1) On the One hand be firm with our Beliefs and Practices
2) On the other hand - Be open to extend a hand to those who - though far away now - are heading back in the Torah dicrection. [Shalom Shalom larachok v'lakarov...]

Rabbi Safran has apparently fulfilled both of the above. While remaining loyal and Torah-True, he sees the glimmer of light {pintele-yid perhaps?] amongst those who used to abandon Torah more completely.

And if I may add a third lesson - Torah Education will help lead the non-Observant to a higher Torah Consciousness. While indeed it may be forbidden to teach non-jJws Torah, there is no such prohibition [at least as far as I know] to teach the not-yet-Observant. Eventually, that education will lead to greater observance. Today - unlike say 180 years ago - most Reform Jews ignore Halacha because they are ignorant of Torah. With a more Torah-True prayer book, they may work their way back. And with proliferation of many user-friendly tomes - such as the Shottenstein Talmud this possibility is greater than ever before.

Kol Tuv
RRW

- would that it would be true that Orthodox were as concious of divine origin as RLO implies we are. i think he is right that the philosophical source of our rigourous devotion to ritual is that (academic) belief, but to imply that we are more connected in our day to day actions with our core philosphies than are Conservative or Reform is not obvious to me.

i think we have to distinguish between the reform movement and the yiden that comprise it. jet’s not forget that just because THEY labeled themslves something fancy and different, it doesn’t make them different. After all, we put no credence in that label. To us, yiden are yiden. I think RAS was referring to the neshomos underneath the movement.

It is not entirely naive.

A few years ago, the Reform movement agonized over updating its platform, something it does every few decades. One of the architects is a personal friend of mine. He struggled to be true to Reform “tradition,” while accomodating a changed outlook on Jewish tradition that he and others perceived.

His original draft contained references to Shabbos, Kashrus, and even Tarahas HaMishpachah - at least on a voluntary basis. It set off a firestorm of criticism and commentary. Many more drafts were offered before a compromise one was accepted, which softened but did not eliminate his input.

The process revealed a deep fissure in Reform ranks, with a new generation of rabbis much more inclined to explore tradition, although far removed from traditional attitudes towards that tradition.

I spoke with one of the Gedolei Hador at the time, who instantly saw the positive implications. If Reform Jews will be more open to exploring tradition, there is little question that a certain percentage, as individuals, will want to explore further and deeper. Some of those will make it back all the way. I have seen those people myself; they now daven in the same shuls that I do.

Years ago, Rabbi Shlomo Riskin made a point of attending the annual convention of the Reform rabbinic group, the CCAR. I’m not sure if I would have done the same, but that is not the point. Each year he went, he succeeded in striking up relationships with individual rabbis, whom he was later successful in bringing back to observance.

Bottom line: It may be naive to think that the Reform movement is going to turn around. It is not naive to note that there are new winds blowing, and that many individuals - and rabbis - could be brought further along, if we fashion our response correctly. We must become ro-im es hanolad.

When the Reform movement’s awareness of Judaism goes up another notch, it will have explain to many of its congregants how they can halachically convert to Judaism. Many of these won’t even know this is their personal matter of concern, thanks to past and present mumbo jumbo from Reform leaders.