What are arguments that Orthodox Jews have published (not on Mi Yodeya) that Conservative Judaism is an invalid form of Judaism?

Have any Orthodox authors written articles or books that made such arguments in detail?

  • To debate each and every position independently (as @Shmuel has done for three examples) is also far from desirable in this context... I'm assuming you want discussions of the movement's position as a whole, right? – הנער הזה Jan 11 '15 at 1:27
  • @Matt I'm looking for specific arguments purporting to demonstrate that the movement is illegitimate. This could involve either the general positions or the movement or specific examples that prove the general point. – Kordovero Jan 11 '15 at 1:51
  • 3
    The movement as a whole? How would you argue that, if so many of the leaders believe(d) and said different things? Arguments that the whole movement is a deviant sect and any member ipso facto a פורש מן הציבור? I've seen such comments, but only in the form of polemics or announcements not arguments – הנער הזה Jan 11 '15 at 1:58
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Monica Cellio Jan 12 '15 at 3:03
  • You should notice that Rabbis must be very careful because practically every argument can be equally turned against the orthodox movement also, based on the Talmudic discourse. – Al Berko Dec 24 '20 at 18:51

I'm going to paint this in overly broad strokes, but here goes:

Theologically, the official stance of the Conservative movement is that the Torah was "inspired by God, but written by man." Orthodox theology believes this to conflict with one of Maimonides' principles of faith, that the Torah was dictated by God word-by-word to Moses.

An early practical demarcation between Orthodox and Conservative synagogues was the presence/absence of the mechitza, with many Orthodox rabbis opining that it was prohibited to pray at a synagogue where the men and women sit together. (Much ink has been spilled on this, and at one point a major Orthodox seminary issued all its graduates a copy of The Sanctity of the Synagogue, a book all about this subject.)

On various other matters, Orthodox scholars have felt that Conservative rabbis' readings of halacha have been "overly creative" in the service of whatever conclusion is desired, put mildly.

Here's how Rabbi Yitzchak Adlerstein puts it:

... the responsa of other denominations. I have seen quite a few (they used to be far more popular decades ago, when they made more of a pretense of being halachic) that follow a predictable sequence:

1) Decide what conclusion you want to arrive at. This will often be based on predicting what the Jewish ethical response must be in a world that has changed so significantly from the early legal texts of Judaism, that the modern author is given much leeway.

2) Find a few gemaros that seem to deal with the issue. If they don’t agree with your conclusion, either ignore them altogether, or find some understanding of each counterexample which will make it irrelevant to our times. This can be done by finding a single Rishon whose explanation of the gemara makes it possible to argue that the rabbis of the Talmud simply would not have said the same thing today. It doesn’t matter if that Rishon’s thinking is outweighed by a huge number of contradictory opinions.

3) Alternatively, show why such thinking is simply at odds with contemporary insight and reasonableness, and therefore must be discarded as foreign to the “spirit” of Jewish law and its inherent resiliency and flexibility.

4) Find a medrash as a springboard to show how quintessentially Jewish, how much in the spirit of Jewish law your own conclusion is.

5) Accept your original argument.

Or as our friend Fred put it in a comment below (thank you mori urebbi):

The common thread in those examples is that the Conservative movement (broadly speaking) purports to be a halachic movement but they employ untenable halachic arguments to suit a desired outcome that is itself based in extra-Judaic (or even contra-Judaic) ethics or values.

Here are some nice illustrative examples:

Driving a gasoline-powered car on the Sabbath: (Rabbi Adlerstein gives this example.)

Orthodox: The Torah says don't burn things on Saturday, therefore you can't drive a car as it burns gasoline.

Reform: The Torah is wrong. The point is to rest, and burning things is only a lot of work when you have to rub stones together. Driving is a much better way of resting than walking a mile!

Conservative: Well ... the Torah says don't burn things, but ... well ... the Talmud says it's not as bad if you do it for different purposes than its Biblical use. The Biblical use of burning was to boil water [to cook dyes for tapestries], but when you burn gasoline the purpose is for transportation. (Orthodox response: the Talmud's example of alternate-purpose is burning a document to destroy it. The Biblical use case is burning as a fuel source, which is exactly what a gasoline engine does.)

Intimate touching between two men.

Orthodox: The Torah says men shouldn't sleep together. It also says "don't come close to shameful acts"; just as it's wrong for a married woman to do "everything but" with someone other than her husband, it's wrong for two men to do "everything but."

Reform: The Torah is wrong. Religion should have no say on what consenting adults do with their private parts.

Conservative: Well ... we can't contradict the verse in the Torah ... so we can't actually allow certain actions ... but ... well we'll just have commitment ceremonies, we don't know what they'll really do in private ... and because of human dignity, we'll allow "everything but." (Orthodox response: "human dignity" is used Talmudically to allow minor infractions in situations where they've accidentally collided with human dignity, e.g. there's no pre-cut toilet paper in the bathroom and now you're stuck. Not to do away altogether with a prohibition.)

A female cantor reciting the Amida out-loud, and a man in the congregation will listen to fulfill his obligation

Orthodox: the Talmud says you can only fulfill someone else's obligation if your level of obligation is greater than or equal to theirs. The Talmud also says that men have more obligations vis-a-vis prayer than women; therefore, a woman praying out-loud can't fulfill a man's obligation.

Reform: The Talmud is wrong. There should be no gender differences in Judaism. What's more, the whole concept of a monarchical deity dictating is outdated. Prayer should respect personal autonomy and individual spirituality.

Conservative: well, we can't argue with the Talmud ... but ... well, we can demand our female cantors take a vow to pray thrice daily, thus reaching the same level of obligation as men. (Orthodox response: that obligation would be due to the force of the vow, not the original obligation to pray per se.) Or ... we will hereby obligate all women to pray thrice daily, and if most of them don't or can't do so, well, that's not our concern.

  • 1
    @CharlesKoppelman I think Shalom's elaboration on the examples was on-topic and illustrative. If you disagree, I think downvoting is better than a radical revision. As far as sources, I agree that this should be sourced, but all of Shalom's claims about the Orthodox positions and rebuttals have mainstream sources and can be sourced without too much difficulty. So far as I know, Shalom's depiction of the Reform and Conservative positions is broadly true (if somewhat oversimplified), though the variation within those movements is makes it difficult to address them completely in a brief answer. – Fred Jan 11 '15 at 4:18
  • 1
    @CharlesKoppelman The common thread in those examples is that the Conservative movement (broadly speaking) purports to be a halachic movement but they employ untenable halachic arguments to suit a desired outcome that is itself based in extra-Judaic (or even contra-Judaic) ethics or values. I agree that sourcing is important, however. – Fred Jan 11 '15 at 4:34
  • 1
    @Fred Ok, now find someone (external to this site) who's made that argument and used it to dismiss the Conservative movement as an invalid form of Judaism and that's a legitimate answer. – Charles Koppelman Jan 11 '15 at 4:37
  • 2
    @CharlesKoppelman Now that Rabbi Adlerstein's quote gives the general case, the examples point out how that general statement applies. This seems to be a good answer. – sabbahillel Jan 11 '15 at 15:10
  • 2
    It is worth noting that historically speaking many Orthodox Union affiliated congregations in the early 20th century did not have a mechitza; today only one in Denver does not. I'm not saying the halacha changed, but certainly in practice, Conservative and Orthodox used to be quite close. – user5540 Jan 12 '15 at 0:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .