DH of the only elf with a navelofwine

The Tikkun Leil Shavuot is the traditional all-night learning session that takes place the first night of Shavuot. Every other year I'd been here, the Hillel had two tikkuns running concurrently -- one run by the Hillel community, and usually taught by members of both Conservative minyanim (the adults generally taught 10pm-1am sessions, and undergraduates taught 1am until Shacharit), and the other run and taught by the members of the Orthodox minyan.

With the undergraduate students gone, the activities at the Hillel were less than usual. As a temporary summer gabbai of the Hillel Conservative minyan usually mostly populated by undergraduates, I, along with DW, decided that we could not run our own tikkun. In the end, the Orthodox minyan cancelled their tikkun, and the other Conservative minyan ran one from 10pm-1am. We (along with two other minyanim) joined with the local shul (affiliated Conservative; runs both egalitarian and mechitza minyanim... it's a long story). It began at 8:50pm with Ma'ariv, followed by a light dinner that was prepared by volunteers(!). The dinner and first shiur had ~120-150 people present. They slowly filtered out, and the crowd was more manageable by the third shiur, although none of the teachers had enough copies of source sheets (which I guess is a good thing!). The sessions were on a diverse range of topics, and taught by members of all the contributing minyanim. At 5am, there were two minyanim, one egalitarian and one with a mechitza. The former had maybe 15-20 present (more-or-less) for all two hours, the latter barely held on to a minyan, and had a few women in addition.

This was the first year I've ever given a shiur, so it was a new experience for me. My topic was the fixed text of the prayer serivce, with a focus on the Amidah. I was originally scheduled for 40 minutes at 2:40AM, but, as tends to happen, I didn't teach until 4:00AM, and had only about 30 minutes (although I was supposed to try hard to keep it down to 20... yeah, right). If you're interested, you can download the source sheet (pdf) (LaTeX source/Makefile)*. At each source, I asked:
(1) Is the source permissive or restrictive?
(2) What conditions does it place on its restrictiveness or permissiveness? and,
(3) What new conditions does it contribute in the decision of whether the text is truly fixed?
I tried to show that even in cases where the order is fixed, personal additions may be encouraged. And... surprisingly, even in cases where *changes* are prohibited, the "needs of the community" can override the fixation. The text of prayer (or, rather, the Amidah) is thus a combination of a core of well respected, traditional texts and additions that are relevant to individuals or individual communities.

Given the time constraints, I couldn't present all the sources, and I probably sounded too dismissive of the discussion while I was trying to keep us on topic. There's always next year.

* Compiling the source requires the Nikud/culmus LaTeX package and the Culmus fonts. It also requires a program to convert from Unicode UTF-8 (which is easy to type in) to CP-1255 (which is used by LaTeX) encoding. One such program is GNU iconv.

With the somewhat Orwellian title "RABBINICAL ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JEWISH LAW AND STANDARDS REAFFIRMS INCLUSIVE APPROACH TO GAYS IN CONSERVATIVE JEWISH LIFE," (emph mine), the Rabbinical assembly released a press release with their latest statement. It's very weakly worded, and I don't think it goes far enough in repudiating the language/ideas of the old Consensus statement that allowed outright discrimination against gay and lesbian congregants (statements c and d). Analysis and more details (and probably more comments) at rymenhild,

Although this year, the text of our Purim kiddush was not updated (laziness), we did have 2-page long "source-sheets" (pdf) (OpenOffice.org 1.1 source*) including the text and translation to hand out. In order to make it exactly two pages, and get the formatting to work out, I did add an additional "explanatory" story and instruction set. Here it is:

Although some authorities deride the minhag of making kiddush on Purim as a minhag shtus, we follow the opinion of the Altered Rebbe. A long time ago, when the Rebbe was traveling with his Chassidim in the Highlands of Scotland, they walked into a town only to realize that it was midday on Purim, almost time for the se'udah. The quick-thinking Rebbe first tried to find if there were any Jews in the town, with whom to celebrate the holiday, but found that the only other Jews in the town were either heretics, or, equivalently, from a different Chassidic sect. This fact meant that they would be alone, in a strange, unknown and dangerous place for the all-important se'udah. The Rebbe and the Chassidim entered an inn. After a lively hour-long debate between the Rebbe and his heir about whether wine hechshered by the local authorities was kosher, it was decided that the potential treifness of the wine would have to be diluted. The Chassidim then cleaned out the inn's entire supply of hechshered wine and, some say, even the Scotch. But, before they drank, the Altered Rebbe lead them in the recitation of the kiddush for Purim. By sunset, they were so drunk, that they did not remember to read the Megillah. Nor did they notice that Purim had ended. To this day, the celebration continues in the Yeshivah of the Altered Rebbe.

