mitzvot in Conservative Judaism

[cellio]

I was recently given a photocopy of the article "Conservative Judaism in an Age of Democracy" by Rabbi Harold Kushner. (I think it came from Conservative Judaism magazine. I can't find an online copy.) This theologically-attuned Reform Jew found it a fascinating read.

Comments

Re: part 2

[cellio]

I might be weird (ok, I am weird :-) ), but I do actually feel I am commanded in certain things. I don't just keep Shabbat or kashrut or mitzvot about business dealings because they give me warm fuzzy feelings or I hope to parlay for divine attention by doing so. (And it's certainly not about cultural identification.) And heaven knows (if you'll pardon the expression) how inconvenient these things can be. Rather, through study and personal exploration, combined with effects that I can only describe as divine nudges (YMMV), I have come to understand these things as commandments. What I have not come to understand as binding is the system following from Avot 1:1.

Do I still derive benefit from studying halacha (and aggadah)? Yes, in several ways. The insight into the reasoning process is valuable (and has led me to realize things of the form "if you accept this then you must accept that"), the view into history is interesting, the whole process is intellectually stimulating, and maybe study for the sake of heaven is beneficial in ways I can't yet see. I treat the whole system seriously and with respect; I'm just a lot less certain on the specifics of divine origin of oral law.

Maybe my own thinking is fuzzier than I had thought (and more than I would like). Hmm.

Re: part 2

[530nm330hz]

As I try to clarify in the comment I just posted later down on this page, I think the fork-in-the-road moment is one of whether one accepts the system in toto as obligatory. I think your model of engaged Judaism is a vital one, and that your understanding of the nature of obligation is deep.

I also have great respect for your understanding of what you don't consider obligatory: "What I have not come to understand as binding is the system following from Avot 1:1." That's the distinction, exactly put.

Re: part 2

[cellio]

in toto

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

(Thanks also for your kind words.)