I had barely taken a few steps in the apartment upon returning from Chicago when Roommate Yonah asks me if I had been following the big news on the blogosphere. Apparently, the Israeli newspaper Yated Ne’eman printed more missives directed against Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT) where Roommate Yonah is currently finishing smikha. This of course led to several discussions, points, counterpoints, and of course the expected flamewars.

During my time off I had intentionally minimized my web surfing, so I was blissfully ignorant of this whole brouhaha. My initial reaction when Yonah summarized the happenings is exactly how I feel right now:

To be perfectly blunt, I just don’t care.

In other circumstances I would not waste the time and energy in continuing this discussion, but I do feel that a meta-analysis would do some good. Specifically, why is it that Yated’s editorials are so important to so many people to warrant such outrage?
The simple answer is just that people don’t like being insulted in any context, especially regarding one’s spiritual beliefs (and possibly inherited traditions). When insulted and rejected on such a personal level, it should not be surprising to find people react defensively. But this is only a partial explanation since there are many occasions when we or our faiths are insulted and yet we ignore those insults without incident.

First, there is the issue of giving undue respect to the authors of the editorials and letters. I have a theory that the impact of insults and criticisms (and conversely compliments) is proportional to how much we respect our tormentors. For example, a five year old teasing “you’re stupid” can be disregarded more easily than hearing those same words from your professor or boss. The difference is obvious; we are more concerned with how our professors and superiors view our intellectual acumen than a random immature brat.
Religious attacks are no different in this regard in that we only will be sensitive to attacks from those people whose religious beliefs we value or respect. What I do not understand is how Yated would deserve this level of acknowledgment. While there could be a reasonable debate as to which hashkafot are “acceptable” in Jewish thought, it appears that Yated failed in not only presenting a rational argument but did not bother to do rudimentary fact-checking in the interest of determining exactly what YCT represents. People who would criticize as such – both in terms of argument and evidence – would ordinarily not be considered a “bar plugta” deserving of a response.

Herein lies the second issue in that sometimes even absurd positions need rebutting. When the Niturei Karta people infamously participated in the Iran Holocaust Conferencethere was a near-universal outcry and even public protests. These were not done out of respect for Niturei Karta, but to demonstrate that their positions were fanatical and outside the bounds of the Jewish community.
But for whom were these protests staged? I doubt that any member of Niturei Karta would look at the throngs of people holding placards and consequently reverse his positions, and I suspect that the protesters had no such expectations. Rather, the statement was made for the uninformed people who could be influenced by the Niturei Karta’s presence or more importantly a reaffirmation of one’s own beliefs and to demonstrate solidarity in their own common cause.

When Yated publishes such editorials, they do so for a readership which demands little by way of journalistic evidence to justify existing religious prejudices. In a similar vein, YCT promotes its hashkafa not to convince the Haredi community of their legitimacy but to reach out to those who would be receptive. What makes these flamewars particularly pointless is that in the exchange people forget that they will not convince people who are predisposed to their own opinions, especially when the argument is as juvenile as “yes, you’re koferim” and “no we’re not – you’re the koferim.”

Despite the general need for more religious dialogue, we also have to realize that sometimes it is more useful not to engage in certain conversations. While YCT supporters could be justified in defending the institution, they ought to realize that not much will be gained in a confrontation but instead would be better served by focusing their energies on those whom they have a chance of influencing.
As for Yated, those who are predisposed to disagree with their opinions have a Talmudic suggestion for a more appropriate response.

I’m officially back from a much needed few weeks off while I was literally between jobs. Since leaving Information Builders I’ve had the opportunity to do some traveling and reconnect with several old friends. Without getting into the details right now, it was a physically, emotionally, and spiritually rejuvenating experience. That and with a newly upgraded “business casual” wardrobe I’m pretty much set to start the new job tomorrow.
Given JPMorgan’s internet policies (and thanks to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act) I will be less accessible during business hours. This means no IM during the day and it will take me longer to read and respond to your e-mails.1 On the other hand it could be very beneficial for myself personally not to have the same outside distractions.
The blog will continue to be active – at least relatively so – and based on how I’m feeling right now I’m actually curious to see how it will develop over the next few months.
Let’s get started, shall we….

