Changing Conditions in American Jewish Life Call for New Definitions. Demand at Rabbinical Assembly

(Jewish Daily Bulletin)

The issue of the so-called “Third Party” in American Jewish theological and congregational life was the subject of a broad discussion at the second session of the twelfth annual convention of the Rabbinical Assembly of the Jewish Theological Seminary here.

Although the meeting was in the nature of an executive session and no official statement was issued, the correspondent of the Jewish Daily Bulletin learned that the various trends among the rabbis affiliated with the Assembly were thoroughly debated with an effort to ascertaining the status of these rabbis and to obtain a definition for this type of Jewish ecclesiastics in relation to the ultra-Orthodox and the ultra-Reform.

Many of the leaders in the Assembly participated in the discussion. The debate was aroused by a paper read to the Assembly by Rabbi Israel Goldstein, who recently received the degree of Doctor of Hebrew Literature from the Jewish Theological Seminary. The paper was entitled “The Rabbinical Assembly–An Appraisal.” Rabbi Goldstein asserted that with the Reform congregations becoming more conservative and Orthodox congregations becoming more modern, a revision of the place of the Conservative party in the American Rabbinate is necessary.

“The Rabbinical Assembly has put Conservative Judaism into the field of American vision,” Rabbi Goldstein said. “Formerly that field was regarded as the exclusive preserve of Reform Jews. It used to be thought by the American public that there were two kinds of Jews: Ghetto Jews and Reform Jews, the latter adjective being taken as a synonym for American. Why was it so? Because Reform Judaism was the only Judaism which was organized and therefore visible and articulate. Now, however, thanks to the Rabbinical Assembly and the United Synagogue, the fiel is no longer monopolized by a minority section of American Israel and the position of Conservative Judaism is recognized and respected,” he declared.

“This point brings up consideration of a problem which to my mind is the greatest problem before us, namely our future position as the Conservative party in American Israel. Heretofore, our chief purpose as a conservative party has been to stem a tide, the tide of Reform. In fact, the very label. “Conservative,” probably originated as qualifying adjective with reference to Reform. Our role was essentially, I take it, to guard against the danger of unmodified reform, while accepting the principle of progress via interpretation.

“Under such circumstances, we could afford to be vague about the positive elements of our problem for there was indeed enough to do warn against the dangers of unmodified Reform which marched triumphant in this land. Now, however, there is a visible retrenchment in the ranks of the Reform movement in this country. The President of the Reform Seminary, in an address a year ago, said that the complexion of Reform Judaism in America will change and he indicated, as I recall it, that the change would probably take the form of a greater emphasis upon the beauty of ceremony in the synagogue and in the home.

“The dean of the Reform Rabbinate in a recent symposium on the subject of the perpetuation of Judaism was frank enough to confess that the Reform movement has erred in neglecting the elements of emotionalism in religion and paid a tribute to the spiritual power of the Orthodox mode of Judaism. In the same address he also acknowledged the importance of Palestine in the Jewish scheme, though consistent enough to disapprove of Zionism as a political movement.

“The two spokesmen I have cited,” Rabbi Goldstein continued, “are typical of a new attitude in American Reform Judaism which bids fair to retrace many of its steps. If it keeps up in this way, it may yet encroach upon what we are pleased to call Conservative Judaism and thus possibly dispossess us of a good portion of our rationale.

“On ther hand, there is the Orthodox party, which has become aggressive in recent years and is fast learning lessons of organization. Having sloughed off their mannerisms. having changed their vernacular from Yiddish to English, they now represent themselves as the exponents of the true American Judaism, the age-old Judaism which they claim can thrive in America as it has thrived in other lands. And, having learned the lessons of organization and of publicity, they are marching ahead with menacing strides. Thus, comes the danger of losing on both wings, on the right, on the left. Reform becomes chastened and Orthodoxy becomes preened.

“Indeed, there are some who are puzzled to understand wherein we Conservatives differ from this revamped Orthodoxy which permits decorum in the service and English in the sermon. There are men in the Rabbinical Assembly whose points of view and whose congregations would never be tolerated in the Orthodox Union. Nevertheless, are there not some men regarded as quasi-heretic by our own ecclesiastical authorities and have we not heard from our own Committee on Jewish Law that an organ and mixed pews are abnormal from the view point of the Rabbinical Assembly?

“It is a confusing situation.” he said. “which is bound to work to the detriment of the Conservative party. As Orthodoxy becomes more and more deghettoized and Reform becomes more and more Conservatized, what will be left for the Conservative Jew to do? How will he be distinguished from the other two? With both his wings substantially clipped, he will surely be in a precarious position. This is the problem which has troubled many and which I know troubles a number of you. The clarification of this problem is a legitimate item on the agenda of our conference. Why not give it full and frank discussion?” Rabbi Goldstein concluded.

An important feature in this discussion was the paper presented by Dr. Cyrus Adler, president of the Jewish Theological Seminary. In his paper, entitled “Seminary Training and After,” Dr. Adler urged the greater cultivation of Jewish scholarship and research work by rabbis. Laying emphasis on the scholarly achievements of the members of the Rabbinate, Dr. Adler also warned against over-indulgence in one aspect of the Rabbinate.

