For the Love of Judaism
Rabbi Michael Pont, Senior Rabbi at Marlboro Jewish Center, shares his message of love, inspiration and Torah.
For the Love of Judaism
Making the Laws of Conservative Judaism
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Ever wonder how the Conservative movement came to allow driving to Synagogue on Shabbat? Or whether it feels differently about driving electric cars on Shabbat? Or how it was decided that a livestreamed minyan was OK during the COVID-19 pandemic?
This week Rabbi Pont talks to Rabbi David Fine of Ridgewood, New Jersey who sits on the Halacha Committee for the Rabbinical Assembly and has been a part of many of the recent decisions that shape our movement.
Don't miss this fascinating conversation about the intricate process for deciding was is and is not acceptable in the ever-changing world of Conservative Judaism.
Shalom, I am Rabbi Michael Pont, and this is For the Love of Judaism. And today I am thrilled to have with me a good friend and colleague, Rabbi Dr. David J. Fine. Rabbi Fine has served as the Rabbi of Temple Israel in Ridgewood, New Jersey, since 2009. He is also an adjunct professor of Jewish law at the Abraham Geiger and Zacharias Frankel Colleges at the University of Potsdam in Germany, and an adjunct associate professor at the Academy for Jewish Religion in Yonkers, New York. A native of Queens, Rabbi Fein completed his doctorate in modern European history at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and his rabbinical ordination at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York. He serves the International Rabbinical Assembly as a member of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, where he contributes Jewish legal opinions on contemporary questions of Jewish law. Rabbi Fine lives in Ridgewood with his wife Ala and their sons Lawrence and Ariel. Now David and I, everybody should know, we were classmates at JTS, so we've known each other uh David, I don't know, like about 30 years, something like that.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, yeah, about 30 years.
SPEAKER_00Going way back. All right. So David, again, welcome to the program. Thanks for being with us today. How are you?
SPEAKER_01I'm great. Nice. Thanks for having me here.
SPEAKER_00Absolutely. So, David, um, first let's let's let everybody get to know you a little bit. Tell us about your path to the rabbinet.
SPEAKER_01Sure. So I grew up in a in a rabbinic home. My father uh was a congregational rabbi. And growing up uh in in synagogue, people would always say, So you're going to be a rabbi like your father. And my answer was always immediately absolutely not. Uh, and I never imagined growing up that I would. I was the typical rabbi's kid who would just get annoyed with things all the time. Uh but then when I went to college, I went to Wesleyan after high uh for my undergraduate in Connecticut, and uh found myself getting very involved with the student Jewish community there. And uh although there is a rabbi at Wesleyan, it was it was lay run. And I found myself moving into a quasi-rabbinic role, uh, which is not uncommon for people that you know go to rabbinical school after getting involved with uh campus life. And I felt that I was interested in going to rabbinical school. At the time, I thought I would have a career as a professor. Um, but I found that it set my interest was always in history, but I was always interested as well in questions of Halacha and Jewish law and the way that it was, these were debated in the conservative movement. Um you know, I grew up during the debate about the role of women in the synagogue and women and the question of the ordination of women as rabbis in the conservative movement. And I felt that I wanted to be a participant and not just a bystander in those in those discussions. And in order to do that, you needed to go to rabbinical school, which I did, and uh it was, you know, it was you were sort of a great experience. It's hard to believe that it's uh we were ordained 20 or over 24 years ago, but uh and after that, uh you know, I did receive the PhD, but things, you know, life takes the path that it takes. And I've now been in a I've been a full-time congregational rabbi since uh since 2002, and all but all but three of my um of my years since since we were or ordained together.
SPEAKER_00Very good. And I imagine, and we'll get into this, we'll get into your work with the Committee of Jewish Law and Standards. I imagine that your interest in history is very helpful because you know, to look back at where the movement has been and decisions that we've made in terms of Jewish law, that's very helpful, I would imagine, in applying those past decisions and in thinking about how we should rule today.
