As allegations of sexual misconduct take center stage in national politics, the Jewish community has quietly been dealing with its own controversies involving sex. Last year's expose by Debra Nussbaum Cohen detailing sexual misconduct by a number of congregational rabbis forced the Jewish community to take a closer look at the behavior of its moral leaders.
In recent months, the focus has shifted from rabbis to rabbinical students. And much of the spotlight has been on the country's most prominent non-Orthodox rabbinical seminary, New York's Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS). This past fall an internal letter written by the Dean of JTS Rabbinical School, Rabbi William Lebeau, sparked a discussion about the moral obligations of rabbinical students when it made front-page news in the Forward, the only national Jewish newspaper. A few months later the Seminary was again in the spotlight when several members of New York's most prominent Conservative synagogue, B'nai Jeshurun, proposed that the synagogue stop supporting JTS until it reverses its policy of refusing to admit gay and lesbian students to its Rabbinical School.
For many students at the seminary, these events raised questions about several issues, specifically a rabbi's right to privacy, the moral standards of rabbis, and the problems that modern society poses to Jews committed to halakhah.
Rabbi Lebeau told New Voices that he had written his letter with the purpose of starting a discussion on some of these topics. In the twenty-three page letter, he reflected on what it means to become a Conservative rabbi and explained the qualities and standards of living that he felt candidates for ordination should possess. Among pages filled with talmudic quotes and references to the great rabbis of the past was a page in which Lebeau stated that it was unacceptable for rabbinical students of the opposite sex to live together before marriage.
The reaction of rabbinical students at JTS was split. Some were angered by the entire letter and felt that Lebeau was attempting to mold all rabbinical students to his specific standards. Others were unmoved. But most opposition to the letter, students estimated, centered around the issue of living together before marriage. This debate is especially pertinent to the handful of JTS rabbinical students who do live with a person they are romantically involved with and intend to marry.
"Only a few parts [of the letter] energized student action," confirmed second-year rabbinical student Paul Arberman.
"People felt that the particular issue of living together before marriage was approached in a way that was insensitive to students' situations," said second-year rabbinical student Bill Plevan.
Student reaction resulted in several town hall meetings for the entire Rabbinical School to discuss the issues Lebeau raised.
The meetings, attended by over 100 people according to student estimates, were called by Rabbinical School administrators in conjunction with student organizations. According to students, Lebeau said that he would revise the letter to state certain points more clearly and to erase ambiguities.
Lebeau, however, maintained that his policies would not change as a result of these meetings. He said that his discussions with students about the issues he had raised in his letter left him with "new insights and thoughts," and that he may rewrite the letter someday for publication.
One student thought that Lebeau's letter was an indication that the Rabbinical School would make this official policy in the future. "I would not be surprised if they do make it a policy in the next year or two," she said.
At the meetings, some students accused Lebeau of using the issue of living together as a guise to discuss the more difficult issue of pre-marital sex. According to several attendees, Lebeau stressed that he was not referring to pre-marital sex, and that the real issue was living together before marriage.
The letter did include references associating living together with sexuality. Lebeau wrote, "[T]here are two issues of behavior relating to sexuality, that when they become public, are, in my opinion, of concern to the Seminary community. The first of the two is living together."
"The sanctified time for sex is marriage. Living together, which is the derech aretz of so many today, is unacceptable for one seeking the rabbinate." He later continued, "I want to make it clear that it is my opinion that a rabbinical student 'living together' before marriage, even with a future spouse, should not continue in the Rabbinical School."
Both Lebeau and rabbinical students stressed that the letter was intended to be an internal document, for the eyes of JTS rabbinical students only, and not a letter of official policy. Lebeau said that he merely intended to "open a discussion." However, Arberman said that there was no official policy about this matter in any of the student manuals, and this letter was the "clearest articulation of the policy" that students had received.
Lebeau, however, argued that students should have known all along that not living together was one of the things expected of the Seminary's rabbinical students. Although this issue is not clearly articulated anywhere, Lebeau said it does state in the academic bulletin the seminary policy that "students will live in the boundaries of halakhah." He felt that the issue of living together was included under these halakhic boundaries.
Since its inception, the Conservative movement has struggled with the attempt to reconcile traditional Jewish thought and practice with the changes that accompany modern life. JTS Chancellor Ismar Schorch has written, in "The Sacred Cluster: The Core Values of Conservative Judaism," on the importance of "the governance of Jewish life by halakha, which expresses the fundamental thrust of Judaism to concretize ethics and theology into daily practice." Conservative Judaism has attempted to maintain the observance of halakha, while allowing for certain adaptations that the movement feels modernity necessitates which don't conflict with halakha, such as equal status for women.
For many students, the issue of living together before marriage is another problem of modern society with which halakhic Jews must find a middle ground. Some students feel that modern times do not always allow for the practicality of living separately before marriage. Students who are engaged often find it difficult or impossible to support two leases as they plan a wedding.
"I believe that the right thing to do is to wait [to live together before marriage], but there are other needs," said first-year rabbinical student Menachem Creditor. "Sometimes people are financially strapped," he said.
"I can see how an economic situation would lead a person, for practical reasons, to live together with the person they intend to marry," agreed first-year rabbinical student Bill Plevan.
Lebeau, however, asserted in his letter that, "There can be no reason, financial or otherwise, strong enough for halakhah to be abrogated."
"A lot of students felt that [the letter] didn't reflect the modern lives of students today," said Arberman.
The country's other school that ordains Conservative rabbis, the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies of the University of Judaism, has made its policy on this issue clear to students. According to one Ziegler first-year student, the school's policy stipulated that students of the opposite sex who are involved in a romantic relationship cannot live together unless they are married. Students of the opposite sex can share living quarters if they are not involved in a relationship.
