When is Conservative Judaism stricter than Orthodoxy?
In general, Conservative rabbis usually prefer to make a more lenient ruling, as in the areas of Kashrut, the use of electricity on Shabbat, and many of the chumrot (stringencies). However, in a number of areas many Conservative rabbis take stringent positions. For example, many Conservative rabbis won't perform weddings followed by treif affairs, even though there is no formal halakhic bar to officiating. Likewise, many won't officiate at any part of funeral service that is followed by a cremation. (In such a case there is no formal halakhic bar, although there are traditional teshuvot that recommend against officiation). Here are a number of examples of where Conservative rabbis are more stringent than Orthodox rabbis:
(A) The Commitee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS) maintains that the child of a Jewish apostate, who has been committed to and socialized in a church, be required to undergo a reentry ritual such as tevila (a religious ceremony involving immersion in a mikva). Orthodox rabbis correctly maintain that the Shulkhan Arukh and other sources do not mandate any ritual, but Conservative rabbis find a compelling need to be strict.
(B) Halacha permits the burial of apostate Jews, such as Messianic Jews, Jews for Jesus, and "Hebrew Christians" in Jewish cemeteries, albeit often with restrictions. However, the CJLS forbid such burials, noting how messianic Jews use it to legitimate their Jewish credentials.
(C) In 1951 it was decided that Orthodox yeshiva students would be exempt from serving in Israel's army. Many Orthodox rabbis at that time issued a statement declaring that according to their interpretation of halakha, those who study Torah full time are exempt from military service. Today there some 20,000 Orthodox Yeshiva students who refuse to serve in the Israeli military. While Modern Orthodox rabbis disagree, and encourage their students to join the army, they still view the action of the more right wing rabbis as legitimate and within the halakha.
Israeli Masorti Rabbis Robert Hammer and Robert Harris have ruled in the opposite fashion. They conclude that there is no halakhic basis for the exemption of yeshiva students or religious women from army duty. In situations of life or death, halakha makes no distinction between observant and non-observant Jews.
(D) Conservative rabbis have issued responsa banning the smoking of cigarettes. The Rabbinical Assembly (RA) has officially backed these responsa with a resolution passed in 1982. In the Orthodox community, individual rabbis are also concerned with this issue and have issued similar responsa banning smoking. However the right-wing Orthodox leadership has rejected these bans: For example, Rabbis J. David Bleich and Moshe Feinstein, two leading Orthodox decisors, have ruled that smoking can not be prohibited, although they striongly discourage it as harmful. R. Feinstein's rulings are considered binding by much of the right-wing and Modern Orthodox community. Rabbi Bleich, whose rulings are considered binding by many in the Orthodox community, goes so far as to try to prove that smoking is permissible. (See "Smoking", Tradition, Vol. 16, No.4 Summer, 1977).
The Rabbinical Council of America (Modern Orthodox) later rejected Rabbi Feinstein's teshuvah, and has ruled that smoking is indeed forbidden under Jewish law. Several Orthodox authorities in Israel have also recently done so, and it is hoped that more will follow suit.
(E) Jewish law posits minimum requirements for valid marriages, divorces and conversions. However, the Orthodox view on these issues are based on the rulings of R. Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe 1973, Even Ha-Ezer, 3 and Igrot Moshe 1985, Even Ha-Ezer, part III,13). He ruled that any rabbi who calls himself Conservative or Reform is a heretic by definition, no matter what their level of observance. Hence, all ceremonies performed by them are invalid. This view has been accepted by most of the Orthodox community. As such, Orthodox Jews reject the validity of uncountable legitimate Jewish marriages, divorces and conversions.
This is a chillul hashem (desecration of the name of God). Conservative rabbis are more stringent, and have ruled that Jews must recognize the validity of all such acts, as long as the halakhic minimum requirements are met. It matters not what denomination the officiating rabbis belong to.
(F) Most Orthodox rabbis refuse to accept the legitimacy of gittin (divorces) by any non-Orthodox rabbi. Due to in-fighting between Orthodox factions, many Orthodox rabbis in fact refuse to accept each other's gittin. These actions are a serious violation of halakha. Conservative Judaism is stricter and understands that it is bound to follow the Herem of Rabbenu Tam, which forbids casting aspersions on a get once it has been executed. A get executed in accordance with halakha is valid no matter the denomination of the officiating rabbi.
(G) The Joint Bet Din of the Rabbinical Assembly has restrictions on issuing divorces sticter than those of many Orthodox Batedi Din. Divorce is finalized when the mesadrei gittin (specialist in Jewish divorce law) issues a p'tur, a letter certifying that the divorce procedure has been excecuted in accordance with halakha. Conservative mesadrei gittin will not issue a p'tur until the couple obtains a civil divorce.
(H) Under-the-table marriages: Jewish law is not always independent of secular law. A tenant of Jewish law is dina demalkhuta dina, the secular law of the land is as binding as jewish law. Thus, the RA forbids its rabbis from performing marriages unless there is a valid civil marriage license. This is important because sometimes people wish to marry, yet want to illegally avoid the fiscal consequences of their new status. For instance, sometimes senior citizens wish to marry without losing any social security benefits. According to US law, participating in a ceremony to enable someone to evade Social Security rules is a felony, and is thus forbidden by Conservative movement.
(I) May a synagogue issue interest-bearing bonds and sell them to its members as a means of raising capital funds? This issue is addressed by Conservative rabbis in two papers published in "Proceedings of the CJLS 1986-1990", p.445-455. We find that Rabbi Avram I. Reisner writes:
"I would therefore propose that a general, constructive heter iska be limited to bona fide commerical loans between individuals or to loans involving corporations (banks, etc.), which are by their very nature commercial entities....Personal loans between individual Jews would thus remain, as they should, within the aegis of the Torah's dictive, interest forbidden. The option of a specific heter iska between individuals in the case of some specific need could then be considered on a case by case basis by a competant authority. I note in this regard that Rabbi Moshe Feinstein propoposes a Hidush (legal innovation) that corporations only carry corporate liability and not the personal liability of their owners and officers should thereby be exempt from the prohibition of ribit (interest) when they function as the borrower. on which basis he permits bank deposits in a Jewish bank. (Iggrot Moshe Vol. 5, Yoreh Deah (Y.D.2), no.63.)
This is a radical suggestion. Jewish law has never protected individuals from liability from their actions not recognized the "corporate person," and here this new distinction, which has not been received in Jewish law is being utilized to release the corporation from Torah law. Nonetheless this position has been given a hearing in the Orthodox community given its author. The Committee [on Jewish Law and Standards] was unwilling to consider a proposal along these lines..."