SPEAKER_01Correct. Absolutely. Yeah. And and uh, you know, whenever any whenever you look at legal questions, you look at what were the precedents, what was done before, what's changed, especially in conservative Judaism, where we call it, we like to see ourselves influenced by the role of of history and be c conscious of the development. Um, it's important for us, and I, you know, I might do certainly apply my training in history to see what what have been the change circumstances, how has the context changed, you know, and that a synagogue debating some issue today is not the same as some village in Poland 300 years ago, and how does it change the way we would look at the question? Uh, so I'm I'm geared towards you know, zeroing in on those questions, I you know, where it with uh the training has been very helpful.
SPEAKER_00Right. Yeah, absolutely. But let's talk about the the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, the CJLS, aka the law committee, uh, which is the official body of the conservative movement, the rabbinical assembly that makes decisions about Halacha Jewish law. So, David, just give us like a law committee 101. Like, how does it work? How did how are decisions made? How is the sausage made, if you will? Maybe that's a bad analogy, but I'm throwing it out there.
SPEAKER_01Uh so the law committee is structured as there are 25 voting members uh that are members of the rabbinical assembly, they're rabbis. There are also six non-voting members, five are lay representatives uh from the United Synagogue, and there's one cantor. Uh, and then there are also ex-officio members like the you know, president of the rabbinical assembly, United Synagogue, like that. So they'll, you know, it could be up to 30, 30 some people around the table. And uh the appointment for the voting members is a five-year appointment, and care is taken that it it represents the variety of opinions and experiences throughout the assembly. So varied between colleagues of different ages, uh, different geographical areas, uh, different approaches to uh questions of halacha. You know, the majority are congregational rabbis, but there's also representative of academics uh as well. And the law committee addresses questions that are that that come up that that face conservative rabbis that face the conservative movement. It's a very it's kind of a slow process where we first vote on something that whether it should be on the docket, then it's assigned to someone who takes it on. We're divided into about a half a dozen subcommittees that will work where the first draft is presented and comments are made before the paper is presented to the committee as a whole. The paper is then presented to the committee when it is done. There's a a first reader who gives sort of a formal response, and then you have as many opinions about the paper as there are people around the table as is want to happen. There's generally two readings. So the writer will take the comments back and then will revise the paper again, and then at the second reading, it's voted on. Then sometimes it has to go back if there's still issues for a third reading. Uh, so it can take at least a year, usually, for a paper to work its way through the process of the law committee. It's it's it's our own version of a peer-reviewed process, uh, which means that the decisions of the law committee are more than the positions of one person. They are collaborative, and the authors need to take account of the comments and suggestions in order for it to get through the process. When the papers are finally voted on, the rules that we've been working with since the I don't remember late 80s, early 90s, is that you need six votes to pass. And a lot of people are often surprised at that because six is a is not a majority of 25. In former times, and before, you know, for up till through the mid-80s, there was majority opinion and a minority opinion. And the minority opinion was still put out there, and rabbis could still embrace the minority versus the majority. The decision was made by the late 80s and to just say, well, if it gets six votes, it's an official position of the conservative movement, and and any conservative rabbi should be comfortable relying on that for a decision that they're making. And I think there was a conscious decision as an embrace of pluralism, which was an important issue in the mid-80s when the Ordination of Women's decision was made, and there was a big, you know, there was a lot of tension about that conservative movement. So they want to make sense that they're, you know, we don't have to agree on every issue of Jewish law, but we can all live under this, under this broad temp and all respect each each other. So I think that's the reason why the law committee functions the way it does. As a matter of practice, it is us very rare that there are conflicting opinions on the law committee. Usually um it's just the yeoman's work is done by a writer who takes on a task, does the research, writes the paper, and then through the collaborative process, it's a collective position uh that just presents the conservative movement's uh view on something. There are that's most of the cases, and and not everyone is comfortable, but you usually have a majority that will support a paper. It's going to go that way. Otherwise, it wouldn't go to that part of the process. There are rare occasions where the issue divides the committee, and then you have opposing papers uh that are presented simultaneously. And when you have that, then we vote on the opposing papers, and it's usually the case that both will pass, because if it's a split decision, then you just need at least six on each side. And out of 25, you're generally going to get that. And that's what we had in the decision that just that just uh uh came out uh this summer uh on the question of driving the electric cars that my paper at 10 votes, the other paper at 11 votes. You had some committee members that vote for both, and some vote for only one and only the other, uh, you know, and people devoted their voted how they felt on it.