It is customary to recite the kiddush for Purim during the Purim se'udah. The Purim kiddush is recited over a cup of wine and a cup of Scotch whisky, preferably of good quality. The cup of wine is held in the right hand, and the cup of Scotch in the left hand, symbolizing the primacy of the drink that requires the stronger hechsher. Following the beracha, at each quoted mention of words related to grape products, drink a sip of wine, and, at each mention of liquors, drink a sip of Scotch.

Additional instructions were added at the bottom of the kiddush:
MANY CONGREGATIONS RECITE ALL FIVE BOOKS OF TEHILLIM AT THIS POINT. OTHERS EAT AND DRINK.

Happy Shushan Purim!

*NOTE: The OOo source requires the nonstandard Cardo font.

This entry was inspired by two posts on Bloghead, and their comments, a previous entry on this blog, and a Jerusalem Post magazine feature (free registration required).

The feature, comments, etc. bring up a couple of ideas that I want to address:

• Post-denominationalism is a non-Orthodox phenomenon


• Post-denominationalism is the baby of the Conservative movement


• The real parent of post-denominationalism revealed


• The new minyanim lack intellectual underpinnings


• Is American Jewry headed toward a post-denominational future?

A word on Orthodoxy: Orthodox Judaism is unlike Conservative and Reform Judaism, because it lacks a central organizational structure. The Orthodox Union serves as an umbrella-organization for some who call themselves "Orthodox," but it is more-or-less one step removed from what the other denominations' governing bodies do. It has nowhere near as much power over the "movement" as the USCJ has over Conservative Judaism, or URJ over Reform. Orthodox Jews define themselves primarily by halachic observance, rather than by synagogue affiliation. While there are many who affiliate "Orthodox" because "the synagogue they go to (or don't go to) is Orthodox," these are not the people (in any denomination) who would be founding new minyanim. Groups do split off from Orthodox synagogues, but, if they remain within the same observant community, they still have no trouble identifying themselves as Orthodox, whether or not they pay dues to any organization. Because of its fragmentation, and the fact that today's Orthodox institutions are the descendents (or, at least intellectual descendents) of pre-movement Judaism, Orthodoxy has had large numbers of independent semicha-granting institutions/yeshivot with ideological differences for a long time. While global Orthodox practice has its commonalities, Orthodoxy in itself is a spectrum of multiple affiliations and denominations, making "post-denominationalism" almost meaningless within that context. Practically, this leaves two reasons to disaffiliate with "Orthodoxy," both political and social. The first is dissatisfaction with the direction the Orthodox community is headed in general, the second, wanting to attract a crowd that might be reluctant to join an Orthodox minyan. Both of these conditions only occur on the left side of the Orthodox spectrum. And, that is where post-denominational minyanim like Shira Chadasha and Minyan Tehillah fall. As far as I can tell, both associate themselves as "halachic," but neither identifies explicitly as "Orthodox," even though their intellectual underpinnings are from the left fringe of Orthodoxy.

R. Ismar Schorch of JTS is paraphrased in the JPost as claiming the Conservative movement as "the primary source for the religious energy of post-denominationalism." In part, he's right. He's right that Hadar was inspired by its Conservative roots. But, Hadar disassociates from the Conservative movement in a number of ways (other than not paying dues to USCJ). Partly, it's related to the fear of using denominational labels that may discourage attendance by those who grew up in different atmospheres. If you look at Hadar's literature, you will see that it derives the halachic legitimacy for its practices mainly from the Masorti movement and the Jerusalem Conservative Yeshiva, not the Rabbinical Assembly of the American Conservative movement. Disaffiliation gives it that freedom.

