Throughout most of the twentieth century, most Conservative rabbis were, for all intents and purposes, Orthodox. The decisions issued by the Committee on Law and Standards were mostly in accordance with Halachah (Jewish Law), and those that weren't were, at first, issued as emergency measures only. Little by little, emergency measures became standard policy, although a significant percentage of Conservative rabbis chose to ignore these policies in favor of traditional observances. The more right wing Orthodox leaders were, nevertheless, scandalized by a movement that could embrace policies that were contrary even to the Torah, such as regulations regarding Kohanim (the Biblical priesthood). Even if many rejected these rulings, they were, nevertheless, part of a movement that endorsed these changes. Leading rabbinic figures ruled that a Conservative rabbi, even if personally observant, was, by definition, in violation of Torah. In the more "modern" Orthodox circles, there was condemnation of changes embraced by Conservatism, but contact with individual rabbis who maintained traditional standards was maintained. The main Orthodox rabbinical organization had, at that time, members who were affiliated with the Conservative movement. In fact, the main Modern orthodox rabbinical organization was placing Orthodox rabbis in Conservative pulpits.National Orthodox Kashrut agencies had Conservative rabbis who were known to be "reliable" working as local supervisors in outlying areas where Orthodox rabbis could not be found. Even the Israeli Chief Rabbinate accepted Conservative conversions on a case by case basis. But all this was about to change.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the women's movement became a major factor in American society. Some men felt threatened by these challenges to long held societal customs. Others saw as quite reasonable the demands for equal pay for equal work, and a host of other feminist demands. However, some issues of the Women's Movement in the early days were too much for men to handle, and even most women were put in difficult positions. Some radical feminists questioned the institution of marriage altogether as a form of slavery. Women who bore children were subject to taunts of "breeder". Although these trends subsided in the movement before long, nevertheless there was much anxiety and unease between the sexes.
In the right wing Orthodox world, the women's movement was met with suspicion. The demands of women were seen as a challenge to authority, rabbinic and otherwise. In Modern Orthodox circles, some rabbis embraced the changes as necessary, as long as they were kept within the bounds of halachah. Some organized separate women's minyanim (prayer groups) where women's desire for participation in services could be met without doing violence to traditional roles. A few allowed women to wear tefillin. A few allowed women to lead non-essential parts of the service even where men were present. The problem was that some of the restrictions were Biblical, some rabbinic, and some by custom only. Those that were only custom, reasoned some Modern Orthodox rabbis, could be changed to meet the new demands. Others, even in Modern Orthodox circles, feared the "slippery slope". Where would this lead? What other traditions would be jettisoned? Some questioned the very motivation. Was it really a religious desire on the part of the feminists; or a political desire to undo what had always been done? Many of these issues remain to this day.
In the Conservative movement, there were three types of response. Those who took the view that even Biblical laws could be changed if not in line with current values, embraced full equality of women in all areas, irrespective of limitations of halachah. The more traditional elements were opposed, based on halalchic standards, as well as fears of the slippery slope. There was a large "middle ground' that welcomed a reexamination of sources, with a view of changing what was non-essential, while maintaining halachah. The newly retired long-time chancellor of JTS, Rabbi Dr, Shaul Lieberman, highly respected even by many Orthodox leaders, issued an impassioned plea against any change in this area. He feared that it would not stop with feminist issues, but result in a questioning of traditional Judaism altogether. But many of his students disagreed. Perhaps it WAS time for a new look at women's roles. They said let's write papers, let's have them peer reviewed. Where changes were warranted, we'll change. Where contrary to halachic norms, we won't. One of the main advocates for this view, a man whom I greatly respect and admire, was Rabbi Alan Yuter. He is a brilliant scholar, and a man of incredible passion for truth. (I have met him a few times, but have corresponded with him much). But soon he, and many of his colleagues, felt that they had been slapped in the face. The lay leadership of the movement informed the rabbis that there was no time for papers. Full equality for women was a grassroots demand, and it had to be approved yesterday. Some of the left wing issued hastily drawn up papers justifying this, with "halachic" reasoning that was, , to say the least, strained. Seeing that they had no majority for these changes, the lay branch set up a different method of voting that would insure the passage of these measures. Rabbi Yuter and his friends felt betrayed. Their openness was "rewarded" by a flagrant bypass of even Conservative norms. Although many chose to remain in the movement, forming a vocal protest group, others, including Rabbi Yuter, left. He joined the Orthodox rabbinical group, and took a position at a Baltimore Orthodox synagogue (at a $40,000 cut from his previous salary), which he held for several decades until his retirement. It must be emphasized that it wasn't the feminist, or Egalitarian issue that bothered these men,.it was the the abandonment of halachah as the deciding factor in rendering decisions. A common quip which I hear from friends who are Conservative rabbis, satirizing the classical Zionist slogan "If you will it, it is no fable", now became "if you will it, it is not the halachah".
To be sure, there are Conservative rabbis who maintain a large degree of commitment to traditional Jewish values and practices. But the movement had taken a huge left turn.It still issues "halachic pronouncements", but sources no longer have a veto. After 1980, more and more issues were dealt with in this way; many details of Shabbat observance, homosexuality, definition of who is a Jew; even intermarriage are "on the table" for discussion.
(One caveat to all this: In outlying areas, where there are generally no Orthodox synagogues, the Conservative synagogues often accommodate Orthodox individuals by making sure that traditional ways are kept; maintaining a non-threatening atmosphere. I have friends who live in such communities,, and have seen many like this)
The response of Orthodox leadership was to cut all ties with the movement. Orthodox rabbis were no longer to be placed in Conservative synagogues; those already there were urged to leave. A huge gulf now existed, with little room for discussion. Are they Jews? of course. Both sides still work together on many issues that face the Jewish community. But halacha was no longer a shared legacy, albeit with differences. Each movement has, sadly, gone its own way. The Jewish people are definitely the poorer for it. May G-d enlighten us with His Torah, and bring unity to our People!
In my next installment, I will discuss the Reconstructionist movement.