SPEAKER_00Right. I wanted to ask you more generally. I mean, I think I wanted to talk to you, one, because you just authored that paper or co-authored it. Um, but also I've always found the law committee's work to be vital and critical for Jewish life because it applies Jewish law to today's issues, you know, things that are impacting us right now, to give us guidance from our tradition about how we should or how we could and should um think about these issues. So can you just and we're gonna talk about electric vehicles, which is I find totally fascinating, but could you share a few examples of you know, contemporary dilemmas, um, issues that are really impacting people now, and how and the guidance that the CJLS, the law committee provided?
SPEAKER_01Sure. I think the most creative, recent creative work that we had was on uh the use of uh technology during COVID uh and what how to make minions when you can't come together in a synagogue, whether you can turn on the computer and operate it on Shabbat. Uh it was an emergent question that we worked very quickly on. And there were other issues relating to COVID that we uh we were able to also use technology to meet over Zoom as often as we needed to in order to make the decisions in a timely manner and not wait for the year peer review process that it always takes, and and uh accelerated that, and that was important. Um I do want to add though, on the general, also is that the law committee is often misunderstood in that it's seen as a sort of the halachic authority of the conservative movement, and people are then surprised was how do you have a decision where there's conflicting opinions? Because it doesn't really, therefore, that's not a decision. And also it's often misunderstood as well in that are the law committee decisions binding on individual communities, individual rabbis. And so I want to also clarify that the law committee is the way I understand it, is an advisory council for conservative rabbis and the conservative movement. It doesn't legislate law for conservative Jews. That's determined on a community-by-community basis with the community's rabbi. The rabbis are encouraged to be guided by the decisions of the law committee, but it and the law committee is is it's a helpful, I think, for many of our colleagues to have that guidance, to have that research done, to have the rulings of the law committee out there, and then the rabbis can depend on those rulings, rely on them, and it can inform their work in their communities. But the law committee does not see itself as a supreme court, you know, as uh uh in terms of making those those decisions. It gives acceptable positions, understanding that there are multiple ways of understanding the halacha, and it helps set the parameters, right? And that these are the these are the different ways of understanding a certain question within the way that conservative Judaism understands halacha. With those provisos, I think it makes sense where you would have difference of opinions. We did have a difference of opinion on, it was a COVID-related question, on on how to for on forming a minion over Zoom and over the internet. At the time uh when everyone, no one was meeting in synagogues, we we we did say that it was permitted to do that. And uh our classmate Josh Heller wrote a detailed paper on different ways of approaching the technology of the computer for those that would normally do such things on Shabbat. Then Josh and I disagreed with each other a year later on whether to continue that permission. Uh, in 2020, we said this is an emergency ruling because of COVID-19. And then when we started to reopen our synagogues, Josh wrote a paper, uh, a Rabbi Heller's argument there was that uh synagogues that have trouble finding a minion can use the technology of Zoom uh in order to form that minion, that they had gotten used to doing that over a year. And and it was a way to really form minions that otherwise could not form, separate from the question of Shabbat, you know, just question whether you can have a minion on the internet. And and I I, though I've usually been more on the left, in this case, I found myself on the right, and I I disagreed. And I said, if it's an emergency situation where you cannot get to the synagogue because of a pandemic or because of a storm, that roads are closed, blocked, whatever. You know, there are other situations, then yes, you could form the minion on the Zoom, but only in an emergency. An emergency situation can't be indefinite. Having trouble forming a minion is not an emergency situation, you know, and and uh, and I said, really, you know, the minion's supposed to be in person. And and uh otherwise, I was concerned, besides the locker questions, I was concerned of how that would affect minions forming and the social connections that we make in synagogue when we get together and see people. And it's just not the same when you're a screen, you know, and not interacting in the same way. So those were it was a real difference of opinion on a very contemporary issue uh that we you know would not have come up more than a few years ago. Um, and both of our opinions were passed by the law committee. So uh, you know, our colleagues have uh both opinions they can rely on, whether you want to do a minion on Zoom, whether you don't want to do a minion on um on Zoom. So there was a weekday, a once a week my reveal that my men's club at my synagogue in Ridgewood was doing. And then once I presented my paper, I said, Well, we can't have this anymore. And they said, Oh, but we love getting it together on Zoom. And I said, I just wrote a paper for the lock of me that says you can't do it. So they still do it, but it's not in the synagogue announcements, and I don't have to, I don't have to show up. And that's pluralism, right?
