Changes in Jewish Ceremonial and Domestic Law Demanded and Opposed at Rabbinical Assembly

(Jewish Daily Bulletin)

A movement to bring about a re-formulation of the cardinal principles of Judaism in accordance with present-day conditions and scientific knowledge, and at least to introduce changes into Jewish ceremonial and domestic law, is current among the rabbis affiliated with the United Synagogue of America, the branch of American Jewry known as the Conservative group.

This was clearly brought out in developments at the twelfth annual convention of the Rabbinical Assembly of the Jewish Theological Seminary in session for three days at the Hotel Clarendon Brunswick here.

This movement, which is strenuously opposed by some of the members of the Assembly, has created a condition due to which the Rabbinic body is divided into two distinctly opposing wings, one which might be termed the Right wing, and the other the Left of the Conservative party.

The major part of this conflict, recalling the conflict between the Fundamentalists and Modernists in non-Jewish denominations in this country, developed at a meeting which was held in executive session. Representatives of the press were asked to absent themselves from the session, when the delegates embarked upon a discussion on the proposal to create a Committee on Jewish Law under the auspices of the Rabbinical Assembly.

According to the proposal of Rabbi Jacob Kohn, reporting on behalf of a committee appointed at the previous convention, the Committee on Jewish Law is to be instituted for the purpose of receiving the queries of rabbis concerning the perplexing problems which confront them in their congregational leadership with regard to Jewish ceremonial law and which press for remedial action through changes and modifications. This Committee is also to be charged with the task of calling a special assembly to consider the proposed changes after a sufficient number of queries and opinions are received and considered by the Committee.

Behind closed doors the Assembly discussed the pros and cons of this proposal which led into a thorough debate involving the fundamentals of Jewish theology and the application of Jewish ceremonial law in the American environment.

It was learned that the two factions in the Assembly were under the leadership of Professor Louis Ginsburg, professor of Talmud at the Jewish Theological Seminary, and Professor Mordecai M. Kaplan, head of the Teachcrs Institute of the Jewish Theological Seminary, the former leading the group which opposes immediate modification and the latter leading what was termed the Liberal wing of the Assembly. This discussion, which lasted for several hours, resulted in no detinite action and it was learned that the proposal will be dropped for this session.

The controversy continued at this morning’s session when Rabbi Louis Finkelstein. vice-president of the Assembly, read a paper on “The Things that Unite Us.” In reference to the “things that unite,” Rabbi Finkelstein spoke of the practice adopted by many members of the Assembly in introducing changes in the congregational services and in the synagogue ceremonial. This innovation has met with the disapproval of other members of the Rabbinical Assembly, Rabbi Finkelstein outlined the following as the things which unite the membership: the conception of God, the attitude toward the Torah, attitude toward a change in ceremonial, attitude toward Israel, attitude toward the Hebrew language and loyaity to the Jewish Theological Seminary.

In his paper, Rabbi Finkelstein presented the principle of Conservative Judaism as expounded by the Seminary. The main features of this platform is the belicf that Judaism is an historically developing religion, which permits of continuous progress, a positive attitude toward the Jewish people although it rejects the super-nationalistic idea. This super-nationalism, Dr. Finkelstein termed similar to the Teutonic and Nordic superiority talk. Included in this platform are also a positive attitude toward the rebuilding of Palestine and the revival of the Hebrew language.

Speaking of the changes demanded in the ceremonial and domestic laws. Dr. Finkelstein, while terming these innovations unorthodox and untraditional, pointed to the fact that changes in Jewish law have heen made continually throughout all ages. Citing the example of the American Declaration of Independence, he stated that desirable revolutions are those which prove successful. He indicated that while the Assembly as a whole should not undertake the carrying into effect of the proposed changes, individual members are to be permitted to experiment.

This platform was contested by leaders of the Liberal wing which included Dr. Max Kadushin of Chicago. Rabbi Eugene Kohn, Rabbi Jacob Kohn, Dr. Goldman of Cleveland, Rabbi Norman Salit, of Far Rockaway and others.

The traditional wing was given vigorous support by Professor Louis Ginsburg who admonished the leaders of the Jiberal wing not to indulge in changes which at best would be recognized only by a small minority of the Jewish people. He urged that only rabbis of widely recognized authority will in due time be in a position to introduce the required changes in the Jewish ceremonial and domestic law.

The specific branches of the law which require modification were pointed to as the laws pertaining to divorce, inheritance and customs and usages pertaining to the service of the synagogue. Professor Ginsburg at one time vigorously opposed the reference to the Spinoza doctrine as a possible Jewish interpretation of the conception of God. “Since when has Spinoza become a saint of the synagogue?” he declared, interrupting Dr. Kadushin who spoke for the Liberal wing. Dr. Kadushin took issue with the definition concerning the conception of God offered by Rabbi Finkelstein.

“Metaphysical support for belief in God. though of paramount importance to the individual, can never become a matter of common agreement. Each thinking individual must find this support by taking thought with himself and his temperament. His knowledge of the physical universe and his academic contacts will influence his philosophic loyalty. It is futile, therefore, for us to attempt to arrive at a conception of God which will be distinctive enough to mark us off in that respect from Reform thinkers. Among the latter will surely be found men with whose philosophic tendencies some of us are more in sympathy than with those of some of our own men.” he stated.

