Alan J. Yuter | New York University (original) (raw)

Articles & Reviews by Alan J. Yuter

his two-volume work is in reality many books in one, encom passing many methods and modes of disc... more his two-volume work is in reality many books in one, encom passing many methods and modes of discourse as it addresses and explicates radically different constructions of social and religious reality. Jose Faur writes formally as a secular, critical scholar, decoding the past, arguing his theses, and presenting an anthropology of the Judaism that he contends is encoded in Israel's sacred library. How ever, Faur personally, normatively, and passionately identifies with that canonical library's encoded culture, which serves as the bench mark by which other Judaisms are measured, decoded, and evaluated. This formally modern, scholarly work is also a derasha, an exercise in the rhetoric of rabbinic argument, analysis, and non-authoritarian persuasion. Faur's magisterial derasha both explicates and exemplifies 7

UTJ is a participant (http://www.amazon.com/?tag=u0245-20) in the Amazon Services LLC Associates ... more UTJ is a participant (http://www.amazon.com/?tag=u0245-20) in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites. Search UTJ Viewpoints Reconstructing Orthodoxy Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are that of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the Union for Traditional Judaism, unless otherwise indicated.

The Avraham narratives describe the moral order that the Torah, once given and no longer in Heave... more The Avraham narratives describe the moral order that the Torah, once given and no longer in Heaven, will eventually prescribe. Sodom embodies that society that the Torah strives to avoid. At Genesis 18:20-21 the LORD thinks out loud that the cryings-out of the Sodomite residents "are very great and their sins are very heavy." In the Egyptian Book of the Dead the souls of sinners have heavy hearts, which are made heavy by the weight of sin when weighed after one's demise. Isaiah 1:4 speaks of Israel as a "people heavy with iniquity," which is an ancient Near Eastern idiom designating a person to be guilty or wicked. Acting as a model for human judges, the LORD "comes down from Heaven to investigate" the facts of Sodom's case, and to determine whether Sodom is really so sinful as to deserve destruction. Unable or unwilling to share the available Canaanite real estate with his Heavenly blessed uncle, Lot was given the choice of turf by his generous uncle, if "you go left, then I'll go right, and if you go right. I'll go left." Their two estates have to part company because they are unable to live together without contention. Generous to an extreme, Avraham is so concerned with domestic tranquility that he allows Lot to pick his choice of the land. Lot chooses the Twin Cities of sin, Sodom and 'Amora, which are fruitfully lush but ethically challenged. Lot craves ease and affluence, but pays no attention to the moral risk, social cost, and numbed conscience that are the consequences of his self-absorbed choices. God decides to consult with Avraham, who "will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment" [Gen. 18:19]. When Avraham is informed that the LORD intends to destroy Sodom, he instinctively protests and pleads for people he does not know, whose reputation is not flattering, and whose behavior, it will be revealed to the reader, is not even humane. Avraham then asks the LORD, "are You really going to wipe away the righteous with the wicked" [Gen. 18:23]? And then Avraham audaciously adds, "will the Judge of the entire world not act with justice" [Gen. 18:25]? From Avraham's example we learn what the Torah expects of humankind: to treat one other as one wishes to be treated, and to act with altruism. Since Avraham is a stickler for both kindness as well as justice, he insists that even the Sodomites deserve the protection of a judicial process because they are human, having been created in God's image. Avraham appeals to a Law that binds the LORD, which is a law that does not

According to Orthodox Judaism in all of its iterations, the Torah is the word of God that was giv... more According to Orthodox Judaism in all of its iterations, the Torah is the word of God that was given to and was accepted by the people Israel. The only vote to which the Torah contract was subject was taken when Israel agreed to accept that Torah as its Constitution as a whole package. Once in force, the Torah's parts are equally sacred and uniformly binding. This Torah Constitution's narrative also proclaims that humans are created in God's "image," with each individual carrying an equal and infinite moral worth. Democracy is the rule, the kratos, of the people, the demos. How can the rule of "the people," who are mortal and finite, be compatible with the rule of God, Who is infinite and eternal? How might Judaism, with its immutable Torah, embrace democracy, the everchanging will of the people? ANSWER: The Jewish State of Israel is self-defined as both democratic and Jewish. "Judaism" and "democracy" are abstract nouns with distinct semantic fields of meaning. Israel, the nationstate of the Jewish people, stands for some values and excludes others. Democracies also have limits, which distinguish between citizens who are full members of the polity, and resident non-citizens, minors, and incarcerated prisoners, who are not full members of the polity. The argument that Orthodox Judaism and democracy are incompatible value systems is grounded in some very compelling claims: God's ways and laws are not human inventions. God's law is absolute and eternal, while human law is finite, fallible, and ephemeral. God's laws cannot and may not ever be changed; in contrast, democracy often reflects the ever changing mood of the public. Hence, the two systems cannot be merged.

