From The Jewish Week to Ha’aretz, from many pulpits and all over the blogosphere, people have been talking about Daniel Gordis’ “requiem” for Conservative Judaism. We continue this lively, instructive conversation with seven responses from some of the movement’s most thoughtful teachers and rabbis, along with a response from Jonathan D. Sarna, one of the leading historians of American Jewry.
- Noah Benjamin Bickart of The Jewish Theological Seminary teaches Jews who are passionate about “an egalitarian, halakhic, yet non-fundamentalist Judaism,“ even though they may not call themselves Conservative Jews.
- Elliot N. Dorff argues that numbers don’t dictate the strength of a movement; the power of its ideas does.
- Susan Grossman acknowledges the movement’s failings, but sees more reason for hope than despair.
- For Judith Hauptman, the Conservative push for women’s rights holds the key to its future—and the future of Judaism as a whole.
- Moving to Israel has clouded Gordis’ ability to understand the American Jewish scene, argues Jeremy Kalmanofsky.
- Whether it’s 18 percent or eight families, Gordon Tucker maintains “patience and tenaciousness change the world,” a fact that is lost when we focus on numbers.
- David B. Starr says that Gordis asked the right question, but the answer may be harder than he thinks.
- Plus Jonathan D. Sarna looks back at a time when both Reform and Orthodox Judaism in America seemed imperiled.
Daniel Gordis replies to his critics and outlines his positive vision for the future. His proposal may surprise you.
The Talmud was hypertextual before we had the word. ArtScroll's new app is only the beginning.
More than two hundred songs of the pioneers of the Third Aliyah began their lives as Hasidic tunes. But historian David Assaf’s wonderful new book reaches far beyond the Hasidic world in tracing the origins of the heart of the secular Zionist musical repertoire.
Two new books, different in tone but matched in caliber, show Israelis making their way as best they can in America and in life.
Thirty years ago, a book was published that hit, in the words of the New York Times, “with the approximate force and effect of what electric shock-therapy must be like.” How has it held up? And what does that have to do with the Bible?