Out of Step Jew questioned the intellectual underpinnings of these minyanim. However, I think that the case is backwards -- these minyanim are questioning the intellectual underpinnings of the denominations from which they broke away; therefore, they are forced to justify themselves and solidify their own. While the USCJ continues to justify its egalitarianism disingenuously based on the Roth teshuva, the founders of Hadar decided differently. The Conservative movement's organization does not make funding regular prayer services a priority, so they did it themselves.

So, what inspired Hadar, DC Minyan, the Cambridge minyan and the like? If any organization can claim credit for the rise of post-denominationalism, it is Hillel, the college campus Jewish student organization. It's no accident that post-denom minyanim show up where the colleges and/or recent college graduates are. These ex-students are trying to recreate the pluralistic college environment of a functioning Hillel. Before Ethan Tucker went to New York, he revitalized the Harvard Hillel Student Conservative Minyan, and the rest is history.

The feature asks whether American Jewry's future is post-denominational. There will always be breakaway movements. The Reconstructionists separated from Conservative Judaism (sort-of), and Renewal from Reform. But, all these either became institutions of their own or had their ideas incorporated back into their parents. For the Orthodox, the phenomenon may force yet another split between the movement's left and its center. For the Conservative, the post-denominational minyanim are the source of the next generation of denominational leaders. They may force a faster response rate to social change and a greater intellectual rigor from its poskim. Alternatively, they may solidify the split between the movement's (contemporary-)Reconstructist left, and its progressive, but halachically minded right. Either way, the idea of the "denomination" is not dead, but the future makeup of the denominations (with the exception of the center to right Orthodox) will likely be quite different from what it is today.

From the weekly email of the Chabad House of Montreal:

Pizza
Our restaurant is now serving home made pizza ! (open 12ish - 2ish)

I guess that makes it coincide with zman Shacharit.

One of Aish HaTorah's tactics in their attempts to sway Jews to believe that their fundamentalist conception of Judaism is correct involves selectively using science to "prove" the veracity of Biblical or Rabbinic claims. A prime example of their selectivity is their attitude towards genetics and evolution. See, for example
Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, which attempts to sell a book convince us that random mutations could not possibly account for the variation seen in biology.

Up to this point, they could be logically consistent. Anti-evolutionists have been forced by scientific demonstration to accept that genetic changes do occur on a microscopic scale. They try to differentiate between macro-evolution (a change from one species to another) and microscopic evolution (bacteria acquiring antibiotic resistance through mutations). However, three of the articles on their website give up a logical inconsistency: They are Abraham's Chromosomes, Jewish genes and The Cohanim-DNA Connection. Specifically, all of them try to date the deviations of the genes of interest from the general population. While I did not read the scientific papers upon which the articles and the books they're trying to sell are based, I'm pretty sure of where they come from. Geneticists date genes based on an estimate of the probability of a given type of mutation to occur. The assumption that goes into the model is that the mutation is random. (Remember, dating genes involves looking backwards. The mutations may or may not have been biased by natural selection, but, when they first happened, they happened randomly, so an unbiased random mutation model can be used). You might say that this is microevolution - or, just randomness, not even evolution! However, the same mathematical models are used to determine the times between variations in species, given the genes that encode similar proteins. So, either the mathematical models are wrong (in which case, the dating of all the "Jewish genes" is bogus), or, one of the major "contested" assumptions of evolution is for real. You can't have it both ways.

UPDATE on Aish: Apparently, even some of the common modern apologetics are no longer kosher enough for Aish. Following the scandal surrounding the Chareidi bans on Torah-and-science books by Rabbi Nosson Slifkin (aka "the Zoo Rabbi"), Aish began re-evaluating some of their own Torah-and-science web pages, including an essay on the age of the universe that includes the argument that a day of creation is not a literal day. (Thanks to (Jewish Whistleblower via Canonist via commenter shaya) via a comment on Hirhurrim).

~~

Last Pesach, DW and I were talking about quinoa, the grain which is not considered chametz or kitniyot, and is thus permitted. While I can't recount the conversation verbatim, it went something like this:

Me: So, when do you think they'll decide quinoa is kitniyot?
DW: They can't do that. It's even on Aish's website that it's allowed.
Me: They could just take it down and claim it was never there.

While that hasn't happened yet, when it does, I'll be the first to say "I told you so."