“We have no right to emphasize any particular ism at the expense of the universal obligations which are or ought to be inherent in all men who undertake to be religious guides. This is best done by example. No selfish man can preach unselfishness; no prevaricator can preach truthfulness; no intriguer can preach straightforwardness; no man can preach obedience who will not himself obey; he must be that which he wants other people to be. Self-cultivation of the noblest conduct and of the highest standards of honor should be what the Rabbi ought to strive to make himself, in order that he may make other men strive to be like him. This is in the last analysis the purpose of the seminary training of the rabbi and of his own self-training after,” Dr. Adler said.

In the course of his paper. Dr. Adler alluded to the recent attacks made on the rabbinate in certain intellectual quarters. “I have an idea.” he said, “that some of you have grown a little uneasy this year by reason of attacks made upon your own body and upon the clerical profession in general in publications that call themselves literature. This I would like to dispel from your minds. Your profession and yourselves are, of course, subject to criticism as are all other men. Remember what is sometimes said of lawyers. of bankers, of doctors or of politicians. Recall that they too have their special period of attack and that they usually do not go out of their way to defend themselves because the other people who attack them come to them whenever they need them, and this. I dare say, is also true in your own case,” he stated.

An interesting development occurred when the question came up of promulgating a pension plan for rabbis of the Rabbinacal Assembly, through a system of insurance. The report submitted by Rabbi Jacob Bosniak, of the Ocean Parkway Jewish Center, Brooklyn, cited the instances of many Christian denominations which have recently carried on a large campaign for securing pension funds to put into operation an insurance plan. He also quoted the plan of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations which will start operations at the beginning of 1928. This plan of the Union will be initiated due to the $100,000 fund left by the late Jacob H. Schiff for the purpose of insuring rabbis in their old age. It developed that the Rabbinical Assembly intends to claim a proportionate share of this $100,000, in view of the fact that the late donar of the fund did not intend to provide only for the rabbis serving under the Union of American Hebrew Congregations but for all rabbis in the United States.

Rabbi Norman Salit of Far Rockaway, L. L., reported to the Assembly on the work of the Placement Committee which collects data concerning vacancies in congregations and by conferences with congregation leaders, places graduates of the Seminary in rabbinical positions, thus avoiding rivalry among candidates.

A very interesting proposal is being discussed by the Assembly concerning the formation of a Committee on Jewish Law under the auspices of the Rabbinical Assembly. Preceding the discussion on this question. Professor Louis Ginsburg, one of the outstanding Talmudie authorities in the United States, delivered an address on the “Basic Conception of Jewish Civil Law.” According to Dr. Ginsburg, one of the basic conceptions of Jewish civil law is that law is not intended as a protection of the individual against society, as is contended by many modern schools. Jewish law, Dr. Ginsburg stated, is a medium of society to protect its interests and the development of the Jewish Alachah, both in natural processes of oral tradition and through the interpretation of the Bible, has this outstanding feature that when a law, because of changed conditions, becomes anti-social, it is modified to meet the interests of society.

In connection with the discussion on Jewish law, interesting papers by Norman Bentwich, Attorney General of Palestine and P. Dickstein, were read. the subject of the paper by Mr. Bentwich was “The Application of Jewish Law in Palestine” and the paper by Mr. Dickstein was entitled: “To What Extent is Jewish Civil Law Adapted to Modern Life in Palestine.”

This discussion took place under the chairmanship of Rabbi Israel H. Levinthal of the Brooklyn Jewish Center. Professor Israel Davidson, who recently returned from Palestine, spoke on “Some Elements in Jewish Life in Palestine.” He pointed out that certain features of Jewish life in Palestine at the present time point to an abnormal condition. This is caused by the fact that Palestine Jewry believes itself under the observation of world Jewry.

The Assembly adopted a series of rules concerning the admission of new members. The adoption of the rules was preceded by a heated discussion. According to the ruling promulgated the requirements for admission into the Rabbinical Assembly are of a two fold nature. The Rabbinical requirements constitute one of the following: a degree from a recognized rabbinical institution, proper selicha, or knowledge and attainments equivalent to the preceding requirements, this to be determined by a special committee. The secular requirements constitute a Bachelor’s degree from a recognized college or university or its equivalent as determined by the committee. A secular degree without other evidence of learning will not fill the requirements for admission. Other conditions are unimpeachable character, observance of Jewish ceremony, according with the principles of the Rabbinical Assembly and sponsorship of the candidate by Assembly members in good standing.

Terming the present immigration act as “dangerous and destructive,” former governor Edward C. Stokes, delivering the Fourth of July address at Ocean Grove, N. J., strongly assailed the present immigration laws.

He asserted that America must assume world leadership, due to the “breakdown of the British Empire,” or else the earth will be torn by wars and rebellions. This leadership must be achieved through friendship with other nations,” he said, “but we are insulting them by the brand of inferiority.”

“I don’t believe in unrestricted immigration, but neither do I believe we should regulate immigration by an arithmetical formula,” he continued. “What we need is selected immigration based on quality and not quantity.”