Editing Halakha (section)

==== Conservative Judaism ====
{{Further|Conservative halakha}}
[[File:Kotel masorti.JPG|thumb|upright=1.2|A mixed-gender, egalitarian [[Conservative Judaism|Conservative]] service at [[Robinson's Arch]], [[Western Wall]]]]
The view held by [[Conservative Judaism]] is that the Torah is not the word of God in a literal sense. However, the Torah is still held as mankind's record of its understanding of God's revelation, and thus still has divine authority. Therefore, ''halakha'' is still seen as binding. Conservative Jews use modern methods of historical study to learn how Jewish law has changed over time, and are, in some cases, willing to change Jewish law in the present.<ref>[https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/halakhah-in-conservative-judaism/ "Halakhah in Conservative Judaism."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191224105534/https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/halakhah-in-conservative-judaism/ |date=2019-12-24 }} ''My Jewish Learning''. 8 April 2019.</ref>

A key practical difference between Conservative and Orthodox approaches is that Conservative Judaism holds that its rabbinical body's powers are not limited to reconsidering later precedents based on earlier sources, but the [[Committee on Jewish Law and Standards]] (CJLS) is empowered to override Biblical and Taanitic prohibitions by ''takkanah'' (decree) when perceived to be inconsistent with modern requirements or views of ethics. The CJLS has used this power on a number of occasions, most famously in the "driving teshuva", which says that if someone is unable to walk to any synagogue on the Sabbath, and their commitment to observance is so loose that not attending synagogue may lead them to drop it altogether, their rabbi may give them a dispensation to drive there and back; and more recently in its decision prohibiting the taking of evidence on ''[[mamzer]]'' status on the grounds that implementing such a status is immoral. The CJLS has also held that the Talmudic concept of ''[[Kavod HaBriyot]]'' permits lifting rabbinic decrees (as distinct from carving narrow exceptions) on grounds of human dignity, and used this principle in a December 2006 opinion lifting all rabbinic prohibitions on [[Homosexuality|homosexual]] conduct (the opinion held that only male-male anal sex was forbidden by the [[the Bible and homosexuality|Bible]] and that this remained prohibited). Conservative Judaism also made a number of changes to the [[role of women in Judaism]] including counting women in a [[minyan]],<ref>Fine, David J. [https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/halakhah/teshuvot/19912000/oh_55_1_2002.pdf "Women and the Minyan."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200617191359/http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/halakhah/teshuvot/19912000/oh_55_1_2002.pdf |date=2020-06-17 }} ''Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly''. OH 55:1.2002. p. 23.</ref> permitting women to chant from the Torah,<ref>[https://masortiolami.org/frequently-asked-questions-masorti/ "Frequently Asked Questions about Masorti."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190619004724/http://masortiolami.org/frequently-asked-questions-masorti/ |date=2019-06-19 }} ''Masorti Olami''. 25 March 2014. 8 April 2019.</ref> and ordaining women as [[rabbi]]s.<ref>Goldman, Ari. [https://www.nytimes.com/1985/02/14/nyregion/conservative-assembly-votes-to-admit-women-as-rabbis.html "Conservative Assembly ...."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191231121949/https://www.nytimes.com/1985/02/14/nyregion/conservative-assembly-votes-to-admit-women-as-rabbis.html |date=2019-12-31 }} ''New York Times''. 14 February 1985. 8 April 2019.</ref>

The Conservative approach to halakhic interpretation can be seen in the CJLS's acceptance of Rabbi Elie Kaplan Spitz's responsum decreeing the biblical category of ''[[mamzer]]'' as "inoperative."<ref name="KaplanSpitz">Kaplan Spitz, Elie. [http://www.cwj.org.il/sites/default/files/Mamzerut%20-%20Spitz.pdf "Mamzerut."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191227104443/http://www.cwj.org.il/sites/default/files/Mamzerut%20-%20Spitz.pdf |date=2019-12-27 }} ''Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly''. EH 4.2000a. p. 586.</ref> The CJLS adopted the responsum's view that the "morality which we learn through the larger, unfolding narrative of our tradition" informs the application of Mosaic law.<ref name="KaplanSpitz" /> The responsum cited several examples of how the rabbinic sages declined to enforce punishments explicitly mandated by Torah law. The examples include the trial of the accused adulteress (''sotah''), the "law of breaking the neck of the heifer," and the application of the death penalty for the "rebellious child."<ref>Kaplan Spitz, p. 577-584.</ref> Kaplan Spitz argues that the punishment of the ''mamzer'' has been effectively inoperative for nearly two thousand years due to deliberate rabbinic inaction. Further he suggested that the rabbis have long regarded the punishment declared by the Torah as immoral, and came to the conclusion that no court should agree to hear testimony on ''mamzerut''.