Digest of Public Opinion on Jewish Matters

[The purpose of the Digest is informative. Preference is given to papers not generally accessible to our readers. Quotation does not indicate approval.–Editor.]

A plea for a revision of attitude on the part of East-European Jews towards Reform Judaism is made in the “Day” (April 9) by Dr. S. Margoshes. editor of the paper, who comments on the occasion of the 20th anniversary since the founding of Rabbi Wise’s Free Synagogue. Dr. Margoshes expresses the conviction that the East-European Jews have misjudged the meaning and the purposes of Reform Judaism by applying to it the criterion of Eastern Europe.

“The reason,” he finds, “why we East-European Jews were never just to Reform Judaism, was because we could not forgive the German Jews the meagerness of their Jewish needs. Herein, however, lies an historic error. The Reform movement, which arose as an answer to the Jewish requirements of the time, cannot in all logic be held responsible for the particular causes which brought it into being. The only criterion applicable in this respect is the adequacy of the answer to the special needs, and no more. Everything else, I believe, is calculated to obstruct a clear appraisal of Reform Judaism. In other words: what we have to consider in Reform Judaism is the development of a definite type of Jew according to his own fashion, whereas what we have been doing was to judge the Reform movement as a proposed solution to our problem.”

Moreover, Dr. Magoshes thinks, the East-European Jews, particularly in America, could very well be more magnanimous “because our own Judaism, too, is quite a relative matter. In comparison with the German Jews in America our Jewishness is indeed rich, but how do we compare with the Jews of Poland, for example? And still poorer are we in comparison with Palestine Jewry. What value have our charity systems, our whole social work, our relief activities, our Zionism in the light of the full, normal Jewish life being woven in Palestine? But we have an answer, and it is this: in America, where the conditions are not so conducive to the maintenance and development of traditional and national cultural Judaism, we have create whatever we could and have established so far as possible a Judaism that is in accord with our new environment. If the result is not so very admirable according to the standards of Poland and Palestine–the fault is not ours. In view of this, why not be more considerate toward Reform Judaism, which is, after all, no more and no less than another compromise with the environment and an expression of the limited Jewish needs of a considerable Jewish group?”

Referring to the argument that Reform Judaism is too radical, having abandoned nationalism and the old traditions, and is not in a position to give life to a new generation, Dr. Margoshes remarks: “This argument which is based not so much on the weakness of Reform Judaism as on its hopelessness, is fundamentally false and should not be made by us whose Judaism frequently has difficulty in retaining its own life breath. For it certainly has not yet been proven which of our Jewish groups in America is the more childless, we or they, which of us are losing more ground from under our feet by the loss of the young generation. If figures could be compiled on this subject, I am afraid it would appear that more children of orthodox and nationalist, or national-radical, homes leave Judaism entirely than children from Reform homes regarded as nests of assimilation. At any rate, the fact is that Reform Judaism in America has succeeded in surviving three-quarters of a century, and, so far from losing its original powers its prestige has risen and it has gained many members and followers from our own ranks. Of all the movements brought over to America by the Jewish immigrants only one has struck root and that is. Reform Judaism. Pragmatically, at least, it has justified itself more than any of the other movements.”