SPEAKER_00That's right. That's right. But that's really great because, like you said, it's an issue that's impacting us right now. And in in my synagogue, and I assume in in many, you know, synagogues um around the world, it's still an issue. I mean, we still in my synagogue, we still debate about live streaming. And there's some people who are concerned that if we live stream, it will encourage people to stay at home and it'll weaken the bonds of community, it'll it'll discourage people from coming in person. Personally, I I have found that live streaming is incredibly helpful for people who just whether they're they're ill or homebound, elderly, maybe it's at night they they can't drive. Um, it's incredibly helpful for those, those kinds of situations. It's also incredibly helpful for people who want to connect, but they just can't physically be there because you know, life is busy and they're they're busy with other things, but it it does allow them to you know to connect Jewishly.
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_00And I don't think it's really this is just my opinion. I don't think it is just live streaming. I don't think it is really making a major impact in that people aren't coming to be physically present. People still want to be with other people, they still want to be with community. Um, so I think the I think the upside of of live streaming is is just too good to you.
SPEAKER_01I'm with you 100% there. I had was thinking, you know, before COVID hit, uh, you know, was talking this is something that we should provide. And COVID, in a sense, we had the technology before, but COVID pushed us to set it up. And, you know, for I said, this is going to stay forever. I mean, it's it's it's a wonderful thing for people who, you know, I mean, I understand some people convenience the trial they lagging at mini, but others who can't leave the home who are not able to come to synagogue to be for them to be able to have that connection or are not comfortable going out at night, you know, it it it gives a connection that keeps people uh, and and that's that's a a wonderful mitzvah for us to provide and outweighs whatever. And I really don't think I agree with you. I don't think it prevents people from coming who are now able to come.
SPEAKER_00Well, let's talk about the Chuva, the opinion paper that you just co-authored, um, which, as you, as you noted, the law committee um recently approved um about the use of electric vehicles on Shabbat. So tell us about the history of this issue about you know driving on Shabbat in general, and why is it that now the you know availability of EVs necessitated, at least in your opinion, an update on this issue. Sure.
SPEAKER_01Now it's very interesting, the specific question here, because you're right, the question of electric vehicles is tied to the question of driving at all to Schull, right? Which is in conservative movement history is an old question. And it was it was answered by the law committee in 1950. And uh when they looked at the question of in a suburban context, which is not the way Jews used to live historically, they used to live in more dense population arrangements. So when you're living in a in the suburbs, which uh then you're not walking distance in most cases to the synagogue because housing units are spread out and people are dependent on cars in order to get places. Uh so in that decision in 1950, the the but then it was called the majority opinion, they argue that it is permissible to drive to synagogue on Shabbat. It was limited to synagogue because the car, uh, besides elements of how to understand the spirit of Shabbat, it also there are also two significant halachic questions or pro challenges. One is the internal combustion engine, where you're there's a spark that is then burning the gasoline, and and that's combustion, which is like fire. And fire is says in the Torah, it can't use fire on Shabbat. Uh the other question was electricity, because even you're using uh the battery in the car and the car uses electricity as well as so if you're so that's a separate question where is the electricity permitted? And interestingly, the law committee looked at both questions separately in 1950, even though there was no such thing as an electric-only vehicle then, and I don't think they imagined that happening. They were just looking at the two major questions. And the reason that they did was that they understood that electricity was different than actual fire. So that before that, so and in electricity, it's it's not necessarily fire. There was broader opinion on the committee that it's probably okay to turn on lights on Shabbat, and that way people can read, make the dinner, it makes the observance of Shabbat a little easier, a little more accessible uh for your average conservative family. And they said, our we want to give a program where cons Shabbat can be observed by conservative Jews. That's something that they'll jump onto. You know, there was a debate on the law committee whether you could elect electricity for other things like TV and radio, that uh that there was a difference of opinion. Whereas everyone said you can't use electricity to grind coffee beans, to iron a shirt, uh you know, to use an electric shaver. So there are, so what is it that you're doing? There are certain things you're doing that's forbidden on Shabbat. So however you're doing it, it's forbidden. But is the electricity