1. For all you who said I couldn’t be slower….

Dear Loyal Readers,
I am very pleased to announce that we have just won our first J-Blog award! YUTOPIA is a Silver Winner in the “Best Jewish Culture Blog” category because apparently if there’s anything I know it’s Jewish culture.
In all honestly I have no idea how these things work especially since I’m not sure I’d put 2006 as one of my best blogging years (a 5 year retrospective will be forthcoming around May). In the meantime I must thank the newly redesigned Town Crier for the initial nomination and now I get to add this snappy little graphic to the sidebar:

Dear Loyal Readers,
Some of you may remember my attending an O.A.R. concert at MSG last year. This Saturday night at 8:00 O.A.R is once again playing MSG, but this time I have *two* tickets since I thought it would probably be more fun to go with someone else this time around.
So here’s the deal: I’m looking for someone to come with me and occupy Section 2 Row R Seat 3 or 4. Ideally, someone who is be easygoing, genuinely cool1, and appreciate O.A.R. or at least that type of music.2 Not knowing the legal ramifications, I’m hesitant to announce this as an official contest but anyone interested should either leave a comment or e-mail – proxies on behalf of others are accepted as well – and I’ll select a “non-winner” later in the week.

1. To provide much needed balance
2. Folk/Rock/Indie/Reggae. Or you can go to their website for samples.

Loyal readers of the blog may have picked up on my interests in shtick and music, so it not come as a surprised to know that I would enjoy some of Peter Schickele’s work on P.D.Q. Bach.1 Last night I was fortunate to have attended my first P.D.Q. Bach Concert at Lincoln Center.
The best way to describe the experience would be to combine the music of classical composers, the irreverence of Frank Zappa, and the audience of Rocky Horror (though thankfully, without the drag). I’m not sure how else to explain the surreal and seamless synthesis of balloons, bicycles, basketballs, power outages, the hokey pokey, and a bagpipe vibrato.
If you find this sort of thing appealing or happen to be completely drunk, then check out come clips and the upcoming concert schedule.2

1. Many thanks to Ben Resnick for the introduction.
2. Though I doubt I can attend, I’m loving the fact that the April Fool’s concert will be held in a place called Fredonia.

We have already written extensively about the Conservative decision regarding homosexuality. While there is still room to discuss the halakhic issues – including analyzing the other teshuvot, today’s focus will be on some of the Orthodox reactions to the teshuva. Nothing here should be terribly surprising, especially considering the knee-jerk reactions, but we find the reactions to be enlightening and revealing nonetheless.
First up, we have this disclaimer from the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA):

This decision represents yet another significant step in the further estrangement of the Conservative movement from Jewish law (halachah) and tradition. Homosexual behavior is a clear and unambiguous biblical prohibition. The attempts to formulate halachic license or creative interpretation to permit prohibited behavior should not mislead anyone committed to traditional Judaism, into thinking that there can be any permissibility to homosexual activity, whether by rabbis or laypersons. And thus, to permit those who openly proclaim their non-adherence to Torah law, to assume positions of rabbinic leadership, is an entirely regrettable step.

This quote was probably rushed out in the need to say something quickly. Note that they have to speak in generalities of “prohibited behavior” and “homosexual activity” and assume that the teshuva overrode the biblical prohibition. As we demonstrated in the review, the teshuva did no such thing, and in fact was explicitly to the contrary. Still, their arguments are consistent with the old Orthodox party line criticisms against Conservative, that their innovations and changes are a threat to traditional Judaism, while the innovations of their own (or earlier rabbis) remain ostensibly remain legitimate.
Secondly we have my personal favorite from Union of Traditional Judaism:

The Conservative Movement’s decision to issue contradictory opinions on homosexual behavior should confuse no one. The only opinion that really matters is the one that endorses gay commitment ceremonies and the ordination of professing homosexuals as rabbis.
In keeping with a decades-old pattern on a host of issues, the Conservative view which breaks ranks with Jewish law and tradition is the one which ultimately sweeps the movement. Given this reality, the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards would have been more forthright had it acknowledged a blanket reversal of the biblical prohibition on homosexuality. Its endorsement of same-sex commitment ceremonies and the ordination of homosexuals while ostensibly maintaining the traditional ban on anal sex is not only disingenuous. It is ludicrous.
Our hearts go out to the dwindling corps of traditionalists who until now have remained within the Conservative Movement. Any fig leaf of commitment to Jewish law within their institutions has now been utterly stripped away…

This response also came out fairly quickly and is just as incorrect as the RCA’s statement. The teshuva still banned homosexual rabbinical students from violating the biblical commandment. However, in the other comments, UTJ reminds us of why they split off from the Conservative movement. It has been their experience – repeated time and again – that ultimately only the most liberal opinions will be accepted as normative. Egalitarianism, for example, is no longer an option but an expectation. Knowing how Conservative Judaism works from the inside, UTJ has little faith that Conservativism will sustain the limitations defined in the teshuva.
And of course, then end with a nice appeal to siphon off some traditionalist members. Nicely done.
Finally, we get to Agguda in the statements of R. Avi Shafran. Some of you may remember his controversial 2001 article “The Conservative Lie” in which, as you may expect, he was somewhat critical of the movement. The recent teshuva is for R. Shafran reason to gloat and tout the superiority of Orthodox Judaism. Not surprisingly, his comments are more ad hominem which leads him to make some careless statements of his own.
First, his comments from JPost:

And while the Conservative decision may technically claim to preserve the biblical prohibition on sodomy, it flouts clear halachic prohibitions on other forms of homosexual activity and de facto condones a homosexual lifestyle – imagine limiting a heterosexual couple to only certain expressions of affection.