I have generally assumed that I would say Kaddish for my beloved father, of blessed memory, for 1... more I have generally assumed that I would say Kaddish for my beloved father, of blessed memory, for 12 months. I understood this to be fairly clearly the original practice (though Rabbi Abraham Golinkin indicates here (https://schechter.edu/how-long-should-a-child-recite-the-mourners-kaddish-for-a-parent-yoreh-deah-3764and-orah-hayyim-1322/) that both the 11 month and 12 month customs arose in the 13 century). In addition, it strikes me that HaZa"L instituted a 12 month period of mourning, not an 11 month period, so having a part of the observances related to the loss of a parent last only 11 months seems at least to be at tension with the system instituted by HaZa"L. While technically the Kaddish is not an expression of mourning, it seems to me to be at least in part an expression of kibud av va'em (honoring of parents), which is part of the reason behind the 12 month mourning period. Therefore, it seems to me to make sense to honor one's parents by reciting Kaddish for 12 months.

Posted on 07/15/2019 by Rabbi Alan Yuter in Beliefs and Practices Rabbi Sh'lomo Aviner is a well-... more Posted on 07/15/2019 by Rabbi Alan Yuter in Beliefs and Practices Rabbi Sh'lomo Aviner is a well-known, Religious Zionist thinker whose public statements and popular teachings reflect and embody a controversial version of Israeli Orthodoxy. At https://www.timesofisrael.com/radical-rabbi-says-notre-dame-fire-retribution-for-13th-century-talmud-burning/, R. Aviner declares that the Paris, April 15, 2019 Notre Dame Church fire may have been a div punishment for the 1242 burning of Jewish writings, including the Talmud. On one hand, R. Aviner does not advocate Jews' committing arson on churches, but he explains that Jews need not be saddened b this particular fire. In other words, R. Aviner believes that the Roman Catholic Church got what it deserved with the Notre Dame blaze. R. Aviner regards the Roman Catholic Church to be an idolatrous enemy of the Jewish people. When pressed, R. Aviner correctly and wisely conceded that we do not know the ways of God but it is plausible that the Church fire was retribution for the Talmud burning. There are several problems with R. Aviner's suggestion: Since we do not know God's ways, ad hoc speculation regarding the Notre Dame fire is at best a useless waste of time and at worst, a presumptive theological assertion, that spiritually endowed rabb are able to intuit God's will and apply God's word. This alleged endowment empowers the Great Rabbi to intuit Torah obligations by speculating on divine intent. If the Notre Dame Church fire were indeed God's retribution for the 1242 Talmud burning, why would God wait 777 years to retaliate? mAvot 1:11 advises Sages to be careful in choosing their words. This unverifiable theory, that the Notre Dame Church fire might be the Divine vengeance for the 1242 Talmud burning, [a] tells us noth about "official" Jewish theology, [b] tells us a great deal about how R. Aviner constructs his spiritual world, [c] and he formulates an ideological narrative of a radical Jewish "otherness" that shapes the way in which he understands Torah and reads history, apparently without regard for how his words might impact anti-Semitic attitudes. While secularly very well read, R. Aviner does not allow the mores and mindset of modernity to inform his understanding, and presentation, of Torah. R. Aviner vehemently opposes the conscription of women into the IDF, the Israeli military. When Bet Hillel, an Israeli modern Orthodox rabbinic organization, permitted women to enlist in the IDF, the Jerusalem Post reported that "Rabbi Shlomo Aviner-a prominent national religious figure and dean of the Ateret Yerushalayim yeshiva in Jerusalem's Old City-criticized Beit Hillel for its ruling, saying that it did not have sufficie authority to make such decisions, and noting that several senior rabbis had forbidden female enlistment. 'They are good people [in Beit Hillel], but it is the great arbiters of Jewish law who may rule o such weighty issues,' Aviner told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday. 'They don't have the legitimacy or authority, and neither do I, to make such innovations, and for sure not to overrule the Chief Rabbinate.' The rabbi said even non-combat roles in the IDF were unsuitable for women, since they involved inappropriate contact with men and were immodest."

