Reform in some parts of Eastern Europe was mostly outwardly distinguishable from from Orthodoxy by the placement of the readers desk, with prominent rabbis writing responsum after responsum attacking this, declaring the podium of the prayer leader being in the front of the synagogue, and the Torah reader's desk in the middle of the synagogue, to be absolute fundamentals of Judaism. The fact that Reform had rejected the concept of halachah, and was allowing many major violations of Jewish law (in the American Midwest, they even moved the Sabbath to Sunday), was largely ignored in rabbinic literature, as it meant nothing to the uneducated Jew. The "evils" of both the reader's desk and the prayer podium being in the front of the synagogue, dominated the conversation in the nineteenth and early twentieth century.By the mid twentieth century, many Orthodox synagogues had adopted the practice. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein issued a responsum that "for us" it is not really a problem (although many will still not set foot in such a synagogue). The bigger issues of Reform deviation from traditional Jewish ideas were now apparent. (Again let me stress that this was American Reform. Reform took different forms in different places. Indeed, even in America, there were huge differences between Reform of Cincinnati, and Reform of the South and West). Conservative was more of a problem. Among the early Conservative leadership were scholars who, for all intents and purposes, were Orthodox (roughly from 1880 to 1980). The long time Dean of the Jewish Theological Seminary, Dr. Shaul Lieberman, is still highly regarded in most Orthodox circles. But the Left Wing had thinkers who were, in almost every way, Reform. Professor Seymour Segal (no relation!) openly declared many parts of the Torah to be "immoral".But JTS was generally seen as an "Ivory Tower" of "eggheads". The people who attended Conservative synagogues were, until the late twentieth century, people who had grown up in Orthodox synagogues, but who enjoyed the less legalistic atmosphere of Conservatism. Much changed in the 1950s. After WW II, the U.S. governemnt gave generous mortgages to veterans. Roads, traversing the U.S. made access to previously remote areas easy. Jews began moving to the newly created suburbs, and even to rural areas. Few traditional Jews would dream of coming to synagogue by car. But in the suburbs, the synagogue was often three miles, rather than three blocks away. Reform had a stigma attached to it for most Jews. That was not seen as an option. The Conservative Committee for Jewish Law and Standards officially forbade driving on Shabbat. But they published a minority opinion that driving is permissible, as all the "labors" involved in driving are indirect actions (turning a key is permissible. That the key makes a fire, is "none of our concern".) The Committee stressed that they do not agree with this view, but, at the discretion of the local rabbi, it could be relied upon for the purpose of getting to and from synagogue only. After a few years, this became "standard operating procedure", although, at that time, almost no Conservative rabbis would dream of driving on Shabbat. In this way, Conservatism became the religion of suburban Jewry. When it cam to conversion, Orthodox rabbis generally accepted Conservative conversions on a case by case basis, and would perform a "quicky" reconversion for the others.. Until the early 1990s, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate maintained a list of which Conservative rabbis were acceptable (although this fact was never made public). By the late 1960s, Conservatism had become the largest Jewish group in America. Orthodox rabbis began to panic. While there was surely some politics in this, there was mostly a feeling of how can we trust a movement that is largely halachic, but has a significant part of its leadership that is not. The Committee for Law and Standards, which had historically given reasonable compromises between what had been done, and what seemed appropriate now "until we win marginal Jews back" had taken some very dangerous, and deviationist positions. For example, the Torah forbids a Kohen from marrying a divorcee. With divorce becoming more and more common, this became a real problem. The Committee issued a responsum that, as there is NO CHANCE that the Temple will ever be rebuilt (!!!), we need no longer keep the laws of Priestly purity. At first, this "heter" stipulated that such a marriage may not be held in the main sanctuary of the synagogue. This was reversed a few years later, with the stigma removed. For the first time, the Conservatives had reversed a law in the Torah, and had codified disbelief in the restoration of the Temple Service. In the Musaf Service of Shabbat and Holidays, instead of the prayer that read :"restore us to Jerusalem that we may perform our obligatory sacrifices" an emendation was made "restore us to Jerusalem, where our ancestors performed THEIR obligations". At first, the amended version was optional. Soon, it became obligatory. There were, of course, many Conservative rabbis who disagreed with this. But they remained silent. After all, even RAMBAM in his "Guide" had opined that sacrifices would not be restored (a position which he contradicts both in his legal code, as well as in his commentary on the Mishnah). Nearly all Orthodox rabbis now saw Conservatism as a heresy. But how to fight it? Some continued dialogue. A number of prominent Modern Orthodox rabbis continued to have Conservative rabbis address their congregations, allowing time for debate and discussion. But most felt that the Conservative movement must be deligitimized. Just as Hungarian and Polish rabbis had fought Reform over the issue of synagogue architecture, a symbol that everybody could see and understand was sought as the battleground. By 1960,the "Mechitzah" (partition traditionally put up in synagogues between the sexes) became that battleground The details of this dispute, and its effects on the recognition of Conservative conversions (and just about anything else done by Conservative rabbis, or even Orthodox rabbis in Conservative pulpits) will be the topic of my next post.