Re-examining Progressive Halakhah (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: Re-examining Progressive Halakhah Martin Lockshin Walter Jacob and Moshe Zemer , eds. Re-examining Progressive Halakhah. New York: Berghahn Books, 2002. Pp. ix + 188. The most recent offering in the continuing series of publications of the Solomon Freehof Institute of Progressive Halakhah is not a simple book to review, since the questions of genre and of audience are not clear. The book is a collection of five basically unrelated articles by five authors. They are preceded by an unsigned introduction that is just over one page long and that does not really explain how these five essays turned into a book. It makes most sense to categorize this publication as a "journal volume." The theme of the journal seems to be "essays on halakhic issues written from a progressive (= Reform) perspective." As in many journal volumes, the quality of these five essays is uneven. The methodology and goals of the essays are also very different. Four of the essays put forward implicitly and often explicitly a similar argument: that halakhic texts can be read and studied in a liberal manner, and that such a reading is legitimate and is also what is called for in the twenty-first century. "Halakhah does not and need not conflict with the progressive values that must form the basis of our Jewish experience," we are told (p. 5). These essays make the case that the halakhists of old often interpreted legal traditions flexibly and liberally and have set an example for us today. In that sense these four essays are all forms of an apologia for liberal halakhah and contain very little analysis of or re-examining of liberal halakhah. The fifth essay, Joan S. Friedman's "A Critique of Solomon B. Freehof's Concept of Minhag and Reform Jewish Practice," is of an entirely different genre. Although Rabbi Friedman's sympathy for and admiration of Rabbi Freehof is obvious, she still gives a dispassionate, critical, academic analysis of his exposition of Reform halakhah. She shows that Freehof (presumably knowingly) expanded the concept of minhag (custom) to include sections of Jewish law that previously had never been seen as being subject to the consideration of minhag. She suggests further that Freehof's highest goal was making Judaism more progressive and more modern, and blurring a halakhic concept was a legitimate tool in reaching such an end. Friedman demonstrates further that Freehof tacitly redefined minhag "in order to equate it with what he labels Reform 'practice.' However this equation is flawed, as is his historical analysis, rendering his entire approach problematic" (p. 127). [End Page 377] In any review of essays that deal with halakhah—particularly essays in the English language—it is prudent to ask whether the authors demonstrate a mastery or even a clear understanding of the primary sources. Here too the results are mixed. Some of the essays demonstrate excellent textual skills. For example, Mark Washofsky's "Taking Precedent Seriously" walks the reader clearly through a number of complicated texts, including a not very well known responsum of Rabbi Isaac bar Sheshet Perfet. Washofsky presents the halakhic issues involved in a clear, concise, and accurate manner. Perhaps some might quibble with the conclusions that he draws but no one could challenge his skills as a reader of rabbinic texts. Regrettably that is not the case for some of the other essays in this volume. Misunderstandings or misrepresentations of rabbinic texts abound. A few examples follow. In "Jewish Law Responds to American Law" by Alan Sokobin we are told that in the second century, reacting to the Roman political authority, Rabbi Judah initiated changes in the rules about conditions that contradict Torah law. The article attributes to Rabbi Judah the following words: "This is the rule, any condition contrary to what is in the Torah is invalid if relating to the a [sic] matter of mamon [i.e., a monetary manner]; if relating to a matter other than mamon, it is void" (p. 137). This quotation is very hard to understand and is perhaps meaningless. But even more than that, it is not to be found on the page in the Talmud that is cited (bKet 5ba Ket 56a) nor, as...