Rabbinate-monopoly-to-solve-conversion-time-bomb-593397, MK Naftali Bennett calls for the breakin... more Rabbinate-monopoly-to-solve-conversion-time-bomb-593397, MK Naftali Bennett calls for the breaking of Israel's Chief Rabbinate's monopoly regarding accepting of converts. Mr. Bennett's position is correct on Halakhic, political, and ethical grounds In his Introduction to his Yad, his Compendium of Jewish law, Maimonides maintains that Halakhah is determined by the most reasoned, rational reading of the Oral Torah canonical library. This canon came to closure with the end of hora'ah, or Talmudic legislation, in the early 5 th Century at the Babylonian academy of Rabina I and R. Ashi [bBava Metsi'a 86a]. Mr. Bennett's position is based upon a rational reading of bYevamot 47a-b, where the following rules are memorialized: a kosher conversion minimally requires a rabbinical court of three religiously observant men to supervise the circumcision [for males], the conversion candidate's acceptance of Halakhah as personally binding, and immersion in a kosher miqvah [the latter two apply both to women and men]. The conversion candidate is informed of some [i.e. not all] of the commandments. "Accepting the commandments" [qabbalat '0l malchut shamayim] does no mean that candidate agrees to be fully observant; it does mean that the new Jew consents to be governed by Jewish law. The Hebrew idiom should be rendered into English as "accepting the yoke of the commandments," i.e. that the convert agrees to be bound by and accountable to all of the norms of Jewish law, the metaphor for which is "yoke." And if the conversion court fails to inform the candidate of these details, and the candidate nevertheless accepts the yoke of the commandments, the conversion is still valid after the fact. And once the conversion is ratified by a proper conversion court, which technically could include and consist of three religiously observant, non-rabbinic lay men, and the candidate does not observe Jewish law completely, or for that matter not at all, that conversion remains irrevocably kosher! Furthermore, at jewishvaluescenter.org/jvoblog/conversions 2/3 Moses challenge God's fairness]. If someone contradicts God's law, they must be held to account, even if they claim to be divinely inspired prophets [Deut 13:1-6] and even if God declares the claimant to be correct [bBava Mezi'a 59b]. By adopting a Legal Realism approach to Jewish law, the Haredi rabbinic elite proclaims itself to be immune to assessment, criticism, or accountability. Naftali Bennett may not be permitted to retain his Orthodox identity because, by dint of his challenge, he has expressed disregard for Orthodoxy's true leaders and Torah spokespeople, whose charisma validates their intuition, authority, and infallibility claims. When a conflict arises between Talmudic law an historically conditioned, social and religious expectations, almost all Orthodox Jews will in practice observe the convention and disregard the law. For instance, relevant to this conversation is the unambiguous Torah law that requires the conscription of both men and women in times of defensive wars [bSo 44b]. Most Orthodox Jews are unaware that clapping and dancing on Jewish holy days is forbidden [bBetsa 30a], even though the Tosafot ruled that the la does not apply in his times. The Talmud here teaches the rabbis not to protest this violation; it is better to sin out ignorance than intentionally. But [a] the act of clapping and dancing are called "mistake," which cannot be read as a permissive license. Similarly, the Jewish community is required to nurture every kosher convert, for to do otherwise tempts otherwise good Jews to violate the very commitments they made. And when the Israeli Chief Rabbinate rejects conversions of Orthodox rabbis in good standing, whose converts are fully observant, without explanation, accountability or appeal, and when R. Isaac Schmelkes' innovation carries more clout-and domination-than Maimonides' conversion leniency precedent, the Chief Rabbinate has some explaining to do if it wishes to maintain the confidence of Orthodox Jews who follow Jewish law seriously, consistently, and with integrity. According to Jewish law, the judgment call to accept a conversion resides in the office of the local rabbi. Allowing non-Zionist rabbis to rule on conversions based upon R. Schmelkes' innovative suggestion [a] in violation of Oral Torah law [b] and ignoring the population that they are commissioned to serve, is a political error. Mr. Bennett wisely does not ask or worse, coerce Haredi rabbis to violate their conscience. But Zionists learn Torah and have Torah informed consciences, too. Haredi Orthodoxy has a right to its standards; and so do Religious Zionists. The ethical bottom line for Jewish Orthodoxy is located in the plain sense of the Oral Torah library and the norms derived therefrom, not the standing, intuition, or charisma of any authority, however great his reputation may be. For those who view Jewish life as a life style, culture convention, and social habit will define Halakhah as minhag Yisrael, what Orthodox Jews happen to do. According to this folk religion Orthodoxy, the kosher convert is required to adopt the behavior and beliefs of the living Orthodox community. Those conversion candidates who are unprepared to observe the "Judaism" of the Orthodox street are unwelcome in this iteration. The Torah was given to jewishvaluescenter.org/jvoblog/conversions 3/3