(The title is from a really weird 1981 Terry Gilliam movie, Time Bandits).

A few days ago, smartphil8 (I got to it via DW's friends list) published a list of online links to Jewish works. ( NOTE: I do not think there was any malice intended on his part.). Included in that list was Come-and-Hear, a website that includes online scans of the 1961 translation of the Soncino Talmud. Looks like a good thing, right?

But, sometimes, looks can be deceiving. The site is a front for thinly-veiled anti-Jewish diatribe and conspiracy theories. It also includes links to other anti-Jewish sites, such as the Ukrainian archive. The author of the site, Carol Valentine, is operator of Public Action, which includes "information" and "news" about the impending Jewish takeover of the world, blames NORAD for 9/11, and supports Holocaust "revisionism." Lest you think that it "doesn't matter what else the site proposes, it's still got a perfectly good translation of the Talmud," consider this discussion. Simply being Jewish and linking to the site (without appropriate warning) may be considered an endorsement of its views.

IANAL, but it looks like the author's statements on copyright law are questionable, and the site may well be distributing an illegal copy of the text of the Talmud translation.

The full text of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds in Aramaic is available from Mechon-Mamre. A Vilna-edition scan of the BT (includes Rashi and Tosefot in the familiar printed format) is available at e-Daf. An English translation of Sederim Moed and Nezikin is available from the Internet sacred-text archive. Unfortunately, the 1903 and 1918 Michael L. Rodkinson translation, which is now clearly in the public domain, only covered those orders, so, it is unlikely that the rest of the Talmud translation will become available anytime soon (thanks to the incredibly long length of copyright duration after 1923).

On another note, I'm somewhat confused by the copyright claims on Mechon-Mamre and e-Daf - both seem to be using what is pretty clearly public domain text. Does the fact that they put it in a new format give them the rights to reclaim copyright? Any ideas?

Inspired by conversations between DW and shirei_shibolim.

The priestly blessing is traditionally recited by kohanim (men only) during the repetition of the festival musaf amidah (with the exception of Simchat Torah, when it is recited during Shacharit; Sephardim have a different custom as to when it is recited). Following a hand-washing by Levites (I just had to get my moment in the spotlight in there somehow), and the removal of their shoes, the kohanim ascend to the bimah, cover their hands and faces with talitot, face the congregation and recite a blessing ("אשר קדשנו בקדושתו של אהרון וצוונו לברך את עמו ישראל באהבה...", "... Who sanctified us with the holiness of Aaron and commanded us to bless His nation Israel, with love."). They raise out their hands, and form a _\\// like sign, and recite three Biblical passages (Num. 6:24-26), following the word-by-word recitation of the chazzan, lest a Kohen be embarrassed by being unable to remember or recite the blessings on his own:

22 וידבר הֿ אל-משה לאמר:

23 דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו לאמר כה תברכו את בני ישראל אמור להם:

24 יברכך הֿ וישמרך:

25 יאר הֿ פניו אליך ויחנך:

26 ישא הֿ פניו אליך וישם לך שלום:

27 ושמו את שמי על בני ישראל ואני אברכם:

A 1994 CJLS-approved teshuva written by R. Mayer Rabinowitz allowed a בת כהן - a woman whose father is a Kohen - to participate in the ceremony, whether or not she is married. It is online and is located here. Is this an example of the Conservative movement, as well-intentioned as it is in promoting and expanding egalitarianism, being sloppy with halacha?

The first part of the teshuva correctly argues that the נשיאת כפים ritual should not be eliminated from Conservative practice. Doing so would prevent a Kohen from performing positive Biblical commandments.

It then goes into the sources used in the past to justify limiting the ritual to men.
They are:
1. Num 6:23: The commandment to bless the people is directed "אל אהרן ואל בניו" towards Aaron and his sons, but not his daughters.
2. The ritual commemorates one that was historically performed in the Temple, where women did not participate.
3. Since the destruction of the Temple, women have not participated in the ritual.

The teshuva attempts to knock down these barriers; some are easier than others.

