Friday 26 July 2013

Weiss’ Neo-Cons has moved farther to the left than the UTJ led by Professor R Halivni - R Averick

Rabbi Moshe Averick
«Truth be told, Weiss' Neo-Conservatism has moved farther to the left than the Union for Traditional Judaism (UTJ) led by Professor David Weiss Halivni, which is usually described as the far-right wing of the Conservative movement. UTJ does not ordain women – UTJ formed as a breakaway from the main body of Conservative Judaism over the issue of egalitarianism – and to the best of my knowledge does not accept or condone homosexual relationships in any way whatsoever. On the other hand, Rabbi Asher Lopatin, (the new Director of YCT), along with other high profile YCT rabbis have joined with Reform and Conservative clergy in publicly endorsing same-sex marriage legislation and have even given their blessings to the homosexual relationships of their congregants. Rabbi Hyim Shafner who aligns himself with YCT, described the home of two of his congregants living in an open lesbian relationship as a bayis ne'eman b'yisroel [exemplary Jewish home]. In support of this radical position he marshals some very authoritative evidence….such as an out of context remark by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. A blogger, under the banner of "Progressive Orthodox Judaism" agrees with my analysis: "In many aspects, UTJ falls to the right of the YCT/Open Orthodox crowd. UTJ was formed to counter egalitarianism, while the Open Orthodox movement, under the guise of "Yeshivat Maharat," conferring semicha upon Sara Hurwitz, etc., has moved towards this paradigm."»
American Jewry at the Crossroads: Isaac Mayer Wise, Solomon Schechter, and now...Avi Weiss and Sara Hurwitz | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com
http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/07/18/american-jewry-at-the-crossroads-isaac-mayer-wise-solomon-schechter-and-now-avi-weiss-and-sara-hurwitz/


Best Regards,
RRW

1 comment:

Rabbi Ben Hecht said...

i have noted this to others. When R. Dovid Weiss Halivni wrote "Revelation Restored", his intent, it would seem, was to re-establish the overriding authority of the Halachic system even as he felt challenged by the arguments of the Documentary Hypothesis and similar works. While he obviously rejected Rambam's ikkur in regard to the words of the Written Torah Text, he argued that other Rishonim did not agree with this and therefore he was open to accept the view of these other Rishonim. (This is an argument for a different time.) His essential point, though, was that the essence of any ikkur of this nature was really the necessity of belief in the Divine origin of Halacha -- and to this he absolutely agreed. As such, in his book, he maintains the absolute link of the Divine nature of the Oral Law, of Torah She'a'al Peh -- which was maintained. As it is TSBP which is the essence of the Halachic system and its essence was not subject to the the challenges that academics argued faced the text, its Revelational authority without question.

So what do we have. Usually challenges to authority of the text are coupled with challenges to the Revelational essence of the Halachic system -- thus allowing for greater change. RDWHalivini's very goal, however, was precisely the opposite. He wanted to show that even if one accepted textual critiques, the Revelational essence and authority of the Halachic system was not necessarily challenged. Change is thus still limited. WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDABLE DIFFERENCE.

Rabbi Ben Hecht