cd462cd4-9385-11e9-b58a-a6a9afaa0e3e_story.html?utm_term=.46d3c951bc8a, it is reported that the S... more cd462cd4-9385-11e9-b58a-a6a9afaa0e3e_story.html?utm_term=.46d3c951bc8a, it is reported that the Supreme Court of the United States permitted a 40' Cross to remain standing on public grounds in Prince George's County, Maryland. This particular use of the Cross, a distinctly Christian symbol, does not necessarily imply that the Government either establishes or endorses Christianity as the national religion; it does mean that that the Government recognizes that Christianity is an important part of the lives and culture of many Americans. The United States Constitution disestablishes all religions in order to avoid sectarian strife, which has in the historical past shed blood of some people in order to win eternal life for others. The so-called Jeffersonian State/Church "Wall of Separation" doctrine, which is the doctrinal source of contention in this case, may be framed in two distinct ways. Those who call for a high wall of separation between religion and politics argue that religion is a private concern that has no place in the public square, where religious rites are morally wrong and politically incorrect. For those who advocate a stout separation wall between religion and State, political discourse is open to any and every ideology-except traditional religion, which secular ideologists treat as Secularity's great enemy-and "heresy." Secular Jews and Gentiles view traditional religion as a retrograde ideology to be opposed under all circumstances. However, the Constitution's plain sense was not historically understood to require a secularization of public ideology. This secular posture ignores the fact that historically, religion was considered to be a legitimate force in American public life. By invoking the Constitution to justify removing religion from public life, ideological secularists contend that the Constitution actually establishes Secularism as the de facto "religion" of the modern, secular State, which in its zeal, adopts a policy that delegitimizes religion. Ironically, the only ideology that the Secular state will not tolerate is traditional religion. Because religionists believe that there are powers greater than the State, they make for unruly, freedom advocating citizens, who possess an alternative moral compass that is independent of, and not answerable to, the State. The authentic religionist may be a good citizen, but will not behave as a surveille subject, The Supreme Court's 7-2 decision allowing the Bladensburg, Cross to remain in place was endorsed not only by the five conservative judges, but by Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, two liberal Justices, as well. The dissenting Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg reflect a vocal, ideological Left minority whose feelings are intense and sincere but are not reflective of the legal tradition in which the Wall of Separation was defined and understood. The religious Jewish interest in this debate should not be minimalized. On one hand, religious Jews should not try to remove civil Christianity from the American public square. If institutional Judaism adopts an anti-Christian posture, Christians will come to view Judaism that is lived in real life as a demonic secularism that exploits religious language in order to advance a secular agenda. Institutional Judaism, in both Orthodox and Reform/Liberal iterations, have composed ideological narratives that parallel the Religionst/Secular divide in the United States. Unlike Halakhah, normative Jewish law, which for Orthodoxy is supposed to mandatory and for liberal Judaism is optional, the contending Jewish streams formulate narratives, or mythologies, that express their ideologies and articulate their anxieties. These narratives-in both Reform and Orthodox versions, [a] are not subject to review, assessment, or evaluation, [b] the details of the narrative[s] must be accepted as dogma, and [c] dissenters may forfeit their communal bona fides. Just as disagreeing with a Great Rabbi is an expression of heretical hubris, objecting to homosexual marriage, based upon a plain, simple, common sense understanding of Leviticus 18:22 earns the dissenter the disparaging designation of "homophobe," one who feels inappropriate and immoral disapproval of homosexual acts. Neither Right nor Left is prepared to negotiate its Narrative. The Reform's Progressive "orthodoxy" is affirmed with fundamentalist zeal, and Orthodoxy refuses to concede that its popular practices are often determined by street culture convention, against the letter of the Torah Law they claim to be inviolate. For example, formal Jewish law forbids clapping and dancing on Shabbat and Festivals [bBetsa 30a], requires the transferal of the foreleg, cheek, and intestines to a priest [Deut. 18:3 and mHullin 10:1], after kosher slaughter, a Law that remains in force even after the Temple is destroyed and even in Diaspora, and the married woman's "modesty" wig is a Halakhic violation [bShabbat 64b]. Both Orthodoxy and Reform claim to be the salvation, way and life of the Jewish people. Neither's narrative is adequate to the benchmarks of Judaism's Written and Oral Law. Like 0 Questions Questions Blogs Blogs About About Origins Origins Contact Contact 7/21/2021 Jewish Values Online-THE BLADENSBURG PEACE CRISIS AND RELIGION IN AMERICA-a View from a Jew mobile.jewishvaluesonline.org/blogArticle.php?id=585 2/2 Instead of demonizing dissenters, religionists should advance their claims, and not waste mental energy repudiating, rebutting, and resisting others. Instead of silencing one's adversaries, Jewry should advocate for all minorities, even unpopular one's. The greater the freedom for all, the more robust the citizenry will be. In modernity, we overcome the insecurity of freedom with good faith, good will, and good behavior. Religionists would do well not to exploit the power of State to advance a partisan agenda. Religious communities have the political freedom and moral right to persuade, but not to coerce. Arguments must be advanced with the moral power of words, not coercive words of power. If the Jefferson's "Wall of Separation" of Church and State is taken to its secular extreme, Reform rabbis would as a matter of conscience waive their parsonage allowance and their authorization as clergy to officiating at weddings that are recognized by the State. The American Supreme Court has taught an important lesson. Good government requires good will. Rather than impose our conscience upon others, we keep our eyes, ears, brains, and heart open to the opinions of others. A society that censors ideas will soon not have ideas to censor.

