From: gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)
Subject: Re: Conversion Question
Originator: scj@israel.nysernet.org
Reply-To: <gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)>
Organization: Nysernet
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:07:44 GMT

faigin@aero.org (Daniel P. Faigin) writes:
> gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler) said:
> > In an earlier thread, wasn't a distinction made between what the Reform view
> > as the "social" mitzvot and the "ritual" mitzvot?
> 
> Although this distinction once existed, it is no longer part of "official"
> Reform theology:

I'll quote from an earlier (mid July) post from you:

>>>No, Reform says that you should study and learn also, before making a
>>>decision as to whether or not you will follow the rituals (and some
>>>rituals Reform does not discard, such as circumcision). 

At the time, I responded with:
>>My problem here is with the word "rituals."  It is Jewish LAW that
>>prescribes circumcision, as it does hashavat aveida (returning lost items
>>to their rightful owners), honoring parents, etc.  All are required.
>>Does Reform encourage one to study before making a decision as to whether
>>to follow these others as well?

And now back to our regular programming...

> Here are some quotes from Gates of Mitzvah, published by the Central
> Conference of American Rabbis:
> 
>   In an earlier stage, Reform sought to distinguish between ethical and ritual
>   mitzvot. It was argued that the ethical commandments were valid eternally
>   and thus binding upon Jews of every generation. The ritual commandments,
>   however, were considered linked to particular experiences or circumstances,
>   and therefore they were considered optional or even superfluous. But this
>   dichotomy is often arbitrary, for ethical resolve and ritual expression,
>   intention and act, are in fact closely interlinked, as are reason and
>   feeling. Ritual, as the vehicle for confronting G-d and Jewish history, can
>   shape and stimulate one's ethical impulses. Therefore, the ancient advice is
>   still valid: the very act of doing a mitzvah may lead one to know the heart
>   of the matter.

The above paragraph is far from ambiguous.  Is it stating that the
distinction in validity between the "ethical" and "ritual" mitzvot is
no longer (or never was) applicable?  It seems to present the "historical"
approach, then to say that the distinction is "often arbitrary."  It goes
on to say what "ritual" practice "can" and "may" do.  But it doesn't say
they are obligatory.

>   [Gates of Mitzvah] was conceived to help Jews make Jewish responses, ...
>   Reform
>   Judaism maintains the principle of individual freedom; each Jew must make a
>   personal decision about the Judaism which has come down through the ages.
>   Nevertheless, all Jews who acknowledge themselves to be members of their
>   people and its tradition thereby limit their freedom to some extent. [Gates
>   of Mitzvah] is an expression of Reform Jewish philosophy in that it is built
>   on the twin commitments which each Jew ought to have, the commitments to
>   Jewish continuity and to personal freedom of choice.

>From this, it would appear that merely acknowleding membership in the
Jewish people is a limit on one's freedom, regardless of adherence to
mitzvot.  Is it attempting to equate this with observing mitzvot, since
both limit one's freedom?  Otherwise, what's so great about limits?

>   Certain mitzvot are included in [Gates of Mitzvah], and others are not. In
>   some areas new mitzvot are suggested. But the processes of selectivity and
>   innovation in the creation of this book were never arbitrary. The authors
>   did what they hoped all Jews might do: they studied Jewish tradition first
>   and foremost and, on the basis of such study, made choice with regard to
>   existing mitzvot. Where they felt that long-standing practices and customs
>   responded to the needs of our time, they gave them strong and urgent
>   support. Where they felt -- as, for instance, in matters regarding the
>   equality of men and women -- that new means were needed to express religious
>   needs, they did not hesitate to suggest alternative mitzvot. But they
>   always began with a consideration of those mitzvot which had been observed
>   for generations and which they felt must remain the starting points on this
>   Jewish journey.

I'm not sure which I like better, starting with the "long-standing
practices" in order to decide whether or not to reject them, or
inventing "mitzvot" from scratch.  And what is meant by giving
the practices "strong and urgent support"?  It certainly can't
mean that Rs are obligated in them, since one's only obligation
appears to be selecting one's obligations (which one may, of course,
choose not to do, thereby fulfilling one's obligation anyway).

As for arbitrary, it's hard to say.  It's certainly individualistic.
And one is certainly entitled to be arbitrary in one's choices, as
long as one so chooses.

Is (are) Gates of Mitzvah a code of any sort, or does it merely
spell out the development and philosophy of the R movement?

-Don Gertler