It attempts to address #1 by using a "classical" Conservative argument, directly from the Biblical text: Because Hebrew is a gendered language with the default gender being the masculine, "בניו" (lit, "his sons") could be understood to mean "his children." Use of this argument should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The only proof given here that the pasuk is not gendered is its later reference: "כה תברכו את בני ישראל" - lit. "this is how you shall bless the sons of Israel." R. Rabinowitz renders the translation as "thus shall you bless the people of Israel," interpreting "sons of Israel" to mean the entire community of Israel, in which "it is clear that the women are included." But, is that true? For the purposes of the census (Num. 1), only the men are counted in the community, with the women, children, and elderly considered to be accessories. In this case too, women may have been blessed through their fathers and husbands. This doesn't really kill the logic, it only says that it's not so clear in this case that women are included by the Biblical text. Even if "בני ישראל" always includes women, we would still need a place where "אהרן ובניו" includes them as well.

The second argument addresses that issue. Basically, it argues that if a בת כהן is a member of the group that has the "lineal sanctity" of the Kohen, she may participate in the blessing. The argument focuses on an analogy to redemption of the firstborn, where the Biblical text (Num. 3:48) reads: "ונתת הכסף לאהרון ולבניו", "and [you shall] give the money to Aaron and his sons." In that case, the Rambam interprets "ולבניו" to exclude daughters, but Tosefot, Rashi, and the Rosh allow them to participate (this is where I wish there were a reference, so I could actually find what they actually said rather than take R. Rabinowitz's word for it, fortunately, R. Roth was more careful with his citations: the Rashi is on Pesachim 49b, "אמר"; the Tosefot Kiddushin 8a, "רב כהנא"; for more, see Roth footnotes 40-42). He concludes with a quote from a R. Joel Roth teshuva that states that even the Rambam may not have been denying lineal sanctity to daughters of Kohanim. But, R. Roth was writing about whether daughters of Kohanim and Leviyim may share precedence for aliyot, which has to address a much less-stringent standard than reinterpreting or overturning a Biblical commandment. Either way, R. Rabinowitz appears to be relying heavily on R. Roth's argument that a daughter of a Kohen, married or unmarried, is entitled to "lineal sanctity," and would like us to say that "lineal sanctity" implies fitness for the priestly blessing.

The third, and final, attempt to address the issue surrounds the supposed role of the priest in the performance of the priestly blessing, derived from Num 6:27. "ושמו את שמי על בני ישראל ואני אברכם" - "and they [the priests] will place My name on the children of Israel and I will bless them." A long discussion comes to the conclusion that the Kohanim are acting as a medium to place God's blessing on Israel, but, they are not themselves blessing Israel. The relevance of the difference to our question is never really spelled out, but, R. Rabinowitz claims that this is "added reason to include the daughters of kohanim who have lineal sanctity" in the performance of the ritual.

R. Rabinowitz then continues addressing problem #2. He states the the Biblical verse didn't limit the performance of the ritual to the Temple, and, therefore, what was done in the Temple is irrelevant. He also makes a rather confusing linkage between נשיאת כפים and the ברכת כהנים in the repetition of the Amidah, which is recited either at times when the congregation does not ordinarily do נשיאת כפים, such as on a non-festival Shabbat, or when no Kohanim are present. He tries to imply that the Biblical verse limits the recitation of the words of the blessing to Kohanim, but it clearly doesn't. Anyone can speak the words of the blessing, as שלוחי צבור who are not Kohanim do regularly. However, only the Kohanim are obligated in reciting the blessing, and, only they recite it with a beracha. R. Rabinowitz's argument could just as easily be applied to anyone - Kohen or not Kohen. A curious footnote (#15) appears here - "An examination of the discussions found in Menahot 18b and Taanit 26b-27a imply that there are grounds to permit daughters of kohanim to participate in ברכת כהנים." It would have been nice had he elaborated on it. As an aside, the Masorti movement (Israeli branch of Conservative) considered the historical positions of the Kohen and Levi to be the most important aspect of retaining the distinctions, and, thus rejected both a Bat Kohen's ability to perform נשיאת כפים in addition to a Bat Kohen or Bat Levi's precedence for the first and second aliyot. It appears to me that this one was a deal-breaker for them.


Problem #3 is barely addressed, but, it seems to me essentially a "things change" argument -- until recently, women didn't participate in any public ritual services, now they do.

