CCAR RESPONSA
American Reform Responsa
2. Discarded Practices
(1979)
QUESTION: What shall be the attitude of Reform Judaism towards practices once discarded? May they be adopted again? What is the attitude of Reform Judaism towards the change in rituals and practices generally?ANSWER: A fundamental distinction between traditional Judaism and Reform Judaism lies in our attitude towards change. Orthodox Judaism insists that the tradition has remained constant and unchanging since its inception. Everything was revealed on Sinai or implied in that revelation (Meg. l9b); nothing may be added or removed from the law (Deut. 4:21; 13:1). Although a historic view of Judaism clearly indicated that radical changes had occurred often, Orthodox Judaism has denied them and sees such as a reinterpretation of existing traditions. Reform Judaism has emphasized change and has re viewed Judaism through the eyes of history. The radical differences between Biblical Judaism, Hellenistic Judaism, and Rabbinic Judaism and its varieties, have been acknowledged and explained as a reaction to new environments. This view of Judaism was implied in the earliest changes made by Israel Jacobson at the outset of the l9th century. It was clearly stated in historical and theological terms by Holdheim, Geiger, Kohler, and others in Europe and America in the middle of the last century, and perhaps earliest by Joseph Dernburg in the Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift vol. IV, 1839, pp. 14ff). The views of such individual thinkers formed the basis of the questions and debates at the various Reform rabbinic meetings held in the last century in Germany. They adopted no statements of principle, but passed resolutions on practical matters which implied such a view of the past. In the United States guiding principles of Reform Judaism were at first presented and accepted by the Philadelphia Conference of 1869 and the Pittsburgh Conference of 1885. Both recognized the changing nature of Judaism. This was, perhaps, most clearly stated in the opening paragraph of the Columbus Platform of 1937: “Judaism is the historical religious experience of the Jewish people. Though growing out of Jewish life, its message is universal, aiming at the union and perfection of mankind under the sovereignty of God. Reform Judaism recognizes the principle of progressive development in religion, consciously applies this principle to spiritual as well as to cultural and social life” (CCAR Yearbook, vol. 47, p. 97). This indicates that Reform Judaism has not remained static, but is willing to adapt itself to the needs of each generation. We do not make such changes lightly, and we root ourselves in the past. Minor adaptations may be readily made, but major changes take place only when no alternatives exist. “The Torah, both written and oral, enshrines Israel’s ever-growing consciousness of God and of the moral law; it preserves the historical precedents, sanctions, and norms of Jewish life and seeks to mold it in the pattern of goodness and holiness. Being a product of historical processes, certain of its laws have lost their binding force with the passing of the conditions that called them forth, but as a repository of permanent spiritual ideals, the Torah remains the dynamic source in the life of Israel” (Ibid., p. 97). Thus, we can readily accept new customs and celebrations such as Yom Ha-atsma-ut, Berit Chayim, etc., or ideas such as the complete equality of men and women, which has led to women rabbis and cantors. We willingly move also in the other direction as history and the mood of our people re-emphasize older customs as well, demonstrated by the Gates of Mitzvah (1979). This has always been so in traditional Judaism as well, and has led to innumerable changes in minhagim in our history. Even a cursory glance at the Shulchan Aruch and its commentaries or any of the books of minhagim demonstrate how much has been adopted, omitted, and sometimes re-adopted. This is especially true of customs and ceremonies of life-cycle events, such as Bar Mitzvahs, weddings, funerals, etc. Nothing would, therefore, hinder us as Reform Jews from readopting customs once omitted if a new generation finds them meaningful and useful in its practice of Judaism. We have always understood that such customs, when adopted by us, do not represent a divine enactment. In other words, we are willing to change in both directions. This would apply both to private practices and to those of the synagogue. Synagogue practices should be discussed by the appropriate committee which acts in an advisory capacity to the rabbi under whose aegis changes may be made.Walter Jacob, ChairmanLeonard S. KravitzEugene LipmanW. Gunther PlautHarry A. RothRav A. SoloffBernard Zlotowitz
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.