On Purim, Diaspora Jewry enjoyed a temporary victory. The Esther Scroll begins with Ahasuerus on ... more On Purim, Diaspora Jewry enjoyed a temporary victory. The Esther Scroll begins with Ahasuerus on his throne lowering taxes in a rudderless regime, and the Scroll ends with the same King, still sitting precariously on his throne, now raising taxes. After all, paying for frequent alcoholic parties and maintaining an extensive monarchical harem is financially expensive, socially corrupt, and likely unpopular. After all, when Persia's Jewry is condemned to annihilation, the King and Haman sit down to do what they do best, imbibe until intoxication. Given the King's fears of a coup d'état, especially after Bigtan and Teresh's abortive attempted coup, the social threat of Vashi's insubordinate refusal to show her feminine assets before a leering assembly, and his Queen's interest in Haman, whom Esther invited twice to drink with the King and her, the reader can appreciate why the red-nosed Persian emperor is unable to sleep. Without Jewish sovereignty, the Jew, be he Joseph, Mordecai, or Daniel, might rise to the rank of viceroy, the second to the throne. But Jewry's political position is always precarious and dangerous in Diaspora. Jews do not like to be noticed; Mordecai advises Esther not reveal her identity. Until Mordecai made a scene, Persia's Jews did not respond as Jews. Esther and Mordecai were given personal names that refer to Ishtar and Marduk, important non-Israelite Near Eastern deities. Committed Jews do not name their Jewish children "Christopher," "Pius," or "Muhammed." The Purim narrative begins, and ends, in exile, where assimilation is an unavoidable threat.

Jewish law requires that you always speak politely, decently, reflectively, and respectfully when... more Jewish law requires that you always speak politely, decently, reflectively, and respectfully when advocating your position. In De'ot 5, Maimonides records the rules that, to his view, oblige the talmid hacham, the person who is guided by the Hachham, the classical Jewish sage. These people's behavior must always be fine and refined, because they represent by their persons the authentic Torah ethos. If only to maintain your own moral authority, you must always be proper when in dialogue with those who think differently. First, no canonical Oral Torah source appeals to, or for that matter recognizes Da'at Torah, or hora'ah, apodictically declared but otherwise undefended legal decisions, to be legitimate, credible, or in any way binding.

