Containing Diversity: The Theory and Practice of Modern Orthodoxy

Statement of Purpose: 

The past several years have seen both strong centrifugal and centripetal forces in Modern Orthodoxy.  For example: With regard to both kashrut and conversion, attempts more or less successful have been made to create both uniform standards and national administrative oversight, and Young Israel has moved in the same direction regarding synagogue policies.  At the same time, many Jews who self-identify as Orthodox have instigated or joined “independent minyanim”, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah has established itself as an alternative to YU, and the International Rabbinic Fellowship is seeking to establish itself as an alternative to the RCA. 

These administrative outcomes have generally developed on an ad hoc reactive basis.  CMTL’s theses are that

a.  Torah should be able to provide guidance, although not psak, on the question of how best to organize a community that is not (yet) homogeneous, and  

b.  a broad perspective on that question will likely lead to better decision-making with regard to specific issues. 

We are especially hopeful that we can enhance the community’s ability to deal with issues that have not yet become epicenters of controversy.  To that end, this conference will treat current controversies such as those over kashrut and conversion as “case studies” rather than as topics for disputation – in other words we will treat them descriptively rather than prescriptively – and then apply the lessons learned from those descriptive conversations to generate productive dialogue about forthcoming issues, especially those relating to synagogues and schools.

Conference participants are expected to be fully available to the group throughout all meeting times.  Close attention to the advance reading materials that will be provided is strongly encouraged and will greatly enhance both what you can contribute and what you can gain.  Early commitment will give you the opportunity to help shape the program as we concretize its details.

Opening Remarks:

Overall Frameworks:

1. One G-d of utter simplicity Who can be understood only through difference
2. One tzelem of one G-d, and yet each individual is unique
3. The Dignity of Difference: Migdal Bavel (Rabbi Sacks)

Session 1: 

Diversity vs. Centralization: Theory

Frameworks:

a.  Political: מלכות vs. שבטים

Consider the experience of Sefer Shoftim, and its yearning for a king, with the actual experience of kingship in Shmuel etc, especially the eventual split into separate kingdoms

Keyphrase: בימים ההם אין מלך בישראל איש הישר בעיניו יעשה

b. Ritual: במות vs מקדש

Why were bamot ever permitted?  Why were they eventually forbidden?  Why was the attempt to implement that prohibition unsuccessful even in the frummest of Tanakhic times?

Keyphrase: רק הבמות לא סרו; עוד העם מזבחים ומקטרים בבמות          

c. Prophetic: אלדד ומידד

Why was Yehoshua so upset by the persistence of Eldad and Meidad’s prophecy?  How were they different from Aharon and Miriam?  What was the substance of משה’s response?

Keyphrase :×›×™ יתן ×”\' את רוחו עליהם   ×•×ž×™ יתן כל עם ×”\' נביאים

Session 2

Diversity vs. Uniformity: Theory

Frameworks:

a. Behavior: לא תתגודדו

How does one balance the need for unity with the need for integrity?  Is peace through separation better or worse than conflict? 

Keyphrase: ואל ישנה אדם מפני המחלוקת

b. Talmud Torah: אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים

Can one set clear boundaries while advocating pluralism?  Is an explicit gap between theoretical truth and legal decisionmaking sustainable?  How does one argue in a context which assumes the truth of both sides?  Can one sustain a Torah community when there is no common Torah epistemology?

Keyphrase:  והלכה כדברי בית הלל

c. Law: לא תסור

Should binding authority over klal yisroel be vested in a group smaller than the entire observant community, or the entire rabbinic community?  If yes, how should that group be chosen? 

Session 3

Diversity vs. Centralization: Practice

Frameworks:

a.  Kashrut: How do we understand the administrative role and growth of the OU?  Should it be a paradigm or a cautionary model when setting up an infrastructure for religious communal issues?

b.  Semikhah: Is it best for rabbis, and teachers, to be licensed by a central agency, or should each institution or individual earn, or fail to earn, communal recognition on their own?  Should we seek to build a common seminary or rather have many local yeshivot?

c:  Synagogue:  To what extent should synagogue movements seek to standardize liturgy, halakhah, and hashkafah in member synagogues?

d:  Day School: To what extent should schools seek, and/or enforce, ideological and halakhic conformity on their faculty?  

Session 4:

Diversity vs. Uniformity: Practice

a.  Kashrut:  How do we understand the halakhic role of the OU and other large kashrut organizations?  Is it best to have a single standard, or for each local Vaad or individual rav hamachshir to have halakhic autonomy?

b. Conversion: What has generated the push for uniform conversion standards?  What are the costs?  Is conversion unique, or a paradigm?

c.  Synagogue: To what extent should synagogues seek to attract members with common levels of observance and learning and similar hashkafot?

d.  Day School:  To what extent should schools focus on producing a single model of student, e.g. the dedicated lamdan(it) or the baal(at) chesed?

Closing Plenary:

Lessons learned.

How to best spread the lessons learned.

The way forward for the community of discourse we’ve created.