The student said that the issue was "not a hot topic of debate" at Ziegler and that students "came here knowing that was the policy." The student also noted that this policy applies only to students at the rabbinical school, and not to the rest of the students at the University of Judaism.
Other rabbinical schools have not made their policy regarding this issue clear to students. A representative for the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College (RRC) maintained that the school had no clear policy because it was "not an issue."
"Unlike JTS, we feel that what our students do in their personal lives [is private]," Rabbi Reena Spicehandler, Dean of Students and Admissions at RRC, told New Voices. "We don't interfere in that."
RRC, however, has taken an active role to ensure that their candidates for ordination understand proper sexual ethics for when they do become rabbis. Spicehandler said that there is a required mini-course for all RRC students on sexual boundaries.
"A lonely rabbi could make a mistake," she said. "It is crucial that rabbis know themselves and their own needs."
Students at Hebrew Union College, the rabbinical school for the Reform movement, said that HUC had never made it's policy on this issue clear to students.
It has "never been articulated by HUC that [living together before marriage] it's not appropriate," said fifth-year rabbinical student Scott Aaron.
Several HUC students agreed that it was an issue of modern times. Fifth-year rabbinical student Andrew Vogel called it "an issue in terms of wider cultural struggles that we're involved in as a society."
According to Vogel, this issue represents a "clash between traditional Jewish values and the struggles that we're going through in American society," but he asserted that rabbinical students should be allowed to live together whether they have plans to marry or not.
"Anyone who has chosen to live with a person in a romantic relationship is doing so in a framework of a relationship guided by some sort of commitment and some degree of holiness," Vogel said.
Aaron, who lived with his wife, also a rabbinical student, before they got married, agreed. For Aaron and his wife, paying two rents in New York City and footing the wedding bill was too expensive.
"For two Jews to live together with the intent of creating a marriage is acceptable," he said. He believes that rabbis should be "examples of morality in their community," but that they should not necessarily be held to a higher moral standard than the rest of the community. "Jewish commitment and honor - that's the key thing in our community."
Some JTS students, however, felt that Lebeau was trying to show that living together before marriage made the actual marriage less holy, whether or not the relationship was one of commitment and honor. Lebeau stated in the letter, "For the future rabbi to publicly diminish the sacredness of kedushin calls into question the rabbinical student's commitment to rabbinic teachings."
"The important issue is that relationships are an area where Judaism has a lot to say," said fourth-year rabbinical student David Lerner. "Relationships should ultimately have kedushah, an element of sanctification." Lerner also recognized this as part of the debate over how to reconcile modern times with commitment to halakhah, but he felt that living together had definite moral implications.
For students at both RRC and HUC, however, the issue is not an issue of morality, because both schools ordain gay and lesbian rabbis. JTS does not ordain gay or lesbian rabbis, and Lebeau asserted in his October paper that "A rabbinical student who engages in homosexual behavior should voluntarily withdraw from the rabbinical program."
Plevan denied that the issues are connected. "Whether or not gays and lesbians are admitted to rabbinical school is a separate issue from pre-marital sex or pre-marital living together," he said. "There doesn't have to be a connection."
Vogel, however, maintained that the ordination of gay and lesbian rabbis was a primary difference in the schools' opinions on this issue. Gay and lesbian rabbinical students in relationships can live together, even though they cannot be married legally. If a rabbinical school permits its gay and lesbian students to live together, then it must also permit living together before marriage for people of the opposite sex.
For many students, the issues raised by Lebeau's letter came down to the question of whether or not rabbinical students should live by different moral standards than other Jews. The letter only applied to rabbinical students, and therefore the unofficial policy does not affect to the majority of students at JTS, which includes undergraduates at List College, as well as graduate students in its Cantorial, Education, and Social Work programs, among others.
"The rabbinical school has always expected people to observe halakhah," said Plevan, "and part of observing halakhah is observing morals."
Lebeau maintained that his main purpose in writing the letter was to start a discussion "about whether a leader is different from someone else." Lebeau said that while living together before marriage is a "generally accepted practice in society today," it should not be an accepted practice for rabbinical students.
"An important person is different," he said, and therefore should be held to a higher standard.
"Rabbinical students should strive for a certain level of kedushah," Lerner agreed. "There is a need to set one's self apart."
Creditor, however, maintained that a rabbi should not be held to a higher moral standard than other Jews, but that "every Jew should be held to the standard that the rabbi is."
"A statement about a rabbi should be a statement about a Jew," he said.
Although the issue of living together may only affect a handful of students at JTS, it could have broader implications. As Conservative congregations become increasingly liberal, congregants will be less and less likely to condone the limits that JTS sets for its rabbis. B'nai Jeshurun's proposal was sparked in part by what Lebeau said in his letter about gays and lesbians and the rabbinate. It is possible that additional congregations may propose similar disjunction from the Seminary as their politics fail to accord with the strict observance of Jewish law that the Seminary purports to represent. The seminary's policies‹regarding gay and lesbian students in particular‹have already motivated many prospective JTS rabbinical students to receive their ordination at other seminaries, including RRC and HUC.
The struggle over morality and modernity is one that all rabbinical students face, regardless of the regulations of their particular seminary. And for many, taking morality seriously can be a double-edged sword. As one JTS student noted, łThese are not easy questions. But which is more immoral: to tell an engaged couple who live together that they are not living a life of kedushah, or that act of living together; to tell gay and lesbian Jews that they are not welcome in the rabbinate, or the ordination gay and lesbian rabbis?˛
Rebecca Phillips is a junior at Columbia University.