I believe Rabbi Creditor posted this before but I want to
respond to one line in this d'var Torah. Rabbi Creditor writes, "But I
am worried that a Conservative Rabbi's hesitation to perform the wedding
of someone who would fit into the category of Mamzer is, in truth, the
repudiation of the Conservative halachic approach." in response to the
2000 CJLS teshuvot on mamzerim (available online -- finally and I want
to commend the RA for finally taking this step and look forward to the
full list of current teshuvot going online for the public -- at
http://rabbinicalassembly.org/teshuvot/docs/19912000/spitz_mamzerut.pdf).

The CJLS, as a matter of current practice, lists the rabbinical (voting)
members of the Law Committee and their votes. This is a change from the
previous system of "Majority" and "Minority" opinions in which either
opinion was said to be "acceptable." (And, in fact, egalitarianism
started from a minority opinion, which later - due to sociological and
political as well as different halakhic reasoning - became a majority
opinion). Having said that, certain CJLS teshuvot are passed
unanimously, others unanimously not including abstentations. The teshuva
Rabbi Creditor is referring was, in fact, passed by an overwhelmingly
majority of rabbis BUT it was not a unanimous decision. It was passed
15-3 with 2 abstentations. The rabbis who voted against the teshuva
were: Rabbis Samuel Fraint (I don't know who this is), Mayer Rabinowitz
and Joel Roth. Abstaining (and I don't know why they abstained and, of
course, it is worth nothing that they formally abstained and did not
vote no) were Rabbis Vernon Kurtz and Avram Israel Reisner.

If Rabbi Creditor's comments means that any rabbi who accepts testimony
regarding mamzerut (it is worth nothing, btw, that the consequences of
mamzerut are incredibly serious and children of mamzerim can only marry
other mamzerim, hence there are some who would argue that it is far more
egregious ethically to permit the wedding of a mamzer which would put a
very unfair situation on their children, rather than not permit their
marriage. According to this view, the correct approach -- from an
ethical perspective -- is to do that which Rabbi Creditor opposes and
refuse to do the wedding of people who may be mamzerim. It is also worth
nothing that, since the teshuva is not universally accepted in the
entire Jewish world/klal Yisrael, it is possible that the wedding of
mamzerim and subsequent children can not be married in the State of
Israel, in an Orthodox community, or, of course, in certain Conservative
communities -- and the C movement's views might change in 20 years,
notwithstanding its current decline, which adds another factor into the
mix -- or, they might move to another country in which the Jewish
community holds a different view).

However, returning to my point above, I want to know if, according to
the quotation I noted above, is Rabbi Creditor claiming that Rabbis
Samuel Fraint, Mayer Rabinowitz (a noted JTS professor and halakhic
scholar), or Joel Roth (also a noted JTS professor and halakhic scholar)
(Rabinowitz and Roth's teshuvot are formally the teshuvot that govern
women as rabbis at JTS, btw) are somehow outside the purview of
Conservative halakha? What about the views of those rabbis who
abstained? Are they somehow outside the framework of Conservative
halakha or Conservative Judaism? Is a follower of Fraint, Rabinowitz,
Roth, (Reisner and Kurtz) someone who repudiates Conservative halakha or
otherwise outside of the framework of Conservative Judaism?

On a side note, does this mean that Rabbi Creditor is not advocating a
pluralistic movement or is anti-pluralism? (BTW, I don't neccessarily
think that is a bad thing). And, while I refer to Rabbi Creditor above
since I am quoting his words, I know he is not the only person who would
hold his views. I suspect, among others, JTS professors Drs. Neil
Gillman and Judith Hauptman hold similiar views.

What does this say about halakhic pluralism in the Conservative movement?

-Avi