The Apikorsus Companion v2.0

A bit of Conservative movement policy that I neglected to mention in either of my first two posts on the subject of the driving teshuva is the CJLS statement on students driving during United Synagogue Youth (USY) Kinnusim (Shabbatonim). I had thought it was more or less an irrelevant postscript, but, given the discussions in the comments to my last post about the movement's unenforced paper policy about driving by rabbinical students, I thought I'd throw this in to the mix too. Unfortunately, the photocopy sheets I have are completely out of context, so, I have no idea in what year these “suggestions” were proposed. They are attributed to Rabbi Seymour Siegel. It begins with an introduction that reaffirms that all agree that driving on Shabbat is forbidden, but that the prohibition can be set aside under “pressing circumstances.” It then continues with a list of guidelines, that I will reprint in full, with commentary. All emphasis has been added. I think that this set of guidelines, while stricter than the vast majority of congregants' practice, are not in keeping with the original 1950 teshuva or its 1961 addendum. They demonstrate the elasticity of later interpretation of the original heter.

a. The scheduling of USY kinsim which necessitate travel on Shabbat should be avoided wherever possible

You would think that the rabbinate would have reserved the driving heter for sociological “emergency” situations. You would especially think that if the author had written the following earlier:

However, the Rabbis decided that under unusual and pressing circumstances the prohibition could be set aside . . . It might be wise to eschew the term heter in speaking of the question of travel on Shabbat. This word implies abrogation.

that the emphasized words may not have been there. Can a voluntary gathering be “unusual and pressing?”

b. Full recognition should be given to those members whose rabbis do not approve of travel on Shabbat. These youngsters should be accomodated properly so that they will not be forced to use an automobile or other conveyance on Shabbat.

c. No kinnus should be scheduled which requires travel on Shabbat if the host rabbi objects.

These two guidelines bring up a point that I hadn't commented on from the original driving teshuva: It was instituted as an option, and it was expected that certain communities (read: certain community's rabbis) would adopt it and others wouldn't. So, even within the context of the 1950's teshuva, there is no contradiction in a contemporary Conservative rabbi answering that all driving on Shabbat is forbidden.

d. Travel should be limited to and from the synagogue. There should not be any other travel such as arriving after sundown, sightseeing, going to house parties, etc.

At first glance, this would seem to be in keeping with the 1950's teshuva. I don't believe that it is. The Adler-Agus-Friedman teshuva allowed travel to and from one's regular synagogue that is beyond walking distance only, and the 1961 addendum specifically rejected travel to other synagogues for social purposes. While it might be argued that the USY-ers are tagging along to the regular synagogue of the host families, the fact of going on the kinnus is a voluntary activity. While traveling temporarily, there is no indication that the driving heter applies. For that matter, I don't see how USY-ers committed enough to go on a Shabbaton would even be part of the emergency situation for which the heter was intended.

e. Every effort should be made to educate youngsters to recognize the fact that under ordinary circumstances it is a violation of Shabbat law ans spirit to travel on the holy day. An exception is made only for the sake of a mitzvah gedolah.

Perhaps this point just suffered from bad phrasing. There are only two “mitzvot” for which the prohibition against travel on Shabbat has been set aside. One is universally agreed upon, and that is, saving a life. The second is driving to synagogue and back, for the purpose of public prayer and maintaining a connection to Judaism that would otherwise be lost. Driving for the purposes of performing other mitzvot, even those that are arguably greater than public prayer, was rejected by the 1961 addendum.

f. The educative program should be coupled with an explanation of the possibility of divergence of interpretation within Jewish law. Just as those who do travel should not be looked upon as sinners because of the liberality of their understanding, those who insist on avoiding travel on Shabbat should not be labelled as reactionary of illiberal because of their interpretation.

Yay, pluralism!

And, I found this part moderately interesting, and wonder if it was ever done:

Though it is recognized as practically unfeasible, it was pointed out that from the strictly halakhic point of view, a bus driven by a non-Jew is less of a Shabbat violation that the use of private automobiles. If the proper safeguards and explanations can be forthcoming, in some instances this kind of arrangement might be perferable to privately operated vehicles.

It might make an interesting case of analysis for ma'arit ayin (the law that one should not do something that appears to be counter to halacha, even if it is really permitted; These issues are sometimes handled with by performing the particular action in some way that's different than it is normally done, such that an outside observer will notice that a Jew is not doing the prohibited action).

I was never a member of USY, so, I have no idea how these paper policies are handled in the real-world, or if USY took them as “suggestions,” “guidelines” or policy.

Technorati tags: Conservative+Judaism, driving, Shabbat