forbidden or not? And there have been different views of the conservative movement since 1950 over to use electricity, do you not use electricity? And we've had a number of clarifying papers on the law committee that looked at that. Those that said yes, I mean, the way I understood is is electricity, you can understand electricity like fire, in which case it's a no-no for Chavez, or you can understand electricity as water, mean like it's a current. And you're opening a faucet, you're closing a faucet. You're opening, you're opening the circuit, you're closing the circuit. And if you understand it that way, then it's not like fire, it's really okay. And I grew up that way. I mean, I grew up in my home, I grew up in a binned home. We we used electricity for things that would not otherwise be forbidden on Shabbat. But then the internal combustion engine was different because there, there is a spark. So what the law committee argued in 1950 was that yes, you're lighting a fire, but when you turn the key in your car, it's not the same as lighting a campfire, right? It's not the same like putting a fi lighting a fire in your fireplace or igniting your coals and your your your charcoals for the grill, right? Your intention is not to start a fire. Your intention is not to get heat, your intention is not to cook, which were the two primary uses of fire in ancient times. Your intention is to get from here to there. And to get from here to there, you're allowed to do on Shabbat. The lighting of the fire is not your intended use of igniting it, is they call it a secondary prohibition, not a primary prohibition. It's a second degree breaking of Shabbat. And then they argue that a second degree breaking of Shabbat you can do if it's for a mitzvah, like getting to shool. Right. That was essentially what the argument was. And some people accepted it, some people didn't. Majority of the law committee accepted it, a majority did not. It continued to be, in my opinion, the most controversial decision uh that the law committee made, more controversial in the long run than the ordination of women, than same-sex marriage. This is the most this is the thing it's still argued about. We're not arguing about those other things any anymore. And it always dumbfounded me in that this was never, it was derided. People had opinions on it, never taught, right? We were at the seminary for five years. Was it ever taught in any of our classes? Never taught. And uh and then there was an eye-opening case once where I, when I was right after ordination, I was working for the RA for three years. And um, and I used to get called the rabbinical school uh administration would call me now and then to sit in on interviews for rabbinical school. Because the way the seminary does that, I I it was that, I mean, we we sat through it, so we remember, right? It's a committee about a bunch of professors, the dean is chairing it, and so you're sitting with about seven people, grill you for about 40 minutes, and then they decide you walk out of the room and then they decide your fate. Rabbi, not a rabbi. And uh it's definitely the hardest part of the whole rabbinical school process. The rest you just show up and pass. Uh so one of the spots on the committee was a supposed to be a congregational rabbi to represent the field. And they would always call me at the last minute if the congregational rabbi had to cancel last minute because it was a funeral, which happens when you're a congregational rabbi. Uh and because I was the RA office was in the seminary, so I was right upstairs. Oh, can you join us for a I said, sure. So I would come down, I sat on a lot of these committees, and we had one applicant who was wanted to become a rabbi's second career, and um, and was like sort of what you and I would consider the ideal member of our synagogue, you know, gets excited about Judaism, learns how to read Torah, is in shul all the time, share the ritual committee, all does all the right things, right? Uh kosher home, doesn't go to work on Chavez. Uh, and then he was applying and he was so excited to go to rabbinical school. And then there was, but there was a problem. And the problem was that he still, you know, he was going to be a commuter student. He was married with children, and they had a house uh where, you know, he was willing to, you know, not leave his job, his wife worked, the finances, they'd be able to work out, be challenging, but their house was not walking distance from the synagogue. So then the the theme said, Well, then you can't, you know, once you become a rabbinical student of Jewish theological seminary, you can't get in a car and Shabbat. And he said, What are you talking about? I mean, I studied, I've read the decisions of the law committee, my rabbi explained it to me. I only drive to synagogue, I don't go anywhere else. You're telling me that the way that I was educated as a conservative Jew is not acceptable for the conservative seminary. And they said, That's our policy. And and they would have accepted him if he agreed to not drive. They said, You can move. He said, Look, I took away a major salary from the family budget. I can't also move the family. This is what I'm doing. They're supportive of me, but this has been our home for 15, 20 years. I'm not going to leave my family and spend Shabbos somewhere else. Shabbos is supposed to be with your family. You know, we do Shabbos dinner together, we