Editing Conservative Judaism (section)

===Characteristics===
[[File:Deputy Chief Sander Cohen Memorial Service (38177042965).jpg|thumb|Memorial service of [[B'nai Israel Congregation (Rockville, Maryland)]]]]
The Conservative treatment of ''Halakha'' is defined by several features, though the entire range of its ''Halakhic'' discourse cannot be sharply distinguished from either the Traditional or Orthodox one. Rabbi [[David Golinkin]], who attempted to classify its parameters, stressed that quite often rulings merely reiterate conclusions reached in older sources or even Orthodox ones. For example, in the details of preparing Sabbath [[Eruv|ritual enclosures]], it draws directly on the opinions of the ''[[Shulchan Aruch]]'' and Rabbi [[Hayim David HaLevi]]. Another tendency prevalent among the movement's rabbis, yet again not particular to it, is the adoption of the more lenient positions on the matters at question—though this is not universal, and responsa also took stringent ones not infrequently.<ref>Golinkin, ''Halakha For Our Time'', pp. 5, 9, 13.</ref>

A more distinctive characterization is a greater proclivity to base rulings on earlier sources, in the ''[[Rishonim]]'' or before them, as far back as the Talmud. Conservative [[Posek|decisors]] frequently resort to less canonical sources, isolated responsa or minority opinions. They demonstrate more fluidity in regards to established precedent and continuum in rabbinic literature, mainly those by the later authorities, and lay little stress on the perceived hierarchy between major and minor legalists of the past. They are far more inclined to contend (''machloket'') with old rulings, to be flexible towards [[Minhag|custom]] or to wholly disregard it. This is especially expressed in less hesitancy to rule against or notwithstanding the major codifications of Jewish Law, like ''[[Mishneh Torah]]'', ''[[Arba'ah Turim]]'' and especially the ''[[Shulchan Aruch]]'' with its [[Moses Isserles|Isserles Gloss]] and later commentaries. Conservative authorities, while often relying on the ''Shulchan Aruch'' themselves, criticize the Orthodox for relatively rarely venturing beyond it and overly canonizing Rabbi [[Joseph Karo]]'s work. In several occasions, Conservative rabbis discerned that the ''Shulchan Aruch'' ruled without firm precedent, sometimes deriving his conclusions from the ''[[Kabbalah]]''. An important example is the ruling of Rabbi Golinkin—contrary to the majority consensus among the ''[[Acharonim]]'' and the more prominent ''[[Rishonim]]'', but based on many opinions of the lesser ''Rishonim'' which is derived from a minority view in the Talmud—that the [[Sabbatical year (Bible)|Sabbatical Year]] is not obligatory in present times at all (neither [[List of Talmudic principles#De'oraita and derabanan|''de'Oraita'' nor ''de'Rabanan'']]) but rather an [[Hasidim|act of piety]].<ref>Golinkin, ''Halakha For Our Time'', pp. 26–31; See also [[Binyamin Lau]], ההלכה הלכה לאיבוד / הכרות עם התנועה הקונסרבטיבית מתוך עיון בכתבי ועד ההלכה, ''De'ot'', December 1999.</ref>

