0

R Dovid Gottlieb made the following claim to me:

"The non-traditional branches (Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist) of Judaism claim to be rejecting the original foundations and replacing it with something superior."

(As opposed to saying that some of them claim to be representing the true content of the original foundation and original founder).

Is this true or not?

Please source your answer.

5
  • For Reform, at least, this is true in a certain sense. Reform consider mitzvot not pertaining to a judicial system to be flexible. They were made to fit a certain time, place and mentality. If they no longer fit the current time, place and mentality - there is no reason to follow them. If, in the future, a particular mitzvah would again be deemed relevant, it will be observed once again (as was the case with the partial return of mikveh for women in the 90s).
    – Harel13
    Feb 7, 2023 at 21:16
  • So Judaism continuously making itself relevant to the modern era makes it better than Judaism of times past, if older versions of Judaism are still observed in the modern era (as they perceive Orthodoxy).
    – Harel13
    Feb 7, 2023 at 21:16
  • My honest impression from a youth brought up among them is that they claim whatever is most convenient at the time. It varies.
    – MichoelR
    Feb 8, 2023 at 9:45
  • @MichoelR Is that the impression from the LAYMEN or from the SCHOLARS? (Because I am looking for what their official claim is, not what their practical day-to-day attitude).
    – Tzvi K
    Feb 9, 2023 at 7:11
  • @TzviK On that I have nothing to add. Whatever the scholars had to say, never ever made it down to the places I went. I don't mean to be critical, or maybe I do, but my impression was that no one cared that much about the basis of what we were doing.
    – MichoelR
    Feb 9, 2023 at 11:15

0

You must log in to answer this question.