go to school together. So he uh we lost him to the rabbinet, which I think is our our collective loss. After we left the room, I was talking with the professors and the dean, and I said, So I'm sort of in the position as the representative of the rabbinical assembly. We've this has been our majority opinion since 1950. Why can't we just go with it? And they said, No, no, it's the worst decision. The conservative movement is responsible for everything that's wrong in conservative Judaism. So that was sort of the system, yeah, that was where it was. So when the question of electric cars came up, the two rabbis, and one was Rabbi Morty Schwartz, who was at seminary, was a year or two behind us, who now teaches at JTS, works at the library. Um he wrote a paper with Rabbi Chaim Wiener, who's based in London. And since the question came up about electric cars, okay, why'd the question come up if we already had an answer of cars? Probably because for people that might not be comfortable getting in a regular car, maybe an electric car is okay. So they took the question and they responded saying, no, you can't get in a car on Shabbat to go to synagogue. The decision in 1950 was wrong. It was an opportunity to sort of open that up. They called their paper a new responsum on the Sabbath, because the 1950 papers call it responsum on the Sabbath. And they said, clarified, if it's an emergency, then of course you get in the car if it's a you know a medical emergency. They also said getting in the car is like the worst thing in the world, it's not a terrible transgression, but it is certainly against Halaha, unless it's an emergency. So that was proposed to the law committee. And then to make the long story short, I saw that and I said, you know, we have a precedent. The precedent is where we have someone has to stand up for the precedent. This has been on the books for 73 years that you can drive to Shul and Shabbat. And so I wrote that along with our colleague uh Rabbi Barry Leff, based in New Mexico and Israel. And we uh, without re-arguing the 1950 paper, we said if you can drive an internal combustion engine to synagogue on Shabbat, then Calva Kalmer, all the more so you can drive an electric car, because in 1950 there were two problems internal combustion and electricity. Here there's only one problem instead of two. So it's easier to argue than the position that's already on the books. And we affirmed the position that was on the books. We went slightly further in that we said that since the electricity is permitted for things that are on egg Shabbat, for things that are in the spirit of Shabbat, then we extended it. We said if it's an electric car, then you could also, it doesn't have to be limited only for shool. It can be other things that are in the spirit of Shabbat, like going to someone's home for Shabbat meal, like visiting your family, like uh going to a park, uh, you know, something that's appropriate for Shabbat, not going to the mall and shopping, obviously. We kind of implied whether we would consider the internal combustion engine acceptable for that. We didn't want to kind of like, you know, because that would be new territory. Uh we kind of winked at that question. And we said, is the is the electric car better than internal combustion car? It's better halohically because it's only one issue as opposed to two. It's certainly better for the environment. So it's something that we should encourage. It was a very interesting debate where we were taking a liberal position that was defending precedent. And you know, Rabbis Schwartz and Wiener were taking a more stringent position that was more radical and looking to really uproot a precedent. Uh, and then you have that kind of split sort of similar to what we saw in the Supreme Court and Roe v. Way, that they're different issues, of course. Right, right. You know, and that you how you understand right and left wing, you can't put people into those boxes, you know. And then I I take precedent very seriously. And the way that I wrote the paper, I co-wrote with Rabbi Lef is basically gave all of the decisions of the law committee from 1950 to today that relates to driving, to electricity, to Shabbat observance to show that this is completely in line with the way that we've always understood Hilchot Shabbat, the the laws of uh of Shabbat uh observance. Both papers passed. There was a split of position, their paper got one more vote than ours. And it's interesting, it means the law committee is overall more leans more right now than it did 73 years ago. 73 years ago was a majority position. Uh I got 10 votes out of 25. But the rabbi Schwartz and Wiener's argument is that for conservative Jews who don't get in cars on Shabbat, they they kind of need an encouragement and a validation from the law committee, to which Rabbi Schwartz said, I'm said to me, He said, David, I'm so happy that you wrote your paper because the other side should be validated as well. It's just not something that he was going to do. So we kind of worked together. It was a very collegial process, and uh we got very respectful of each other's positions. And uh and I think having those two papers uh does, although a number of people are confused, what is the that they don't understand what the decision means, because he said yes and no, but it uh I think that reflects the seriousness that um that we take Halacha and Shabbat observance within the movement.
