broach in any kind of public forum without alienating gobs and gobs of congregational biomass.

Variations of the practice are spreading within the Conservative movement on a grassroots level, which is probably a better vector than anything the USCJ could come up with.

Re: Can't say I'm surprised

[naomichana.livejournal.com]

Oh, heck, I find it offensive at best. (And I set myself up the other week to teach it to a group of mostly-Catholic students. "Look, this isn't really as bad as it sounds....") Potential to offend isn't an especially good reason (albeit perhaps a practical one) for failing to educate people about elements of Judaism. If you have a tradition -- and a practice -- which is quite deliberately shrouded in secrecy, not discussed in public, and nevertheless supposedly integral to life as a Jew, you're gonna either get mass avoidance and ignorance (t"h) or mass pseudo-adaptation ("California kabbalah"; arguably Frankism and/or Sabbateanism) or possibly both. ;)

(P.S.: On my personal Scale of Offensiveness, fear of Icky Girl Parts actually comes in somewhat lower than pervasive xenophobia -- which, in an indirect way, is precisely the thrust of our recent Biennial, nu?)

Re: Can't say I'm surprised

[shirei-shibolim.livejournal.com]

Potential to offend isn't an especially good reason (albeit perhaps a practical one) for failing to educate people about elements of Judaism.

Agreed, but there not everyone feels that way. One of the approaches favored by certain outreach people is to make Judaism seem as palatable as possible to the uneducated laity, presumably in the hopes that they'll drop everything and kasher their kitchens. (I shouldn't be so cynical about this, but I have to admit that I haven't seen anything work too well just yet.)

(P.S.: On my personal Scale of Offensiveness, fear of Icky Girl Parts actually comes in somewhat lower than pervasive xenophobia -- which, in an indirect way, is precisely the thrust of our recent Biennial, nu?)

My perception is that xenophobia is a major motivating factor in the faulty sociological theory that was, in turn, the thrust of the Biennial. The whole notion that ending intermarriage — retroactively, no less! — will end assimilation reminds me of all sorts of interesting "facts" that have been discredited throughout the ages, but to which people have clung out of a need to believe that the old ideas were right.

Re: Can't say I'm surprised

[naomichana.livejournal.com]

And the point I failed to make before hitting "Post": if you don't have any educational outreach, it's entirely possible for a woman to find herself reluctant to discuss the topic with her rabbi (who has shown no signs of interest and is often male) and to have no idea who else to discuss it with. Mayim Rabim is a better resource these days than "UCSJ grassroots," unless you happen to live in one of a handful of places where those grassroots are active parts of your commuity.

Re: Can't say I'm surprised

[shirei-shibolim.livejournal.com]

First, I don't think there can be any such thing as "USCJ grassroots." The USCJ, like the rest of the Conservative movement, has a very strong top-down leadership structure that doesn't lend itself terribly well to programs created by people without Jewishly official titles.

The nature of these bottom-up initiatives is that one has to be in the right place, of course. In this case, one also has to be in a place with a mikveh, and one that is sufficiently attractive not to drive away people who would otherwise be committed. (The major reason why so many mikva'ot are so ratty is that the average clientele has no leverage at all. They can complain all they want, but they're going to keep showing up anyway. Most heterodox Jews do exercise a right not to patronize the institution, which may be why Mayyim Hayyim is so pretty and sanitary.)

Re: Can't say I'm surprised

[shirei-shibolim.livejournal.com]

True and true and true. My point was just that a lack of CJLS material on a subject doesn't mean that the Committee has abolished it, but merely that the Committee has not written about it.

I do know that individual Conservative rabbis, including some rather staunch halakhic constructionists, have worked out simplified and more lenient guidelines.