Samuel Hellmasf is Professor of Sociology at Queens College and theGraduate Center of the City Universityof NewYork He is the author of Synagogue Life, The People of the Book, the Gate Behind fhe Wall and the forthcoming A Walker in Jerusalem, as well as numerous reviews and articles, including two major studies on the Jewish Family and Jewish Education.

American Jewish Disunity: An Overview was prepared by Pro- fessor Heilman for the American Jewish Congress,for release at its Biennial National Convention, March 16-19,1986.

individual Copies: $2 AMERICAN JEWISH DISUNITY: AN OVERVIEW Samuel Heilman

"Split Widens on a Basic Issue: What is a Jew?" read the front page headline of the New York Times on Februa~y28, 1986. The article that followed, written by Joseph Berger, went on to report that "the polemics have been marked by uncommon bitterness." It quoted a variety of rabbis and Jewish leaders who warned that "the dispute could result in deep and enduring divisions in the Jewish community," a schism that might ultimately lead to one group questioning the other's Jewishness, in the possibility that family pedigrees would be scrutinized by the more obser- vant before they would allow "a son or a daughter to marry a less traditional Jew," in more restrictive and selective admission standards to Jewish day schools and summer camps, and even erosion in the general Jewish support for Israel. While the article went on to quote some students of Jewish life, among them sociologists and rabbis, who minimized the forebodings of perma- nent disunity and down-played the prospects of growing and unbridge- able divisions within the American Jewish community, the overall thrust of the report, and what made it "front-page news", was the ominous pros- pect thatwas perhaps articulated best in a quotation from Haskel Looks- tein, president of the New York Board of Rabbis, who suggested: "The extremism that manifests itself on both sides threatens to isolate Jew from Jew and to rend the fabric of Jewish peoplehood so that we will no longer be one people." Or as Rabbi Irving Greenberg a liberal Orthodox thinker, cautioned: "you have a situation ripe for schism." To be sure, the New York Times article was not the first but only the latest report of such internal Jewish disunity. There have been others in practically every Jewish newspaper, periodical and journal over the last few years, while hardly a Jewish gathering or rabbi has missed a chance to explore the matter. And, because, as writer Albert Goldman once put it, "the Jews have always been students, and their greatest study is them- selves", there will undoubtedly be no early end to the discussion While no single document can hope to put the matter of Jewish schism and disunity to rest, an overview which goes beyond the passions or beyond the passions or rhetoric of the moment and subjects the matter of Jewish sectarianism to study and analysis can contribute to a better understanding of the facts and help in assessing the consequences as well as suggesting what if any action can be taken to mitigate disunity. That is what these pages hope to do. Specifically, this report will address a number of questions, the answers to which should offer some light on the vexing matter of Jewish disunity. These questions ask What separates or threatens to divide Jew from Jew? Where, precisely, are the lines of fracture along which some argue the Jewish community is breaking apart? How deep are the divisions? Are they permanent or is there a chance that they will be bridged over time or by the changing circumstances of Jewish life? To answer these questions, it is necessary to go beyond uncovering the current disunity that exists among Jews. We must also examine history to discover if disunity is a new phenomenon, a threat unlike any that has confronted Jews before, or whether there are parallels to it in the Jewish past This is not simply an academic question, for if indeed the danger of schism has confronted Jews before, there is much to be learned from the way that threat was resolved. History is after all not only the great teacher; what is past can often be prologue, and a knowledge of history may some- times offer a vision for the future. There are sociological questions to be asked as well. If there is in fact a rift among Jews, is itgrowin& shrinking or simply remaining unchanged? That numbers of Jews are expressing concern about divisions within Jewry seems obvious, but are these voices harbingers of increasing dangers or do they simply cry the loudest? Are there other voices, perhaps not as strident or histrionic who hold out hope for unit$ And beyond the voices, what are the facts? Where is the evidence of either unity or disunity7 Finally there is the question of the consequences. What will follow from the facts? If disunity is growing and schism imminent, what will that mean for the future of the Jewish community, for Jewish survival? And even if an unbridgeable rift is not likely, what might be brought about by the fears of it? Do such fears become self-fulfdling prophesies, making unity all but impossible? Is there a need to sound an alarm? If so, what action, if any, should be taken to insure a secure future for JewOr, more simply, what is to be done in light of the facts? Let us turn then to these four general questions: (I) What are the divid- ing lines? (2) Has there been disunity like this before? (3) What are the likely consequences of disunity? (4) What can or should be done in res- ponse and what might the future bring? (1) What are the dividing lines?

