Who are the real reformists?
Both Reform and Orthodox Jews deviated from traditional Judaism
The Reform voice is again being heard, this time in the framework of the global progressive Judaism convention. And again, the Orthodox are crying out. The former are standing up for their rights, while the latter are calling for limiting the power of Reform Jews.
Despite the controversy and bitter dispute, one assumption is shared by the two sides, and it is a historical assumption: Once upon a time we had the Orthodoxy, until the reformists came along in the 19th century and offered innovation and a religious alternative that grants preference to values and modernism at the expense of the strict and old-fashioned rules of Jewish law. The dispute only dealt with whether the Reform Movement was a blessing or a curse.
However, the historical story is completely different. In the real story, there is no Orthodoxy and no modern deviation, but rather, two parallel deviations – one is modern, by the Reform Movement, and the other conservative and ultra-Orthodox one is responsible for the shaping of the current religious-Orthodox world.
In other words, both Reform Jews and Orthodox Jews undertook a radical move of deviating from traditional Judaism. The former shifted to a world of permissions, while the latter shifted to a world of prohibitions. The historical, religious, cultural Judaism based on Jewish law was abandoned by both sides.
Every religion has two important characteristics: Its rules, and the manner in which they are applied. The Reform Movement's deviation has to do with abandoning the rules. The new Orthodoxy's deviation has to do with abandoning the manner of applying the rules as was the custom with the sages of Israel. Both are far-reaching deviations and both should be judged as such – either positively or negatively.
Process of withdrawal
The Reform Movement's reform, that is, the deviation from the rules, is more or less known. The developments in the Orthodox world in the past 200 years are less known. Due to various social, cultural, and political motives (in fact, the same motives that led to the birth of the Reform Movement,) the Orthodox community saw the start of a process of defensiveness whose major implications were withdrawal, an ideological offensive on the modern challenge, and the shaping of a renewed Jewish law discourse – the kind of discourse that rejects any possibility of addressing the new challenges in depth, through Jewish law.
Some will say this is just about things staying the same, it is not about reshaping Jewish law, and certainly not a deviation from Jewish law as offered by the Reform Movement. Yet such statement would show unfamiliarity with the history of Jewish law debate.
From the period of the Mishna and Talmud, the people who dealt with Jewish law were mostly visionaries who constantly dealt with finding fascinating solutions for the daily reality of Jewish communities in the Diaspora. All this was done while displaying astonishing consideration to the individual's problems, and often through bending Jewish law in a manner that would grant a fair solution to a specific person.
Maimonides is a fascinating example, because in addition to his monumental Jewish law series, "Mishneh Torah," which presents Jewish law's strict façade, in his answers to specific questions he adopted far-reaching Jewish law flexibility, to the point of seemingly contradicting his words in "Mishneh Torah." While doing so, he showed disdain to rabbinical judges who adopted absolute formalism.
Formalism and flexibility
Maimonides is not the only one, as Jewish law debate throughout history was characterized by a movement along the axis of formalism and flexibility – according to the specific case at hand – while taking into consideration individuals and their needs. This was Judaism based on Jewish law. Yet since the 19th century, this Judaism no longer exists. The new Orthodox abandoned it completely.
Yet the movement along the abovementioned axis is not the only thing abandoned by the Orthodox. Rather, another central characteristic of Judaism was also abandoned, namely far-reaching pluralism and a respectful attitude to all views, including those rejected by Jewish law decisions.
This approach was worded magically in a statement regarding disputes between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel: "A voice came out from heaven saying: These and these are the words of a living God, but Jewish law follows the rulings of Beit Hillel" (Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, 13b.)
We can certainly say that this pluralism, in addition to the combination of formalism and flexibility, were the factors that enabled Judaism to survive under the tough conditions forced upon it in the Diaspora. This was the case, but it is no longer the case.
The new Orthodox not only fail to respect views that are opposed to Jewish law – at times they make sure, through their various representatives, to silence those who dare propose an alternative position.
You said pluralism? No thanks. Not in the new Judaism. I suppose that had historical leaders observed the current Orthodox leadership, they would click their tongue with exasperation and cry out for the Judaism that has disappeared from the world - the fascinating, not to say touching Judaism, which they worked to produce over the generations.
Similarly, I assume that had one of them dared write his essays today, he would have had to deal with silencing attempts, excommunication, and insults. Perhaps he would be forced to give in. Just imagine: Excommunicating Maimonides; threatening Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra. The new Orthodoxy at its best.
Reform is back
And another small, seemingly minor matter, but not quite so. In conceptual terms, it is the Orthodox deviation that should actually be referred to as a reform move. After all, when it comes to the history or religions, the term "reform" is actually associated with religious radicalism.
In the 11th century, in the wake of social changes in Europe accompanied by wide-scale criticism of the Church, alongside flourishing heretical movements that threatened the Church's hegemony, Pope Gregory VII led an immense process of structural and political reforms in the church and its relations with the secular leadership.
In the following years, the Catholic Church led the most radical and conservative branch in the Christian world. Although Christianity seemingly remained the same Christianity, with its symbols and ceremonies, the Christian establishment shaped from then on a completely different religious culture that was stricter and more radical.
The changes led by the Church were later characterized as the "Reform of the 11th century."
And now, back to the issue at hand: In content-related terms, there is no room for comparison between the Christian reform of the 11th century and the Jewish Orthodox deviation of the 19th century – we are talking about two completely different moves, against a cultural and social backdrop that cannot be compared.
The notion that should be properly addressed relates to, as noted, the conceptual question. The term "reform" in its religious context was originally meant for religious radicalism. Similarly, we can perhaps propose a new conceptual distinction, according to which current-day Orthodoxy, just like the radical religious deviation, would be referred to as the Reform Movement, while we find another name for Reform Jews.
Mickey Greenfeld is a Doctor of Middle Ages history and teaches at Tel Aviv University's Humanities Department.