SPEAKER_00Right. Yeah, that's fascinating. There's so much that we could, you know, talk about with that. Um I want to run out of time and I just wanted to ask you one other question. You said that the process for approving a position is usually like a year-long process. So can you give us a little, you know, a little insight into what's what's coming down the pike, if you will? Like, you know, what other topics is the law committee considering that maybe would be interesting to the people listening?
SPEAKER_01Um, you know, there are a number of different uh questions. Some are driven by new technology and some are just new new questions and how you approach different issues. I think, though, uh that there will be questions coming up regarding intermarriage. And I think those will those will be the headline grabbers for what the law committee takes on. And not even whether you know Sir Rabbi can do the intermarriage or not, but but just other related questions that overall our movement uh has been adjusting its approach to intermarriage. In the 80s, it was sort of a hard line no. And I think driven by the results of the various uh Jewish population survey and then the Pugh studies in uh 2013 and 2020 uh seen that the the numbers of conservative Jews are are shrinking. And uh it's not necessarily proven that we took a hard line on intermarriage when we were a major when we had the majority of affiliated Jews, and reform were number two. Reform took a softer stand. Since then, their numbers have grown, our numbers have shrunk. One doesn't necessarily follow the other, but it raised the question whether we're doing, we're taking the right approach or whether we need to be more embracing. Um, I mean, I've certainly found, no matter what I say from the pulpit or in print, uh, I'm sure you found the same thing, that your average intermarried family, it's a miracle if they even look at a conservative synagogue. We usually we'll just go to the reform synagogue, just assume that that's where they'll be welcomed. And they also welcome the conservative synagogue. Uh so there is, there's been work, you know, outside the law committee in the movement as a whole, in terms of how to welcome intermarried families into synagogues. Um, there was a uh split decision of the law committee a few years ago on whether a non-Jew as a relative can be an arc opener for uh uh Epine Mitzvah uh ceremonies. But I think there will be more questions um that's coming up on the agenda that reflect the it's not a technological change, but it's a demographic change among American Jews. And I think in response to those demographic changes, how we understand sort of what our what our view is and how we relate to those questions. So I I think those are those are coming up. We have uh charged with, we were charged with forming a subcommittee to look at those some questions that was coming out of the broader rabbinical assembly discussion. I remember it was a couple years ago at an Ari convention where it was the most attended session was a sort of just a discussion among rabbis about issues dealing with intermarriage in our family in our congregations and how we approach it. And it was just a real sense of pain, you know, with with the uh with with how to just discomfort with how we approach it and the difficult decisions that we as conservative rabbis are often in in those circumstances.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I agree. Um, it is not black and white, and right, we're both pulpit rabbis. I too have you know addressed many of those kinds of questions, um, not just with you know intermarriage, but you know, families are are blended. There are lots of relatives. Um, most families have, you know, someone who is who's not Jewish is a part of their family, and they are a part of the family. And so um I strive within the bounds of of our movement to be as welcoming as possible. And that's that's a it is an ongoing discussion. And I personally am really glad to hear you say that because I will uh be very interested in the guidance that the law committee will offer on those kinds of questions.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, well, just to bring you know the discussion full circle, I think that the the work of the law committee, the way the law committee is structured is created in a sense where we welcome the different views among rabbis, you know, in our the way the different ways we understand Torah. And that has to be the starting point. And then to trend, and then we translate that into welcoming other other other Jews. And that's how we do it.
SPEAKER_00Um Yeah, I I agree 100%. All right. Well, Rabbi David Fine of Ridgewood, New Jersey, member of the law committee. This has been a really fascinating discussion. Um, every every time I see a Tesla driving by, I'm gonna think about this conversation, um, especially if it's on Shabbat. Uh, no question. David, thank you so much.
SPEAKER_01Every time I do, I'm like, my next car is gonna have to be an electric car, or I'll never be able to explain myself.
SPEAKER_00That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. Hey, fine, what are you doing? It's that internal combustion engine. Get it, you know, get an electric car. But anyway, David, thank you so much. And just on a personal level, of course, it's great to reconnect with you. I agree. Um, we're both Jersey rabbis, but we're busy, and it's just, I'm glad that we took the time to talk today.
SPEAKER_01Me too, me too. Thank you.
