Editing Joseph B. Soloveitchik (section)

===Relations with non-Orthodox Judaism===
Soloveitchik was a life-long critic of all forms of non-Orthodox Judaism, including [[Reform Judaism]] and [[Conservative Judaism]]. He believed that these denominations were in significant error where they differed from Orthodox Judaism. He compared religious dialogue with Reform and Conservative leaders to dialogue between [[Pharisees]] and [[Karaite (Jewish sect)|Karaites]], considering it ridiculous. One of the major differences was in regard to the mixed seating in the synagogue. Consistent with the traditional rabbinic understanding of this issue, Soloveitchik ruled that it was forbidden to pray in a synagogue without a separation between the sexes (mi-d'orayta, a Pentateuchal prohibition), and without the use of a [[mechitza]], a divider between the men's and women's sections (mi-derabbenan, a rabbinical prohibition).<ref>Susan Grossman, Rivka Haut, ''Daughters of the King: Women and the Synagogue A Survey of History, Halakhah, and Contemporary Realities'', p. 132 note 8</ref> The effect of this was to prohibit prayer in any Reform synagogue and in many Conservative synagogues. His [[responsa|responsum]] on this question was also directed at the small number of Orthodox synagogues that were adopting mixed-sex seating. He was vociferous on this issue.
Soloveitchik believed that Reform and Conservative rabbis did not have proper training in halakha and Jewish theology, and that due to their decisions and actions, they could not be considered rabbis, as Orthodox Jews traditionally understood the term. However, in practice, he sometimes granted non-Orthodox rabbis some degree of validity with respect to communal affairs (see examples below).

Soloveitchik developed the idea that Jews have historically been linked together by two distinct covenants. One is the ''brit yi'ud'', "covenant of destiny," which is the covenant by which Jews are bound together through their adherence to halakha. The second is the ''brit goral'', "covenant of fate," the desire and willingness to be part of a people chosen by God to live a sacred mission in the world, and the fact that all those who live in this covenant share the same fate of persecution and oppression, even if they do not live by halakha. Soloveitchik held that non-Orthodox Jews were in violation of the covenant of destiny, yet they are still bound together with Orthodox Jews in the covenant of fate.

In 1954 Soloveitchik issued a responsum on working with non-Orthodox Jews, ''Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews in the United States: Second article in a series on Responsa of Orthodox Judaism in the United States''. The responsum recognized the leadership of non-Orthodox Jews in Jewish communal institutions (but not their rabbis in the Orthodox sense of the term), and concluded that participation with non-Orthodox Jews for political or welfare purposes is not only permissible, but obligatory.

The ''Council of Torah Sages'' of Agudath Yisroel countered with a ruling that such cooperation with non-Orthodox Jews was equivalent to endorsement of non-Orthodox Judaism, and thus was forbidden. In 1956 many [[Yeshiva]] leaders, including two rabbis from his own [[Yeshiva University]], signed and issued a proclamation forbidding any rabbinical alumni of their yeshivot from joining with Reform or Conservative rabbis in professional organizations.

Soloveitchik declined to sign the proclamation, maintaining that there were areas, particularly those relating to problems that threatened all of [[Judaism]], that required co-operation regardless of affiliation. His refusal emboldened other Modern Orthodox rabbis, and the [[Rabbinical Council of America]] and Union of Orthodox Congregations then joined the [[Synagogue Council of America]], a group in which Orthodox, Reform and Conservative denominations worked together on common issues. (The Synagogue Council of America ceased operating in 1994.)

In the 1950s Soloveitchik and [[Saul Lieberman]], in parallel with other members of the [[Rabbinical Council of America]] and Conservative Judaism's [[Rabbinical Assembly]], engaged in a series of private negotiations; their objective was to found a joint Orthodox-Conservative [[beth din]] that would be a national rabbinic court for all Jews in America; it would supervise communal standards of marriage and divorce. It was to be modeled after the Israeli [[Chief Rabbinate]], with only Orthodox judges, but with the expectation that it would be accepted by the larger Conservative movement as legitimate. Conservative rabbis in the [[Rabbinical Assembly]] formed a ''Joint Conference on Jewish Law'' and devoted a year to the effort.

For a number of reasons, the project did not succeed. According to Orthodox Rabbi Bernstein, the major reason for its failure was that the Orthodox rabbis insisted that the Conservative Rabbinical Assembly expel some Conservative rabbis for actions they took before the new Beit Din was formed, and the RA refused to do so (Bernstein, 1977). According to Orthodox Rabbi [[Emanuel Rackman]], former president of the RCA, the major reason for its failure was pressure from right-wing Orthodox rabbis, who held that any cooperation between Orthodoxy and Conservatism was forbidden. In an account prepared in 1956, Rabbi [[Harry Halpern]] of the Rabbinical Assembly's ''Joint Conference'' wrote that negotiations between the Orthodox and Conservative were completed and agreed upon, but then a new requirement was demanded by the RCA: that the RA "impose severe sanctions" upon Conservative rabbis for actions they took before the new beth din was formed. The RA "could not assent to rigorously disciplining our members at the behest of an outside group." Per Halpern, subsequent efforts were made to cooperate with the Orthodox, but a letter from eleven [[Rosh Yeshiva]]s was circulated declaring that Orthodox rabbis were forbidden to cooperate with Conservative rabbis (''Proceedings of the CJLS of the Conservative Movement 1927-1970'' Vol. II, pp.&nbsp;850–852).

Until the 1950s, Jews of all denominations were generally allowed to use the same communal [[mikvah|mikvaot]] (ritual baths) for the purposes of converting to Judaism, observing the rules of [[niddah]] in regard to laws of marital purity, ritually cleansing dishes, etc. However the Haredi movement increasingly denied the use of mikvaot to non-Orthodox rabbis for use in conversions. According to [[Walter Wurzburger]], Soloveitchik counselled Orthodox rabbis against this practice, insisting that non-Orthodox have the option to use mikvaot (Wurzburger, 1994).