Conversion and Patrilineal Descent

The immediate issue dividing Jews appears to focus around the question of "who or what is a Jew?" The matter of Jewish definition has undoub- tedly become problematic because of a striking rise in the frequency of intermarriage .between Jews and non-Jews. This increasing rate-ranging from approximately 25% on the average for American Jews to close to 40% in many communities, and in some places as high as 70%-has had several consequences. First, and most obviously, it has yielded a genera- tion of children who have one parent that was not born a Jew, and who in only some cases (21%, as reported in a recent study of intermarriage by sociologist, Egon Mayer) has been converted to Judaism. If the non-Jewish parent is the mother, then according to halacha(Jewish law), the offspring is not Jewish. Secondly, where mixed marriages do lead to conversion, these conversions are not always carried out according to the most rigorous standards of Jewish law. In such cases, the convert (either a parent or a child or both) may not be considered a Jew by those who adhere to a strict interpretation of the law. Compliciting the matter even further are several social factors. In their recent book, The Transformation of the Jews,Calvin Goldscheider and Alan Zuckerman, articulate these clearly: "Many intermarried Jews take part in nal life. Many, if not most, have Jewish friends and family ost retain residential, occupational, and educational bonds &th other Jews. Many non-Jews married to Jews develop bases of com- and are part of the Jewish community." Simply stated, this erson raised as a Jew and tied to a network of Jewish who belongs to a synagogue or gets a Jewish ted Jewish Appeal or identifies with the des- consider him or herself Jewish, regardless of whether he or she meets the Jewish legal, halachic, demands for inclu- ewish community. Thus, for example, a child with a ewish mother but a Jewish father who has been brought up in a ultural and social environment attended the synagogue, received rt of Jewish education, and even had a bar or bat mitzva, might r him or herself a Jew, even though by the strict rules of the

nally, someone born a non-Jew who enters the social and cultural of Jewish life, either through marriage to a non-Jew or on his or her a convert. As a neophyte to Judaism, the new- ay often choose to enter through the path of least resistance- a1 that makes minimal demands upon him convert becomes even more socially aligned valved with the Jews. While from the social point of view, such tion appears to suggest a successful assimilation and demonstrates

1 the capacity of the Jewish community to handle the potentially effects of intermarriage and conversion, it creates or fosters, pro other domains. Among these are the divisions between those on on who accept the legitimacy of socially based definitions of Judais who seek to make entrance into Jewish communal life untrouble those on the other side who are concerned with maintaining the int of the boundaries between Jews and others. Thus, the convert wh come into Judaism without undergoing the rigors of a traditional co sion under the auspices of an Orthodox Jewish court (beit din) m stunned to discover that the legitimacy of his or her conversion is tioned by some segments (notably, the Orthodox and some Conserv Jews) of the community. Or, the child of a mixed marriage who has raised as a Jew, but whose mother has converted by a process other t the most stringent one, may be dismayed to fmd out at some point in that his or her Jewishness is called into question by more traditiona oriented members of the Jewish community. Complicating these divisions even further are political issues. Wit America, the long-lasting and deep-seated rivalries among the vari movements-Orthodox, Conservative and Reform-for the mantl American Jewish religious and spiritual leadership has among o things led to struggles over determining the definition of who and wh Jew is. In light of the growing attachments between Jews and non-J each sect of Judaism, through its rabbis and leaders, has made claims th assert its right to define and convert Jews. On the one end are the Orthodox who point to their devotion to Jewish law and their apparent continuity with tradition as the source for the legitimacy. The fact that they still use the same criteria for defining a Jew that have been used for generations and that have been incorporated into the codes of Jewish law is presented as the basis of their claim for legitimacy. As one Orthodox rabbi put it: "Every religious group has its standards for admission, no less we Jews whose guidelines are from Sinai" (Jmkh Obserwr, February, 1986). On the other extreme are the Reform who argue in favor of a delinitio that recognizes social realities, that confronts the fact that Jews are increasingly involved with non-Jews, and therefore calls for a definitio that allows for the maximum integration possible. This means maki conversion procedures less restrictive and more supportive and allowi for patrilineal as well as matrilineal lines of Jewish descent, a decision th the movement formalized in 1983. Somewhere in the middle stand the Conservative Jews who seek to co ply with the standards of the past with regard to defining Jews, to be c servative in making changes, but who have nonetheless accepted principle that, as sociologist Marshall SMare in his analysis of Conserv tive Judaism has put it, "changes in Judaism have their origin in chan in the lives of Jews." They are thus caught between an attachmen traditional Jewish law and a desire to be in tune with contemporary nee

