view counter
Pluralism In A Post-Pluralistic World
Mon, 05/14/2012
Special to the Jewish Week


The Conservative Movement is in crisis.

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism estimates that from 1985 to 2009, 175 affiliated congregations have dispersed or merged with other denominations. The movement’s branch of day schools, the Solomon Schechter schools, has had the sharpest enrollment decline out of any denominational schools with a 3.8 percent decrease from 2010 to 2011, and since 1998, 20 Conservative day schools have shut down nationwide.

Not only has the movement witnessed such decline, but also it has suffered from divisionwithin its membership. This winter, the cover of the Conservative Judaism Kolot Magazine depicted two female rabbis holding hands and wearing tefillin, aprovocative image that upset many traditionalists.

Some say that relaxing traditional standards and moving to the left is a viable solution for reinvigorating the Conservative Movement. However, this approach counters a pluralistic model in which there is a strong emphasis on keeping members of a community together.

Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, the late, revered leader in the Movement, found assurance for pluralistic views in the diverging opinions of two famous sages, RabbiAkiva and Rabbi Ishmael, who disputed God’s immanence versus God’s transcendence.

Heschel viewed conflicting opinions as a conduit to extend our horizons and to reveal that contending interpretations can be woven together to offer an unbounded understanding of Divine truth.

As Rabbi Heschel did, we can turn to classical texts as motivation for constructing a pluralistic model.

Tractate Eiruvin’s “Eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim Chayim” (Eiruvin 13b), which translates as“ These and those are the words of the living God,” teaches that two opposing views can both be valid and complement each other. This declaration embodies the humbling notion that only recognizing one perspective leaves us with an incomplete picture.

Mishnah Eduyot’s opening chapter is another text that can offer insight into why we should foster pluralism. The famous source challenges why we still record minority opinions even though halachah is decided according to the majority opinion. The Mishnah answers “that if a court prefers the opinions of the minority position, it may rely on it,” emphasizing that minority opinions may become especially valuable in the future. Although it seems as if recently the Conservative Movement’s scale may have tipped, favoring the weight of change over that of tradition, these texts remind us of the necessity of integrating the views of traditional Conservative Jews into our thoughts and how we display our beliefs.

Rabbi David Wolpe of Sinai Temple in Los Angeles acknowledges that minority opinions of right-wing Conservative Jews are in some cases being dismissed.

“The egalitarian principle has become for many Conservative Jews a sort of defining principle,” he told me. “This is the way the spokespeople of Conservative Judaism define themselves, and they see those who oppose it more in the UTJ (Union of Traditional Judaism) camp, or Chovevei [Yeshivat Chovevei Torah), than in the Conservative movement. The right wing of Conservative Judaism, like the left wing of Orthodoxy, is increasingly squeezed, and Schechter is not the ritual model any longer.”

Rabbi Joel Roth, a professor of Talmud and Jewish Law at the JewishTheological Seminary and former chairman of the Rabbinical Assembly’sCommittee on Jewish Law and Standards, also recognizes the isolation of more traditional views.

“To say that being egalitarian is part of the definition of what it means to be Conservative does a disservice to the Conservative Movement, in my opinion, because it alienates many of those who have long considered themselves Conservative and makes them very uncomfortable because it intimates that they no longer have a place in the Movement,” he explained in an interview.

I believe pluralism should be more of a value within the Jewish community as a whole, not only in the Conservative Movement.

I grew up going to a pluralistic Jewish day school, I spent my summers in Conservative programs and my family and I belong to a Modern Orthodox synagogue. The intersection of these institutions has influenced my distinct -- yet staunch -- beliefs, making it impossible to label myself with one denomination, and I am not anxious to do so. I value the exposure I have to a broad range of religious ideologies and how it inculcates within me a sensitivity to pluralism and its challenges.

Although the concept of pluralism may be difficult to understand and actualize, if we overcome our doubts, with the help of classical texts, we can come away humbled with nuanced answers to our most critical questions. In the case of Conservative Judaism, this is especially relevant, considering there seems to be frequent neglect of the right side of the spectrum.

