170 Peter S. Knobel
sions? The Responsa Committee of the CCAR—under Rabbis Walter Jacob , W.Gunther Plaut and now Mark Washofsky and the Freehof Institute of Progressive Halakhah has been one of the most significant venues for these discussions. In my view, the seriousness of this enterprise requires that those who differ with their conclusions offer a sustained rebuttal. Judaism is essentially about reading sacred texts, seeking God ’s will in these texts, and applying these insights to Jewish living.
In an important paper entitled“Culture Wars,” Prof. Mark Washofsky, chair of CCAR Responsa Committee, analyzes the current debate in Reform Judaism about proper methods of decision making. He identifies himself as“a text-and-tradition type.” He assumes that“text-and-tradition types” will inevitably conclude that same-sex marriages or same-sex commitment cere
monies are not permitted in Reform Judaism. He writes:’
The acknowledgment of particularity. We text-and-tradition types discuss questions of Jewish practice from the assumption that there is something identifiable that can be called Jewish practice. This something is a particular phenomenon, one which has emanated from the historical experience of a particular religious community which we call Israel . While it is imaginable that the Jews might have developed different religious institutions, different concrete means by which to respond to the call of the divine, they in fact came up with these, the particular observances which make up what we know as the tradition. Thus, in the case before us, we must begin our thinking with the fact that while marriage is a universal social institution, the particular form of marriage which has historically prevailed among the Jews is called kiddushin and that there is no such thing as Jewish marriage other than kiddushin.* While it is theoretically possible that an alternative form of Jewish marriage might be created today, such theoretical possibilities do not provide the point of departure for our discussions for we begin our religious conversation from within the parameters of that which is and has always been Jewish practice, the religious way of life of a particular people.’
The valuation of our particular tradition. This particular people, moreover, is our people, and its particular religious tradition is an integral element of our own Reform Jewish religious life Unlike some of those folks who speak the other languages 1 have described today, text-and-tradition speakers do not assume a stance of objective neutrality(let alone skeptical distance or scornful hostility) toward the particular traditions that have