Yes, imagine where heterosexual couples have limits on their expressions of affection. Perhaps we can have husbands and wives not touch each other for roughly 2 weeks out of every month. Or perhaps R. Shafran should just read Shulhan Aruch Even HaEzer Siman 25. In either case, I am pleasantly surprised to hear that hareidi Judaism had such progressively liberating views on married life.
Second, we have this official press release:

The entire corpus of halacha, or Jewish religious law,” he said, “makes abundantly clear that homosexual behavior is sinful. That a movement claiming to uphold the Jewish religious tradition can arrogate to stand halachic Judaism on its head is tragic.

By itself, this statement is fairly innocuous, but compare his vitriol for the Conservative teshuva with his ambivalence for a haredi rabbinic sexual predator:

Why would we have comment about the arrest of an individual? Because he was an employee, more than 30 years ago, of one of the camps we run (that have had thousands of employees over the years)? I don’t think that requires comment on our part.
We are not even a party anymore to any lawsuit filed against the accused, as I understand it. The suit of the accuser who included Camp Agudah in his action (John Doe #1) has been dismissed (without prejudice, I believe, so it can still be refiled, but hasn’t been).

In other words, Conservatives permitting rabbinic prohibitions represent a deviation from Judaism, but homosexual assault from a former employee is not worth a comment. These statements lead me to conclude that R. Shafran is more interested in the cultural perception of Aggudah than in morality or halakha.
We may see more responses in the near future, but the immediate reactions of the RCA, UTJ, and Aggudah reveal just as much about their organizations as it does about the teshuva itself.
UPDATE: 12/20/2006
I was just informed of a Masorati response by R. Barry Schlessinger who writes that despite the changes in the halakhic system, there must be limits:

As Jews we are obligated and commanded, and as Jews we have always asked questions in reference to the commandments. I hope we continue to ask questions and that rabbis continue to teach and guide. However, one should not always expect an answer to be positive; at times we must be forthright and respond with a “no.”

As I referenced in my response to the teshuva, Conservative Judaism has usually been loathe to accept such an answer. Furthermore, R. Schlessinger himself does not address the halakhic decisions of the teshuva itself, or why it is worse than when other rabbinic laws are similarly disregarded. Case in point:

I recognize and support the ordination of women. I count women for a minyan and will pray in a minyan led by a woman shlihat tzibur.

While the halakhic reasoning for a minyan excluding women may be questionable,1 the result is that the Talmud clearly understands a minyan to be comprised exclusively of men over the age of thirteen. The question for R. Schlessinger is what makes some rabbinic laws normative and others expendable.
UPDATE: 12/21/2006
Another reader e-mails me this Jewish Week letter in which Rabbi Adam Kligfeld does his best John Kerry impersonation (4th letter down):

I’d like to complete the comment on which Stewart Ain quoted me regarding the recent Committee on Jewish Law and Standards vote on homosexuality. (“Testing The Waters,” Dec. 8) I did indeed vote for both the Roth and Dorff/Nevins/Reisner papers, which do indeed contradict one another, because ?it was important for me that change happen as a result of a majority of the committee.”
Deeper than that, my double vote reflected not only the robust pluralism of the Conservative movement and the Law Committee itself, but also the very real pluralism of my own neshama. I take very seriously the Talmudic idea that two conflicting opinions can, simultaneously, have halachic legitimacy. I can see the truth even in a position I don’t follow. I honor the complexity of this topic, from both a halachic and sociological perspective, and I honor the halachic rigor and honest religious struggling that were present in both teshuvot. I voted not as a policy maker, but as an evaluator of halachic arguments. Each teshuvah made strong arguments.

In other words, R. Kligfeld voted for the teshuva before he voted against it. How we take R. Kligfeld’s position depends on the true role of the CJLS. If the CJLS is primarily a think-thank, then of course multiple opinions can be plausible. But if the role is for pesak in terms of what practical halakha ought to be then R. Kligfeld simply failed. Saying, something could be assur or mutar is not pesak but as R. Moshe Tendler pointed out, is the avoidance of pesak. If someone is unconvinced of an opinion, then perhaps he should abstain until resolves the issue for himself.

1. B. Megillah 23b cites Num 14:27 to define an “edah” as ten, but does not elaborate as to why men are included in this number to the exclusion of women.

A hearty yasher koach and mazal tov to good friend A Town Crier on his nomination for a Weblog award!
Vote here and vote often.