Before the scale tips even further, favoring the weight of change, perhaps it is necessary to remember our sages’ thoughts. If not, and the dearth of attention persists, the number of right-leaning Conservative Jews will become diminished and the balance within the movement will be lost.

Mia Appelbaum is a student at New York University.

Get The Jewish Week Newsletter

Comment Guidelines

The Jewish Week feels comments create a valuable conversation and wants to feature your thoughts on our website. To make everyone feel welcome, we won't publish comments that are profane, irrelevant, promotional or make personal attacks.


The Conservative rabbinate in the US has never maintained a close enough tie with its day-school movement; and it has never fostered the idea - day in, day out, week in, week out - from the pulpit that the schools should be supported and that members should be encouraged to send their kids there.

Once it is acceptable for a boy or girl to get that 4 hrs a week for 3 years as a Jewish education, and once the congregation's Hebrew School is deemed the norm, the day school is seen as just for the weirdos and the "special kids".

Conservative rabbis have cheated two generations of children out of their rightful inheritance of a Torah education; for that they are to blame.

If pluralism means engagement with diversity, how can it be pluralistic to support systems that treat some of the population differently because of sex, race, etc.? I can see making the case for tradition, but don't pretend that doing so is a pluralistic approach that honors diversity. What we need is real dialogue that gives the majority some understanding of how the traditionalist position can make sense today. So far what we've heard is essentially nostalgia, which is not an answer. I really hope someone can explain this to me and the rest of the egalitarian world.

Dear Mia,

As a former USY chapter president / List College grad, who now teaches in a yeshiva in Israel, sadly, I think the ship has sailed.

To imply the R. Heschel would condone the abandoning of Halacha is sacreligious. Of course he believe in a pluralistic approach but not in the altering Halacha. Why did he leave the reform seminary that saved him from Germany? Why did he argue with the law commitee of JTS when they created the destructive amendment of driving to shul on Shabbat. To imply Heschel would accept ALL the changes is to continue to destroy his good name and impact he can have on all of Judaism. With regard to "not Schechter's" movement- well site two of his statements "Judaism ought not die in order to live" and "Judaism was meant to convert the world, not itself"!!!

Firstly, thank you for reading my article and offering feedback.
I would like to clarify how I used Rabbi Heschel in my piece: Rabbi Heschel struggled with the idea of pluralism and was not sure it could be a realistic possibility. However, when he turned to classical texts such as those that included the diverging voices of R. Akiva and R. Ishamel, he recognized pluralism's potential. My article suggests that, like Rabbi Heschel, we can turn to classical texts to reaffirm our commitments to pluralism and remind ourselves that there is more than one truth. I do not believe I discussed Rabbi Heschel with respect to changes in Halachah, as you have commented- I used Heschel quite minimally.
Nevertheless, I would like to respond to your statement "To imply... R. Heschel would condone the abandoning of Halacha is sacrilegious." I think Rabbi Heschel would make a strong push for the modern world to recognize that there are times when Halachah can and should be violated for the sake of human dignity. The Jewish community must see that Kavod Habriyot (respect for human creation and dignity) should trump Yikov Hadeen et Hahar (The law is final). With that said, Halachah should become more flexible and our Humrot (strictures) should be lessened in circumstances where other members of the community may not be accepted- and thus a violation of Kavod Habriyot. Again, I see this critical idea as detached from my piece but it deserves attention in response to your comment.
I hope I have clarified these gaps.

It feels like in a lot of ways the Conservative movement has done this to itself. It's become the Reform movement - more or less. Issues that I have with that movement aside, why the shift if there's already a movement for that brand of Judaism? What constituency does it look to gain by moving further and further to the Left? There are many traditionalists that feel like the conservative movement is leaving them behind. They are affiliating more and more with Modern Orthodoxy and setting their own personal standards on Shabbat and kashrut observance. It's a shame for the Conservative movement and for Conservative Jews.

Add comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.