IMHO, if you are willing to acknowledge that you are changing historical roles, the major issue that has to be addressed with regards to נשיאת כפים, of course, is problem #1 - who exactly is obligated in the Biblical commandment to bless Israel - male Kohanim, or their daughters as well? R. Rabinowitz does not address whether he believes that women are in fact, obligated; he only mentions that they should be able to participate. Further, what is the nature of that obligation? R. Rabinowitz, if he is intending to state one, would probably like it to equal to a male's -- Biblical. But, given the wording of the verse, and its context, is this argument really valid? And, if it is a Biblical commandment, then, was the Temple functioning incorrectly? The latter question is really philosophical: Is the purpose of retaining the Kohen/Levi/Yisrael division backwards-looking or forwards-looking? But the philosophy leads back to practical issues: How far do those obligations go? If we want to be fully-egalitarian, then is a Bat Kohen also obligated in the negative Biblical prohibitions that only apply to a Kohen? All of these problems should be addressed, rather than bypassed.

Note: last paragraph edited for clarity after publication: 1/10/04.

DW recently got a solicitation to participate in a womens' tefillah group, which made me wonder --

Orthodox groups have been arguing back and forth over the halachic legitamacy of womens' prayer groups. (Needless to say, I've never been to one, and would not be very welcome at one). In summary, they involve groups of women getting together to daven. Instead of going through the prayer service as an individual would (which is what "traditional" Orthodox halacha would require of them, because no minyan of ten adult Jewish men is present), they use a modified service that includes a Torah reading (when it would appropriate for a real minyan to include one), but they are careful to change formulations of prayers, and to avoid saying anything limited to minyanim (eg Barchu, Kedushah). Womens' Tefilah groups tend to make it known that they do not consider themselves minyanim. As far as I understand it, attendance tends to be divided between Orthodox women who want to be able to daven and read Torah in public within the confines of an Orthodox understanding of halacha, and Conservative women who empathize with the feminist cause.

So, what about the egalitarian-leaning women? Those who base their egalitarianism on the Roth teshuva should have no problem. As long as there aren't ten women present who accepted upon themselves the time-bound positive commandments from the Torah, the group does not consititute an obligated community, and therefore, they should daven without a minyan. But what about those who base their egalitarianism on other grounds, such as R. Golinkin's teshuva (English summary here), who seems to be saying that all women are in fact obligated? Does that mean that the community formed by the womens' tefillah group is obligated as a minyan would be?

One approach to resolve this problem would be to say that both the Orthodox and Conservative halachic positions are valid, and, when in Rome, do as the Romans (or, alternatively, אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים הם - lit. both [ideas] are the words of the living God).

This case is, incidentally, one of those ways that the Roth teshuva, despite not being very egalitarian in its approach, is more pluralistic.

Do we live in the same universe? (See also the comments, and you'll know what I mean).
(I know it's a bit late, but I'm new at this :-) )

Oh, by the way, Happy (Secular) New Year.

And now our gaze turns to a decidedly non-post-denominational Conservative synagogue in Queens, NY, (my parents' shul) where the battles fought three decades ago are alive and kicking. The shul is a result of the merger of three shuls, one of which had a building and an older congregation, another had a small, older congregation, and the third had a younger congregation (read, 50's+) and a dilapidated building. All three shuls were losing members, a symptom of the slow death of the Conservative movement in Queens. The generation gap, however, was not the major issue. The first two were "traditional Conservative" (circa 1950/60's) - non-egalitarian congregations without a mechitza, where men and women sat together, but only men participated in the service. They davened out of the Birnbaum siddur, a staple of Orthodox and Conservative congregations until the better laid-out, instructioned, and translated Artscroll and Sim Shalom siddurim came along. The third was "traditional egalitarian Conservative," following the full liturgy in the (1985) Sim Shalom siddur and allowing men and women equal participation in all parts of the service.

The new congregation would be situated in the best-kept and largest building of the first. The merger agreement included the stipulation that a new rabbi would be hired for the joined congregation, and egalitarianism would be gradually introduced. At first, the congregation would be non-egal, except at a bat mitzvah (stupid compromise #1). For a while, women who were used to counting in the minyan no longer counted, and could no longer get aliyot, etc., causing a great deal of resentment in the previous members of that congregation.

