Avot320

55:
Exile comes to the world because of idolatry, unchastity, bloodshed and the sabbatical year. It is well known that Judaism prizes life above almost all the mitzvot. Indeed, there are only three mitzvot for whose observance a Jew is required to yield up his life and suffer martyrdom rather than transgress them; and they are the three mitzvot that are mentioned in our present mishnah, idolatry, unchastity and bloodshed. (The tanna of our mishnah also mentions the sabbatical year, which is quite incongruous. Its inclusion here, in addition to the earlier reference in this same mishnah, seems to emphasize how problematic the observance of the shemittah year was even in tannaïtic times. The tanna emphasizes the mitzvah of shemittah and then re-emphasizes it. For our discussion on shemittah see Avot 314 and the following three shiurim.)

56:
In his great halakhic compendium, Mishneh Torah [Yesodé ha-Torah 5:1-2], Rambam makes the situation quite clear:

Rambam goes on to explain that this rule only applies in times of mass persecution and not in private circumstances. Nevertheless, it is clear that these three mitzvot are to be considered absolutely essential for Jewish ethical observance.

57:
According to the sages one cannot profess oneself to be an observant Jew if one transgresses one or more of these three cardinal mitzvot. To profess idolatry is a denial not only of the Torah itself but also of God. In the middle ages great rabbis questioned which of the other religions of the world were or were not idolatrous. Rambam, in North Africa, held that Islam was not idolatrous but Christianity was. Rabbenu Tam, Rashi's grandson in western Europe, held that Christians were not idolators.

58:
In our present context 'unchastity' means contravening any of the salient sexual unions forbidden in the Torah [Leviticus 18:6-23]. We discussed these forbidden unions in great detail when we studied Tractate Sanhedrin. [See Sanhedrin 091 and the following shiur.]

59:
'Bloodshed' in the context of our mishnah means the deliberate and unlawful taking of a human life. We discussed this matter in great detail when we studied Tractate Sanhedrin. The topic was raised so many times there that all I can suggest is that those interested use the search mechanism available on our homepage.

In Avot 318 we learned that the sword comes to the world because of … those who teach Torah improperly.

Ed Frankel writes:

I read your definition of what it means to improperly teach,and it brings to mind some of the most severe criticism of our Conservative Movement. Recently I had to confront members of my community's vaad kashrut. They questioned my frumkheit because I daven in a Conservative shul. They could not conceive of the notion that Conservative Jews practice the same halachot to which they adhere. One rav even told me that we believe halacha changes, while the Orthodox do not. I responded carefully, as my approval at that time had some significant ramifications for my congregation, that as Conservative Jews we adhere to the same halacha as he. Halacha does not change, but that our interpretation of halacha is far more fluid, so that our halachic conclusions may differ significantly from his. I referred him to classic books of our philosophy, including Waxman and Dorf, Siegal and others. Still, I could understand him. I know what it means to see us allow things that go so against his mindset that it seems we are teaching approval for acts that he would consider banned, and vice versa. It is very difficult, to say the least, to show that both this and that represent the words of our living God. BTW, he also told me that we have no status as we refute the notion of Divine revelation. I answered that I was not there when it happened, but I wholeheartedly believe in Torah miSinai, but I am just not sure of the process by which the Torah (including the Oral Law) were given to us then. I even showed him that as a Conservative Jew I have to believe in a Tushba with my Written Torah, as otherwise the whole thing often would just make not a whit of sense.

I respond:

This is a most important topic and I am delighted that it has been raised. I shall not here go into all the points raised in detail, but I shall relate to the main point which underlies the essential burden of Ed's message. It is probable that there are almost as many 'definitions' of Conservative Judaism as there are Conservative Jews, because, like every other stream, there is a wide range of observance and thought within the movement. What I shall write here is my own personal reaction to Ed's encounter.

Like most fundamentalist religious thought orthodox Judaism in the main sees itself as the sole champion of the one 'true' Torah and all other 'versions' of Judaism are invalid by definition. The more orthodox the person the less valid the other forms of Judaism. Actually, this is a gross distortion of true Judaism! It is my view that Conservative Judaism, when practiced reverently, sincerely and obediently is a very valid modern successor to traditional Judaism – which modern orthodoxy is not. (It is my view that modern orthodoxy is a deviation no less than Reform is a deviation from what was traditional Judaism.)

In the framework of a response to a comment I cannot do justice to my claim. However, in the pages of the Virtual Bet Midrash there is ample material to explain and justify this claim. I suggest to those interested that they read the essay which describes the origins of Conservative Judaism and its philosophic relationship to Orthodoxy and Reform. This essay is available in English here and in Hebrew here. Furthermore, for those who understand Hebrew, a lecture I gave on Pluralism in Halakhah is available here. I shall be happy to answer any comments and queries about these articles that are sent to me, and those that are relevant to Ed's message will be answered in the framework of these shiurim.