Rabbi Alan J Yuter 1. On one hand, Torah law forbids the male homosexual act [Lev. 18:22] and doe... more Rabbi Alan J Yuter 1. On one hand, Torah law forbids the male homosexual act [Lev. 18:22] and does not grant halakhic status to single gender family arrangements, and on the other hand, Jewish law requires that circumcision take place on the eight day after birth [Lev. 12:3].

The opinions expressed here are that of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of ... more The opinions expressed here are that of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the Union for Traditional Judaism, unless otherwise indicated. Browse articles in related categories: Denominations, Halakhah, Modern Judaism, Women's Forum by Rabbi Alan J Yuter The Low Down on the Height of the Mechitsa: A Modern Orthodox Reading The mechitsa in the synagogue, the partition separating women from men in the Orthodox shul, has evolved over time to be the defining distinction between what is "recognized" to be authentic Orthodox Judaism and synagogues that do not have high mechitsot have lower religious identities. People's actual opinions and perspectives are conditioned by teachers and peers, rabbis and rebbes, congregations and communities, and peers' and friends' approval. The hyperbole that is attached to the mechitsa in the synagogue often leaves dissenters with the hard choice of remaining silent and compliant or being regarded as deviant from the community's religious narrative. I do require mechitsa because it is a practice accepted by all Halakhically committed Jews, and universally accepted by all Orthodox Jews. Those who have removed their mechitsot have, in the large, abandoned Jewish law altogether. Some Orthodox Jews allow their piety and ideology to be worn on their sleeves, for all to notice. The easiest and socially least expensive way to proclaim one's own religious probity is by denouncing and distancing oneself from those whose probity-measured by their strictness-is not up to standard. Thus, lower mechitsot are mistaken to indicate lower religious standards in general. The social implication is that one cares less about God's will if one is prepared to entertain a less than "respectably" high partitions and separations between the genders because they believe that the human animal thinks about nothing other than sex all day long [Gen. 8:21]. Authentically religious Jews look into canonical books and not to "great rabbis" whose political-theological narrative empowers them to reconstruct Torah and issue rulings on the authority. Judaism canonizes books, pagans canonize people. By issuing "rebbe" cards, we condition, petition, brainwash and tell our children to whom we believe they would do well to suspend their critical judgment and to defer [Deut.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are that of the writer and do not necessarily represent t... more Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are that of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the Union for Traditional Judaism, unless otherwise indicated.

How should the Halakhic community respond to the Conservative Movement's slow but inevitable acce... more How should the Halakhic community respond to the Conservative Movement's slow but inevitable acceptance of intermarriage as normative Jewish usage? ANSWER: 1. The Conservative Movement's very name is an oxymoron. It is a liberal, or more precisely, a libertine social, taste culture phenomenon that markets itself as a religious movement. It really is not "religious" by Jewish-halakhic-or academic-i.e. philological, historical, or theological benchmarks. How many Conservative synagogue communities boast memberships where but 10% of that membership observes the Shabbbat, Yom Tov, and kashrut according to the Rabbinical Assembly's Committee of Jewish Law and Standards' [CJLS] "official religion" definitions? 2. This social movement packages itself as "religious" in order to sell itself in Protestant America, and in the 1950's and 1960's, this packaging was wildly successful. Late Friday evening prayers became a "night out," musical instruments, normally forbidden on Jewish holy days [bBetsa 30a], were now permitted in the synagogue on Shabbat. If people will not pay to pray, they will pay in order to be entertained. The late Rabbi Moshe Feinstein once wrote "America is the land of the good time," and was he ever right! To paraphrase and apply Chabad's popular slogan, Conservative Jewish social policy has conditioned its dwindling constituency to demand, "We want Jewish gratification now, and we won't pay to wait."

His professional advice, his unstinting encouragement, his critical judgements, and his generous ... more His professional advice, his unstinting encouragement, his critical judgements, and his generous availability have been at my disposal throughout my coursework and my dissertation research.