So much great stuff this week to keep our conversation going
– the controversy of the t’reifah banquet, the evolution of how Reform Jews
understand their relationship with kashrut and mitzvot, as well as the
challenge of trying to create an understanding of kashrut that could honestly
reflect the dynamic ideology of Reform Judaism.
Many give the t’reifah banquet credit as the beginning of
the end of the Reform Jews relationship with kashrut. Sussman sheds great light in revealing the context in which
the events of that Cincinnati summer evening took place. How should we view this event with our
contemporary lens, especially given the suggestion that many Reform Jews now
regularly engage with kashrut on multiple levels?
Mivka and Limmer both propose models for “keeping kosher”
within a Reform ideology. Given
their suggestions, what do Reform Jews really
mean by "keeping kosher?" If halakha isn't binding on the Reform
community, what is the measure for what is or is not kosher? Who gets to decide
about the boundaries? And does it
really matter in the larger context of Judaism worldwide?
What about the suggestion from the Levy/Gertz reading
(optional for this week but definitely worth a glance) that survey results from
the 2005 Biennial reveal “practices of kashrut are now at the top of the
observance ladder among many leaders, clergy and lay, in the Reform
movement. Is the leadership of the
movement forcing kashrut on an unwilling community?
3 comments:
I was just reading "Adventures in Eating" and was struck by a particular line about re-imagining Kashrut: "A serious revival in the community would require an enormous commitment to education and a rabbinic body devoted to the ongoing development of guidelines." This got me to thinking about Reform Judaisms "radical" turn away from halachah, especially in regards to Kashrut. When we, as a movement, commit ourselves to accepting or rejecting a particular part of the tradition, how easy is it for us to reverse course? Tradition isn't a fad, or a passing fancy. You either accept it or reject it and let the chips fall where they may. I am committed to certain aspects of Jewish dietary law, but wonder how difficult it might be to to reassert any form of Kashrut as a Reform Jewish value. Whatever new model we might consider instituting, we might need to sell it as "mindful eating" or something of that ilk rather than anything with the label "Kosher." For the Reform Movement to champion any manifestation of Kashrut (and labeling it thus) might seem indecisive and disingenuous to both our followers and our critics.
I don't know as a "re-commitment" to Kashrut as an important aspect of Jewish life or as an important Jewish Value is that much of a stretch. I think reform Jews are actually concerned on some level. Look at all the discussions
around a kashrut policy at various syngagogues. The big difference is that a lot of this is discussion around COMMUNAL versus INDIVIDUAL practice. I don't know as we could convince each PERSON to take on Kashrut as a value, but there is something to be said for a Jewish institution. What I want to know from my fellow blogsters is:
Would you resist it if HUC implemented a policy about how Rabbinic Students need to have a "Kosher" home to be ordained?
I have some questions related to the following statement in regards to the Pittsburgh Platform of 1885:
"By stating that 'all such Mosaic and Rabbinical laws as regulate diet,' Kohler and his supporters had effectively pushed the Reform Movement beyond its 'moderate' no-pork position and into a borderless gastronomic antinomianism. Reform culinary culture now had no limits."
- Had this not happened, would the nature of American (Reform) Jews' relationship to kashrut be completely different (as in not eating pork)?
- Is it possible that the Pittsburgh Platform wasn't an institution of policy, but a reflection of current practice?
Post a Comment