Criticism of Conservative Judaism - Criticism From Orthodoxy

Criticism From Orthodoxy

From Haredi Judaism perspective, criticism is exemplified by Rabbi Avi Shafran of Agudath Israel of America. Shafran wrote in 2001 that the Conservative movement's leaders "trample" halakha while proclaiming fealty to it. He argued that the movement was a failure because nearly three-quarters of Conservative Jews said that they consider a Jew to be anyone raised Jewish, even if his or her mother was a gentile—the official Reform position, rejected by Conservative leaders as nonhalachic. Shafran further argued that Conservative Judaism "movement is not honest" because, though stating its commitment to halakhah (Jewish law), it approved the ordination of women based on a commission containing mostly laypeople and only one Talmud scholar. Shafran stated that the movement should have relied on the Talmud faculty of JTS. Similarly, in 2006, Rabbi Shafran criticized the decision by the Conservative movement's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards to adopt a responsum liberalizing its position on homosexual conduct. Shafran repeated his assertion that the Conservative movement, despite its "claim of halachic integrity", did not follow the "true halachic process".

Morever, Rabbi Avi Weiss, a Modern Orthodox rabbi on the left wing of Orthodox Judaism, also characterized the differences between Orthodox and Conservative Judaism in a manner critical of the Conservative approach:

Despite variations in style and approach, the system that we hold as holy sets us fundamentally apart from our Conservative co-religionists whose vision of the Jewish legal process is so very different in each of these three fundamental areas of Halakha: Torah mi-Sinai, rabbinic interpretation, and rabbinic legislation.

The belief in Torah mi-Sinai is, for all Orthodox Jews, the foundation of faith and at the core of the halakhic process. Conservative Judaism does not subscribe to this teaching. Moreover, in the area of rabbinic law, we Orthodox—Modern and Right alike—contend that legal authority is cumulative, and that that a contemporary posek (legal decisor) can only issue judgments based on a full history of Jewish legal precedent. In contrast, the implicit argument of the Conservative movement is that precedent provides illustrations of possible positions rather than binding law. Conservatism, therefore, remains free to select whichever position within the prior legal history appeals to it. Likewise, we adhere and turn to the wisdom of the most distinguished religio-legal authorities in making Halakhic determinations. Not so the Conservatives. Truth be told, when the Conservative movement faced some of its most controversial "new halakhot", such as the ordination of women, it turned away from its own Talmudic scholars and experts in Halakha, who had almost universally rejected the reasoning on which this new practice was to be based, and who have since virtually all left the faculty of the Jewish Theological Seminary.

Finally, in understanding the value of rabbinic law legislated by today's rabbis, it must be appreciated that at this juncture in our people's history in America, the Orthodox community is blessed with large numbers of ritually observant Jews. Across the spectrum of Orthodoxy, myriads of people meticulously keep Shabbat (the Sabbath), Kashrut (the Dietary Laws), Taharat ha-mishapahah (the Laws of Family Purity) and pray three times a day. Thus, if a "permissive custom" is accepted, it can become binding. This is not true of Conservatism's constituency, which is generally not composed of ritually-observant Jews. Thus, only in our community if a "permissive custom" is accepted, can it be meaningful.