DEFINING TRADITION
The 4th Annual Center for Modern Torah Leadership Conference
for Rabbis and Educators
The concept of Masoret/Tradition is central to Orthodox self-definition, and yet is almost never defined. What makes an idea or practice part of “the Masoret”, and what excludes it? Does the authority of Masoret apply to practice, theory, thought, and/or sensibility? How far back, how convincingly, and to what starting point, must a tradition be traced to attain authority?
There is even less clarity about the uses and implications of the concept.
1) Does Masoret serve primarily to legitimate positions that would otherwise be ruled out, or rather to delegitimize positions that would otherwise be accepted?
For example:
When we find a position in a previously lost rishon that endorses women’s aliyot, or compellingly reinterpret a known rishon in a way that would permit kohanim to participate in anatomy lab, are those positions legitimate because they exist in the masoret, or illegitimate because the live tradition of practice rejected them?
2) Does Masoret serve primarily to narrow individual or communal options (“we recognize that frum Jews in Western Europe ate nonGlatt meat, but that’s not our masoret”), or rather to structure individual identity choices and preserve legitimate diversity against the tyranny of the majority (“we recognize that most contemporary poskim require actual Jewish supervision for milk to be kosher, but our masoret considers USDA certified milk as chalav yisroel”)?
These issues are particularly pressing for Modern Orthodox Jews because we locate ourselves within the Masoret, and derive our sense of legitimacy (and others’ illegitimacy) from that status, and yet we celebrate Torah creativity, both intellectual and practical, and cultivate a historical sensibility that acknowledges significant change over time and avoids inaccurate nostalgia. Can a tradition be flexible without losing its force? Can a tradition be self-consciously constructed rather than inherited?
The goal of this conference is to develop frameworks and concepts that will enable Modern Orthodoxy to better situate itself within a Tradition, and as a tradition, that prefers to unify, empower, and include, but has the strength, courage, and judgment to fragment, disempower, and exclude when necessary.
Session 1
Masoret as Unifying and Fragmenting
What holds Orthodoxy together, in the absence of any communal governance infrastructure, formal hierarchy, or even educational coordination, is acknowledged commitment to a set of texts, interpretations, ideas, and practices identified collectively as the Mesorah/Masoret/Tradition. Recognition of that shared commitment enables Orthodoxy to contain within itself astonishing diversity, including; Sefardim and Ashkenazim, Chassidim and Mitnagdim, Zionists and AntiZionists, Charedim and Modern Orthodoxy, and (to a lesser extent than formerly) observant and nonobservant. In other words, Orthodoxy is unified by the abstraction of commitment to Masoret.
At the same time, Orthodoxy’s self-identification as the sole legitimate representative of the Tradition means that exclusion from Orthodoxy is equivalent to delegitimization, and inclusion is a seal of legitimacy. The recognition of diversity generates the concern that Orthodoxy no longer stands for anything, and that heresy is being legitimized in the guise of inclusiveness. This generates the urge within each subgroup to define the Tradition more narrowly so as to exclude those who disagree with them. The notion that there is a single Tradition thus threatens constantly to fragment Orthodoxy.
We will discuss how the boundaries of Orthodoxy are established, both in thought and in deed, socially and legally, paying careful attention to the roles that the concept and rhetoric of Tradition play in those processes. For example: Is every position, halakhic or hashkafic, held by a recognized Torah authority per se part of the masoret? When can new rationales be offered for old practices, or new practices to fulfill old rationales? To what extent should proposals be measured by their continuity with the past rather than simply by their congruence with Torah? To what extent is a history or tradition of practice sufficient, and how old or widespread must it be, to confer legitimacy?
Possible case studies: the “literary approach” to Tanakh, women’s religious leadership, Messianist Chabad,
Session 2
Masoret and Diversity
Halakhah, and less formally Hashkafah, contain powerful centrifugal and centripetal forces. The concept of rov, of majority rule, forces individuals to fit a standard mold, tends to make everyone the same. The primary antidote to rov is masoret, the claim that one has an identity that liberates one from the constraints of communal consensus.
That liberty has a price, though – it seemingly requires one to submit to all the decisions of the majority within one’s identity group. And if one binds oneself neither to rov nor to masoret, one opens the door to communal anarchy and individual self-indulgent shitah-shopping.
In the past, masoret communities were defined geographically, but that has become implausible in an age of mass migration and great personal mobility. Almost every major Orthodox community contains both Sefardim and Ashkenzim, Chassidim and Mitnagdim. This means that traditions that were once integrated parts of total Jewish identities are now ad hoc recognitions of formal decisionmaking rules. And the ubiquity of communication technology means that it is impossible for new subgroups to develop in genuine isolation from the mainstream or from one another.
We will discuss to what extent the capacity to legitimately resist a rov is necessary and desirable, and what centripetal forces other than geographic masoret might be useful in accomplishing that. We will also discuss whether a strong subgroup Orthodox identity, with halakhic force, is generally a positive or a negative for religious development and sustained commitment nowadays, and what policies and tactics can and should be utilized in education and psak to encourage the positive and reduce the negative. Is it possible to artificially isolate Orthodox subgroups? Would that be a good thing?
Possible case studies: Rav Ovadiah Yosef’s piskei halakhah and the Moroccan community, nusach hatefillah decisions in shuls, day school halakhah and Jewish history curricula?
Session 3
Constructing a Personal Masoret
Every Modern Orthodox Jew makes choices that influence their intracommunal identity – which shuls to attend, which schools to attend or send children to, what clothing to wear, which teachers to cite, which poskim to follow, and more. In a sense, then, each of us creates a personal Orthodoxy rather than simply slipping into a traditional role. But at the same time, we do not see ourselves as discontinuous with the past, and we often see our identities as assembled out of parts from the past rather than as de novo creations. More strongly, we see ourselves as bound not just by Orthodoxy as a whole, but by the past identities we’ve assumed, and also as liberated by them – we can adopt particular minhagim because we have assumed the identities they are associated with. This is particularly the case with baalei teshuvah and converts.
To what extent is this process legitimate and positive? To what extent are these new identities authoritatively transmittable – will/must our children be like us specifically, or will/should they have the same fluidity?
Possible case studies – baalei teshuvah and gerim with regard to minhagim, traditions from yeshivot or specific shiurim, specialized psak, the concept of “gedolim”, choices about minhagim for newly married couples
Session 4
Modern Orthodoxy as a Masoret
As Modern Orthodox Jews, we hope and expect to transmit our values and practices to our children and students. To what extent do we wish to convince them of each of these values and practice individually, and to what extent are we instead seeking to convey an identity? Should Modern Orthodoxy consciously seek to standardize practice, learning, etc. on issues with no direct ideological significance? To what extent should we seek to make Modern Orthodox practice and thought the default position for our children, from which every deviation needs to be justified? Can this be done without legitimating practices which we would otherwise prefer to oppose? Is tolerance and even celebration of conflicting positions part of Modern Orthodox identity, and if so, within what bounds?
Possible case studies: Crocheted kippot, Brisker learning, liberal arts education, hair covering for married women, co-ed day schools, conversion (especially women and mikvah), Zionism