Ethical considerations and the weight due to them in determining ''halakhic'' issues, mainly to what degree may modern sensibilities shape the outcome, are subject to much discourse. Right-wing [[Posek|decisors]], like Rabbi [[Joel Roth (rabbi)|Joel Roth]], maintained that such elements are naturally a factor in formulating conclusions, but may not alone serve as a justification for adopting a position. The majority, however, basically subscribed to the opinion evinced already by Rabbi [[Seymour Siegel]] in the 1960s, that the cultural and ethical norms of the community, the contemporary equivalents of Talmudic ''[[Aggadah]]'', should supersede the legalistic forms when the two came into conflict and there was a pivotal ethical concern. Rabbi Elliot Dorff concluded that in contrast to the Orthodox, Conservative Judaism maintains that the juridical details and processes mainly serve higher moral purposes and could be modified if they no longer do so: "In other words, the ''Aggadah'' should control the ''Halakha''." The liberal Rabbi [[Gordon Tucker]], along with Gillman and other progressives, supported a far-reaching implementation of this approach, making Conservative Judaism much more ''Aggadic'' and allowing moral priorities an overriding authority at all occasions. This idea became very popular among the young generation, but it was not fully embraced either. In the 2006 resolution on homosexuals, the CJLS chose a middle path: they agreed that the ethical consideration of human dignity was of supreme importance, but not sufficient to uproot the express Biblical prohibition on not to lie with mankind as with womankind (traditionally understood as banning full anal intercourse). All other limitations, including on other forms of sexual relations, were lifted.<ref>Shai Cherry, ''[https://www.academia.edu/9047067/ Ethical Theories in the Conservative Movement]'', in: Elliot N. Dorff, Jonathan K. Crane ed. ''The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Ethics and Morality'', OUP 2012; Gillman, ''Doing Jewish Theology'', pp. 187-190; Silverstein, ''Modernists vs. Traditionalists'', p. 42; Dorff, p. 161.</ref> A similar approach is manifest in the great weight ascribed to sociological changes in deciding religious policy. The CJLS and the [[Rabbinical Assembly]] members frequently state that circumstances were profoundly transformed in modern times, fulfilling the criteria mandating new rulings in various fields (based on general talmudic principles like ''Shinui ha-I'ttim'', "Change of Times"). This, along with the ethical aspect, was a main argument for revolutionizing the role of women in religious life and embracing egalitarianism.

The most distinctive feature of Conservative legalistic discourse, in which it is conspicuously and sharply different from Orthodoxy, is the incorporation of critical-scientific methods into the process. Deliberations almost always delineate the historical development of the specific issue at hand, from the earliest known mentions until modern times. This approach enables a thorough analysis of the manner in which it was practiced, accepted, rejected or modified in various periods, not necessarily in sync with the received rabbinic understanding. Archaeology, philology and [[Jewish studies|Judaic Studies]] are employed; rabbis use comparative compendiums of religious manuscripts, sometimes discerning that sentences were only added later or include spelling, grammar and transcription errors, changing the entire understanding of certain passages. This critical approach is central to the movement, for its historicist underpinning stresses that all religious literature has an original meaning relevant in the context of its formulation. This meaning may be analyzed and discerned, and is distinct from the later interpretations ascribed by traditional commentators. Decisors are also far more prone to include references to external scientific sources in relevant fields, like veterinarian publications in ''Halakhic'' matters concerning livestock.<ref>Golinkin, ''Halakha For Our Time'', pp. 30-41; Dorff, pp. 101-107 etc.</ref>

Conservative authorities, as part of their promulgation of a dynamic ''Halakha'', often cite the manner in which the sages of old used rabbinic statutes (''[[Takkanah]]'') that enabled the bypassing of prohibitions in the Pentateuch, like the ''[[Prozbul]]'' or ''[[Heter iska|Heter I'ska]]''. In 1948, when employing those was first debated, Rabbi [[Isaac Klein]] argued that since there was no consensus on leadership within Catholic Israel, formulation of significant ''takkanot'' should be avoided. Another proposal, to ratify them only with a two-thirds majority in the RA, was rejected. New statues require a simple majority, 13 supporters among the 25 members of the CJLS. In the 1950s and 1960s, such drastic measures—as Rabbi Arnold M. Goodman cited in a 1996 writ allowing members of the priestly caste to marry divorcees, "[[Acharonim|Later authorities]] were reluctant to assume such unilateral authority... fear that invoking this principle would create the proverbial slippery slope, thereby weakening the entire ''halakhic'' structure... thus imposed severe limitations on the conditions and situations where it would be appropriate"—were carefully drafted as temporal, emergency ordinances (''Horaat Sha'ah''), grounded on the need the avoid a total rift of many nonobservant Jews. Later on, these ordinances became accepted and permanent on the practical level. The Conservative movement issued a wide range of new, thoroughgoing statues, from the famous 1950 responsum that allowed driving to the synagogue on the Sabbath and up to the 2000 decision to ban rabbis from inquiring about whether someone was a ''[[mamzer]]'', de facto abolishing this legal category.<ref>Diana Villa, ''[http://www.bmj.org.il/userfiles/akdamot/27/vila.pdf תהליכים בפסיקת ההלכה הקונסרבטיבית בימינו] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140810122033/http://www.bmj.org.il/userfiles/akdamot/27/vila.pdf |date=August 10, 2014 }}'', Akdamot 27, 2012.</ref>