Rabbi Kadushin also took issue with definition of the attitude toward the Torah and the Jewish ceremonial law. “Rabbi Finkelstein proposes that we accept both the written and oral law as binding and authoritative among ourselves and among our children after us. I confess that this statement I do not understand.” Rabbi Kadushin said. “Written and oral law if applied would govern directly and indirectly every possible action in a man’s life which includes the laws of sacrifice, and this statement would therefore commit us and our children in Palestine to restore the sacrificial system. Other matters such as tithes, laws of Levitical purity and impurity are in the same way binding and authoritative if we take this statement seriously,” he declared.

Rabbi Finkelstein defined the proposed platform of the Assembly. In speaking on the subject of the proposed changes he stated: “To change the established law even by interpretation without concerted action of widely recognized authorities is admittedly a revolutionary process, yet, first the purpose that fills the minds of all of us to maintain the Torah differentiates the suggested innovations and changes from Reform in which Judaism is reduced to a harmless and colorless monotheism. Secondly, Reform Judaism has yielded the marriage law and the Sabbath; the most rash among us has proposed only the abrogation of some customs, ceremonies and prohibitions that have arisen in the course of time, and of which the value is no longer evident to all. After all, the Resh Lakish did say: ‘Sometimes the transgression of part of the law is the saving of the whole of it.’ There is all the difference in the world between proposing a change in a single law for the sake of saving the Torah and a disregarding of the whole of the Torah.

“Still, it cannot be denied that the attitude of permitting changes in the usage of Israel for individual congregations and rabbis is unorthodox, untraditional and revolutionary. Revolution can be justified in only one wayby being successful. It was revolutionary for the Babylonian Amoraim to set themselves up as judges and rabbis without the traditional Palestinian Semicha; it was revolutionary for Rabbi Gershon to gather a synod for the purpose of making new enactments; it was revolutionary to write down the prayers and codify the law. All of these changes of which the least is far more radical than any proposed among us were justified by the fact that they helped to save Judaism in crucial periods. The necessity was recognized by Klal Israel and what had been a break with tradition became itself tradition. The American Declaration of Independence was adopted in violation of the established order, but that did not prevent its being the foundation of a new order in whose tradition it is the most cherished document. The will of the American people made regular what was essentially irregular and so the living will of the Jewish people has often made proper what was at first essentially improper.

“Pending such proofs of the value of such changes and pending their acceptance by all Israel, some of us prefer to stand aside and watch like Eliezar at the well ‘steadfastly holding our peace to know whether the Lord hath made their way successful or not.’

“We have, for instance, practically without exception permitted the change of our school curricula so as to emphasize the study of Hebrew as a living language rather than concentrate on mechanical reading and translation. Many rabbis permit the use of elevators in apartment houses and community centers on the Sabbath. Yet from the point of view of the letter of the Halaka, the practice can hardly be justified and is certainly more at variance from the codified tradition than the mingling of the sexes in the synagogue,” he declared.

“As to the proposed innovation and new interpretation whose value is still in doubt,” Rabbi Finkelstein continued, ” there is none of us so bigoted as to refuse to cooperate with those who are attempting them, provided always that the ultimate purpose of the change is to strengthen the attachment of Israel to the whole of the Torah and that it does not defeat its own end by striking at the fundamentals of Judaism. We could not countenance, for instance, the substitution of Sunday for the Sabbath as the main day of worship, although all of us have accepted the late Friday evening service without cavil.”

Formulating the attitude toward Palestine, Rabbi Finkelstein stated: “Our formula may be expressed thus: We want Eretz Israel established as a Jewish community; if possible as an autonomous one. We should like to persuade its present generation of colonists and workers that the interests of their people demand their observance of the Torah and the interests of truth their recognition of God. If our persuasion is of no avail, we, unlike all other religious groups who accept Zionism, are willing to trust the future to God and to his people,” he stated.

A very interesting feature of the convention was the banquet given Wednesday night at the Hotel Clarendon Brunswick in honor of the delegates on the occasion of the twentyfifth anniversary in the Rabbinate of the class of 1902 of the Jewish Theological Seminary. Rabbi Max Drob acted as toastmaster and the Hon. A. Harry Moore, governor of New Jersey, was the first speaker.

Governor Moore welcomed the delegates to the Assembly on behalf of the state of New Jersey with the Hebrew expression, Baruch Ha’ba (welcome). Governor Moore urged the rabbis to exercise their power in the direction of increasing the opportunities for religious training of the young. The governor was enthusiastically applauded by the delegates.

Dr. Cyrus Adler, president of the Jewish Theological Seminary, Herbert S. Golden, lay leader of the United Synagogue, Professor Mordecai M. Kaplan, who was the only representative of the class of 1902 present, and Rabbi Elias Margolin of Mount Vernon addressed the gathering.

Dr. Kaplan caused a profound impression on the audience in his address during which he reviewed the history of the American Jewish community for the past twenty-five years. He stated that the past quarter of a century could be rightly termed the era of organization and mobilization. During this time American Jews organized inwardly and outwardly, establishing their position economically and culturally. The next twenty-five years must be the era of thought, he stated. It is no secret that we are not socially or culturally adjusted, he said, urging the Rabbis to disregard the platitudes of the sermon in which the congregation is told that everything is well with American Jewry. Not everything is right, he declared.

Professor Louis Ginsburg, who was the last speaker, urged the Rabbis to address their attention to Jewish scholarship. Every new Jewish community in all countries has made its contribution toward Jewish literature and culture. What will be the contribution of American Jewry? he asked. He said that it is the responsibility of the American rabbi to pave the way for an American Jewish scholarly generation which will make its contribution in Jewish history.