SPEAKER_00Okay, again, everybody. That was Rabbi David Fine. Uh, such an interesting conversation about Halacha, Jewish law, and how it works, specifically in the conservative movement. Um, David and I are both members of the Rabbinical Assembly, the international body of conservative Massorti rabbis. There are about 1700, 1800 members. So it's a large group of rabbis trying to help offer guidance for each other and of course for our constituents about how to live the most dynamic, authentic Jewish life today. We talked a lot about the Committee of Jewish Law and Standards, aka the Law Committee, and how it works. Um, I learned some things that I didn't know about. Uh, I love that it's, you know, there's a process that happens in order for position paper that a rabbi writes to become Jewish law. That maybe one person writes a paper, but then it's presented to the law committee, this group, this body of 30 people, uh, 25 rabbis, and then others who are non-voting, but still they contribute their guidance and opinions. And there are two readings so that it's a collaborative process, as David emphasized. Uh, maybe uh a position paper or chuva starts with one rabbi, but if the paper is going to be accepted, it's gonna be the collective voice of the law committee. And so it goes through a process. Um, so that's one thing that I was thinking about. Also, we talked a lot about you know, cars and driving on Shabbat. It's important to think about that, you know, questions about this don't just they don't just happen in a vacuum. They don't just come from nowhere. Uh, they're often presented by rabbis in the field who have this as a real issue. I know I have a personal connection uh to the driving on Shabbat question uh because it came from a rabbi in the Detroit area where I'm from, uh Rabbi Morris Adler. Um his congregation uh was located in downtown Detroit, but then they were moving to the suburbs. And Rabbi Adler was very concerned because many of his congregants, including those who were, you know, who were elderly, who didn't want to move from Detroit proper out to the suburbs, Southfield, Michigan, which is where I'm from, he was very worried about them being completely cut off from the community. And so that's that's where this question started. Uh he explored this possibility. Well, could his community members, you know, drive to synagogue from you know downtown out to the suburbs? Uh and of course, you heard David explain eloquently and thoroughly the whole process and rationale behind the ultimate majority opinion, uh, that yes, it was acceptable uh in the conservative movement so that families wouldn't be stranded, um, so that they could be with their community on Shabbat. Uh and as David said, that it has been a controversial issue amongst conservative rabbis ever since you know 1950 when it was passed. But as David said, you know, debate is critical, it's healthy, you know, in order for Judaism to thrive. I was thinking also about what David talked about about halacha Jewish law, uh, that it is a dynamic process. You know, the Hebrew word halacha comes from the verb lalachet, which means to walk. And David and I both learned in rabbinical school uh in our training to be conservative rabbis that when you think about Jewish law, halacha, as walking a path, you're not walking on a tightrope. In other words, the decisions that we make, it's not like the scope is supposed to be very narrow, it's binary, it's yes or no. You know, we weren't trained to think of Jewish life in that way. We're not walking on a tightrope and trying to live our most authentic, dynamic Jewish life. Rather, we're walking within certain bounds. And within those bounds, there is room for difference of opinion. There's room for multiple perspectives. That's why, with every issue of Jewish law, we try our best to interpret the Torah and Jewish tradition. We debate, we have conflicting opinions, we looked, as David said, we rely on precedent to help inform our decisions for today. It's a process and it's dynamic and exciting. It can sometimes be infuriating because you can be left with two different or multiple different but acceptable opinions on how you might live your life as a human being, as a Jew. Um, but that's that's okay. It's okay to have multiple opinions. It can be confusing, but that's when you go and you consult with your own rabbi to try and find guidance if there are multiple acceptable ways to live an authentic Jewish life. As David said, the law committee will offer sometimes multiple opinions and rarely, but on occasion, will offer will offer conflicting opinions because you know, Jewish life is not binary, it's not yes and no. It's a little messier than that, it's a little more complicated than that. And it I would say that it demands a little more from us as consumers of the Torah, as consumers of Jewish life, that you shouldn't be looking necessarily for just a yes or no opinion. You know, you have to be willing to dig a little deeper, to explore, uh, to really think carefully about every decision that we made, that we make. And that includes whether or not you're going to get into an electric vehicle on Shabbat and drive it. That includes all of the issues that David and I discussed and so, so much more. Well, again, everybody, this has been a great episode. Thank you so much for listening and peace out.