A new rabbi was hired who supported egalitarianism. Officially, it appeared, the congregation went egal within a few months. At first, a choice was given between Birnbaum and Sim Shalom, then the siddurim were replaced with Sim Shalom. Women began to say English prayers from the bimah (because they're not as important, right?), then to take aliyot, read haftarah, Torah, and, in some tentative way, even to daven from the amud. The compromise is constantly under attack from the various committees that make up "traditional" synagogue life.

The congregations' cultures have still not melded, leading to resentment from both sides. The traditional people are used to certain elements of decorum that they think are being broken by the egal people, who come from a somewhat less formal congregation. Men from egal show up in dress pants (not jeans), with button-down shirts, instead of suits. Nothing was done about that particular issue (except grumbling). Neither was anyting done about the issue of young kids coming to shul in sneakers (chalilah!); Many of these kids probably do not own shoes, and it might place an additional unnecessary financial burden on parents who are irregular shul-goes to buy their kids dress shoes for a once-a-month occasion. Most are more likely to simply not come to shul, or leave the kids at home (so much for education).

The women from the traditional minyanim tended to put something in their hair (some of the things resembling wire-mesh doilies or hairclips), and considered that sufficient coverage. Many women from egal do not cover their hair at all, and do not want to change their habits. While I have not asked them, I doubt that these people consider exposed hair to be ervah, nakedness - otherwise, their own head coverings would be quite different. The only reason I can think of for maintaining the custom is that the trads consider head coverage to be matter of respect (kavod ha'tzibbur), in a similar manner to the way most of the egal people would react if they saw a man in shul without a kippah. While in the egal shul, there was clearly no issue of kavod ha'tzibbur from womens' lack of head covering, nearly half of the congregation thinks there is in the merged shul -- and, therefore, it is a real issue. Would it be so bad to simply require everyone to wear a head covering? Again, more grumbling, no resolution.

An issue where a decision was made at the ritual committee was the horrible problem of women wearing ... gasp ... pants to shul. This one affected a small minority of the egal crowd. Again, not jeans, but pant-suits, as might be appropriate for a business meeting. It was decided that women must be wearing a skirt to be given an honor on the bimah. The issue is not modesty, as there was no discussion of short skirts. I also doubt that the people who pushed the agenda really thought that pants were solely man's clotheing, only that they thought that skirts should be worn to shul, and thus it should be enforced in a regulation. Why impose a baseless regulation in order to exclude others?

Through all of this, the morning minyan (6:30AM) remained "traditional," using the word "minyan" in the sense of prayer gathering, rather than "group of ten adult Jews," as the numbers are frequently lacking. The egal crowd, of course, complains that it should go egal, and the men in the trad crowd will leave the room if a woman were counted. It seems to me that the issue is a bit moot, because ... the egal crowd doesn't bother showing up for the morning minyan. One might argue that they might show up if the minyan went egal, but there is no guarantee; the people who had been coming to the minyan for years would then be left out. Sometimes, it's better for a community to acknowledge its differences. It's the trad crowd's problem that they can't get 10 men to show up; it's the egal crowd's problem that they don't show up. What would be so wrong with two morning minyanim?

The new rabbi is in a tough position - he was hired by his congregants and can just as easily find his contract won't be renewed. He is a committed egalitarian, but is facing opposition from a part of his congregation. He has two choices: either he can take a stand and lead his congregation, at the risk of alienating congregants and losing his job, or he can be led by them into a purposeless infighting that will make everyone disgusted with the outcome, but possibly keep the blame away from himself. Sadly, the latter track seems to be taking place.

As you've probably figured out, the basis of all these issues are cultural, not halachic. The shul committee has become a way to "get back at the other side" for the changes *they* imposed on the congregation. In most cases, simple compromises that don't require all that much pain would resolve the issues, but those compromises won't come from both sides' entrenched positions without the leadership that is sadly lacking from this merged, but disunited congregation.

The New York Jewish Week, characteristically, a few years late, has an article about Kehilat-Hadar style minyanim. Like good journalists, try to bring up the notion that there's a controversy between them and established Jewish institutions. Not a single interviewee acknowledged it. It's also interesting how they almost figure out the origin of the phenomenon, but miss it.

At some point, I intend to blog my (probably not very original or unique) thoughts on them, and their potential effects on the traditional denominations. Stay tuned.