Q&A: Consultation on Matters of Religious “Conservatism” and Halakhic “Innovations”
Consultation on Matters of Religious “Conservatism” and Halakhic “Innovations”
Question
Hello, Honorable Rabbi,
As I approach a periodic summary assignment in the yeshiva, I was asked to write an article on a topic of my choice.
I decided to write an article titled “Religious Conservatism in the Postmodern Era.”
In this article, I will address various disputes between different streams within Judaism, and show that the disagreement is not in the halakhic content, that is, whether it is permitted or forbidden to do a given thing, but rather in the halakhic form, that is, in the way the ruling is reached (for example, whether Jewish law constitutes reality or reality constitutes Jewish law. More precisely, I would say that I will try to clarify how the halakhic decisor conceives of Jewish law a priori—what, in the decisor’s eyes, leads to the content of the ruling). In the article I will compare the concept of Jewish law to the concept of law in general, and argue that changes in content are not the real innovation; rather, innovations are changes in the form of law or of Jewish law. I will show this through historical points that affected the content of Jewish law (the use of electricity), as well as phenomena that affected the form (which in turn affected the content). Finally, I will argue that the word conservative is not, as we tend to interpret it today, someone who clings to the content of Jewish law and forbids as much as possible; rather, a conservative is one who preserves the form of Jewish law and of course its commandments. I will also present the place of the conservative within postmodern society.
In the course of writing the article, I will also try to sharpen the question of who exactly the conservative is—is he a literalist or an interpreter? I would like to argue that a conservative is not necessarily a literalist, and likewise an interpreter is not necessarily an innovator; rather, it is possible to have a conservative interpreter.
I would like to ask the Rabbi for help in trying to prove that a text necessarily requires interpretation, and that the real innovation is to read a text without interpretation.
I found many sources in the words of the Sages to support this, but that does not really help, since in the eyes of the Sadducees the Sages themselves are the innovators. Therefore I would be glad to receive sources or examples that would help me prove this claim.
In addition, I would appreciate any insight/comment on the topic or on the content.
Another matter, but on the same subject—may I ask the Rabbi’s permission to quote examples he brought in his books or articles?
With thanks in advance and great appreciation,
Answer
There are a great many points here, and I did not fully understand all of them. You certainly understand that this topic is close to my heart, and I would be happy to receive more concrete questions if you have them. It is hard for me to address all of this.
I will only note that conservatism can be lenient and not only stringent. For example, the opposition of the people of Jerusalem to the measurement standards of the Hazon Ish, and their adherence to the measurement standards of Rabbi Chaim Naeh, is conservatism in every sense. Professor Menachem Friedman made this point well in his article on the issue of halakhic measurements and its sociological background. By the same token, there is also stringent revolutionism (almost all of Haredi society today is like that, as Jacob Katz elaborated in his articles on Orthodoxy).
As for your request for help, I suggest you read David Henshke’s three articles in HaMa’ayan 5737–38, especially Rabbi Weitman’s response article, which is the more important one for your purposes. There you will see how “interpretation” is sometimes the most natural plain meaning.
You have permission, of course, to cite anything you find in my writings. Once these things have been published into the public domain, they are no longer mine (even according to the views in Torah study that recognize ownership of ideas. As is well known, the halakhic decisors disagreed on this regarding copyright).