4 of American Jewry. While prepared to struggle with the social realities of intermamage, they are nevertheless unwilling to make what they view as radical changes in Jewish tradition. "I think [that accepting patrilineal descent is] a fundamental rupture with the idea of a Jewish community and communal responsibility ought to prevent us from rupturing that unity," said the newly appointed chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, Ismar Schorsch. The Conservative dilemma is that the Jewish community to which they remain attached is not a monolith; to some of its adherents stability and loyalty to the past are essential while to others communal responsibility specifically encourages change.

Why the Increasing Concern?

The matter of who and what is a Jew has become of increasing concern and a matter of public debate in the last number of years because of several factors: (1) The rise in the rate of intermamage from around 10%to 15%in the 1950's to 25% or more in the 1970's and 1980's has alarmed Jews. (2) The offspring of mixed marriages occurring during the 1950's and 1960's are now coming of age, marrying and taking their places in the Jewish community. (3) Orthodoxy, while not sigdicantly increasing its demographic share in American Jewry (whose population of 5.6 million is reported to be about 10% Orthodox, 33% Conservative, 23% Reform, and 35% unaffiliated but still identified as Jewish) has begun to feel an increased sense of security about its position in America. It has not disap- peared as many analysts a generation ago said it would; its adherents have acquired* a modicum of financial and professional success, reflected in increased political power within Jewish life; its religious and educational institutions are flourishing, often encouraging a traditionalist (sometimes called "right wing") swing among many who attend or have attended them; and it can point with triumph to numbers of newly Orthodox Jews (baaley t'shuva) who are rejecting assimilationist trends and choosing traditional Judaism as a way of life. Accordingly, Orthodoxy is publicly challenging assirnilationist and integrationist moves made by other Jews. (4) The rise of Orthodox power in the Israeli Likud government of Menachem Begin and the consequent hold this has had on defining Judaism there, coupled with greater American Jewish involvement with Israel (whereas prior to 1967 relatively few American Jews had direct con- tact with Israel, since that date the number has increased dramatically) has brought the Israeli parliamentary question of "who is a Jew?" to this country. (5) The 1983 decision by the Reform movement to recognize pat- rilineal Jewish descent stimulated debate and discussion among American Jews. (6) Finally, the recent study of intermarriage and the Jewish future sponsored by the American Jewish Committee and carried out by Egon Mayer dramatically shed light on the facts which could no longer be ignored: Jews were marrying non-Jews in greater numbers and converts as well as offspring from mixed marriages and conver- sionary ones were an established part of the American Jewish community. The widespread dissemination of the findings throughout Jewish and non-Jewish media simply reinforced and focussed public awareness on the issues. Yet if the matter of converts and offspring of intermarriage appears to divide American Jewry, they are by no means the only bones of conten- tion. A comprehensive look at the grounds of American Jewish disunity reveals a series of other points of conflict

B. Divorce

Among the matters dividing Jews from one another is the matter of divorce. Although Jews have enjoyed a reputation for stable marriages, there has been an increasing incidence of separation and divorce among them. In 1971, the National Jewish Population Survey found that among the 25 to 29 year old group, 15% of all the households were separated or divorced. In the last twenty-five years, the Jewish Family Service caseload of divorce has grown from 5% to 30%. And while the general American population approaches a 50% divorce rate, the Jewish one, although lag- ging behind, continues to grow. Still American Jews remain committed to marriage and the family, and they therefore tend to remarry in high numbers (indeed, more than other American religious groups). More than 50% of all divorced Jewish wbmen remarry within five While the Jewish law with regard to marriage is relatively flexible, divorce is a far more complex matter. Under the halacha, only a woman who has received a valid get (bill of divorcement), usually executed through1 the auspices of a Jewish court of law(beitdin), is legally entitled to remarry. Should a Jewish woman remarry without such a valid get, her new marriage would, in the eyes of those who accept the authority of the halacha, be adulterous. Moreover, should she have a chid from that new union, that child would, again in the eyes of those bound by the halacha, be considered illegitimate, a mamzer. In Jewish law, a mamzer may not marry a Jew. Nor may ten generations of offspring of a marnzer marry Jews. To many, if not most, Orthodox Jews, civil divorces and those carried out through the aegis of non-Orthodox institutions are invalid Conse- quently, all subsequent marriages and births lead to a population of peo- ple who are written out of the Jewish community as far as these Orthodox Jews are concerned As one rabbi has expressed the problem: "Among the major tragedies of our Americangolus [exile] are the common occurrence of second marriages without benefit of a get. . . resulting in the prolifera- tion of mamzerim . . . ." And thus divorce becomes, not only a probjem for the Jewish family but a source of disunity in the Jewish community. C. The Status of Women in Judaism

While not nearly as divisive as the matters of conversion, patrilineal descent, or divorce and remarriage which, some believe, may lead to structural rifts among Jews such that members of one group will find themselves unable to marry members of the others without com- promising on their principles, there are other lines of cleavage in the American Jewish community. Few matters have so exercised the American Jewish community &an has the matter of the status of women in Judaism. Although this is not the place to review the entire debate or the course of its development, it must be pointed out that in the last century and even more during the last fiteen years, the traditional role of women in Judaism has undergone profound change. These changes have more or less paralleled the transformations in the status of women in the host societies of the west, within which most Jews reside. The keynote of that change has been the evolution of women from a subservient to an equal position with men Among the non-Orthodox, this has resulted in offering women most if not all the same rights and privileges that Judaism has accorded to men Although the effect of change among the Orthodox has been far less com- prehensive and sweeping, it can be discerned nevertheless. In Orthodox circles, including even the most uncompromising, the rising importance of women is reflected in the nearly universal acceptance of the principle that Jewish women should be provided intensive and advanced Jewish educa- tion like the men, something that in the past-before the opening of the Sara Schnirer Beth Jacob schools for girls in this century and the expan- sion of day school education in post-war America -was largely unthink- able. But this change in the status of Orthodox women is symbolically far less than the non-Orthodox demand Accordingly, the status of women in Judaism has become a matter of dispute in the American Jewish community. The schismatic effect of this debate grows out of two symbolic issues: (1) the counting of Jewish women along with men as part of the minyan [quorum] for prayer, and (2) the ordination of women rabbis. Both of these options have been rejected by Orthodoxy and accepted by all other sects, although with some resistance among the traditionalist wing of Conservative Jewry. Accordingly, these two points have become part of the ideological line dividing Jews.

D. Kashrut

Without reviewing the massive and complex laws of kashrut [Jewish dietary laws], it is nevertheless possibk to assert without doubt that American Jews are split over the matter of what they may or may not eat In some cases, Jews will consume only foods that are certified kosher, while in others Jews will eat foods of all types. Ironically, although in their origins adherence to the dietary laws served to differentiate Jews from non-Jews, today the practice of keeping kosher has also come to separate some Jews from other Jews. Moreover, since the certification of "kosher," while subject to far greater consensus today than in the early days of the American Jewish community, is by no means universally agreed upon, even among those who keep kosher, there are divisions as to what con- stitutes completely kosher behavior. Such differences have also led to rifts such that one group will often not eat in the homes of another which does not share its definition of what is and is not kosher. Although not as dramatic a division as that concerning who is a Jew or whom one may many, this separation of the kosher and the trefe (unkosher) represents a real and undeniable source of Jewish disunity.

E. Jewish Sectarian Affiliation

Another major split among Jews concerns the matter of Jewish affdia- tion. As already noted, the single largest segment of American Jewry, according to figures gleaned by Egon Mayer and supported by other sur- veys, notably those of sociologists Steven M. Cohen and Paul Ritterband, are the unaffdiated: those who are"just Jewish." Many, if not most of these latter Jews are not members of Jewish organizations-including syn- agogues. Many have not been to Israel nor do they affiiate themselves to the community by giving to Jewish causes. This significantly differentiates them from the 65% of the remaining Jews, who are themselves divided in their affdiations. While it is not necessary here to articulate all the nuances of difference among Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews, suffice it to say the dif- ferences are real. With origins in the nineteenth century communities of Germany, when some groups looked to integrate themselves wholehear- tedly with society outside the Jewish one while others resisted some of the trends of this assimilation, these sectarian lines have deepened into cleavages and become part of contemporary American Jewish life. The issues of the dispute among the sects have varied since the early days, but its basic outlines remain the same: isolation and separation, with an unwillingness to adapt to change on the one extreme; integration and assimilation, with a desire to accommodate to new realities on the other- and in between a desperate search for a middle road, a synthesis. These differences are supported by a wide array of separate organizations. There are separate rabbinical seminaries and associations, unrelated networks of synagogues and voluntary associations, camps, youth movements and the like. While there may be some ambiguities at the borders between one sect and another, with liberal or modem Orthodox Jews and traditionalist Conservative Jews or liberal Conserva- tive and traditionalist Reform Jews being closer to one another than their formal affiliations would suggest Jews in America have generally come to think of themselves as bound to these movements to the extent that they consider these as denominations of their Judaism. To complicate matters even further, the denominations have in some cases come into political conflict in the struggle of each to speak for all of Jewry. The results of these denominational labels has been to create intra-denominational solidarity on the one hand but inter-denominational hostility on the other.

F. Jewish Education

A final major line of cleavage among Jews concerns the matter of Jewish education. Essentially, addition to the option of having no Jewish education (something- that is true for about a third of American Jews), there are two general patterns of Jewish education in America: (1) intensive and (2) intermittent Those who select intensive Jewish education may send their children to day schools which combine, more or less equally, secular and religious curricula in the context of a totally Jewish environment Or, alternatively, they may choose to send their children to a yeshiva, where the emphasis is predominantly on religious studies and particularly on Talmud, with secular education often limited only to what the state minimally requires. (Although some day schools use the term "yeshiva" in their names, yeshivas are-at least in the original meaning of the term-academies for intensive talmudical study.) Because students in these yeshivas and day schools spend their entire school day with other Jews, and for the most part (excluding certain mem- bers of the staff) only with Jews, and because the Jews with whom they spend time very often come from similar denominational backgrounds, the school becomes a kind of breeding ground for perpetuating the com- munity it serves. Thus, the modem Orthodox go to school with other mod- em Orthodox. In the Conservative Day school a parallel situation exists. Presumably in the newly organized Reform Jewish day schools, this pat- tern will be repeated And yeshiva students spend the day with people who share their worldview. While the manifest goals of day schools and yeshivas are to provide their students with an intensive Jewish education, they at the same time inevitably foster parochialism -and support sec- tarianism, making their graduates feel more secure and at home with others like them than with those who do not share the same religious perspectives on life. Concomitantly, they make them ill-at-ease or at the very least unfamiliar with those who are different In America, intermittent Jewish education is made up basically of after- noon or Sunday schools. It is supplementary Jewish education for young Jews who get their secular education and spend more of their time in a public school (or in some cases a private school under non-Jewish aus- pices). Although it was not always so (especially when afternoon schools provided a five-day-a-week program and day schools were few in num- ber), students who today attend supplementary Jewish schools come mainly from families who are less involved in or committed to the idea of Jewish education than those who attend day schools or yeshivas. Because the schools offer less class time, the students receive less instruction and often know less. Moreover, their perspective on the substance of Jewish education is significantly different from and less comprehensive than the one shared by young people who have had a day school or yeshiva back- ground. Finally, because students in supplementary Jewish schools are also in a non-Jewish school setting for their secular education and necessarily spend a large bulk of their school time with non-Jews, they would logically be likely to grow up with a less insular attitude toward those different from them. In principle, these factors will undoubtedly pre- pare the ground for a sense of distance in adulthood from those who received a more intensive Jewish education, and in turn from those Jews who are consequently more attached to Jewish life along with a con- comitantly greater tolerance for non-Jews. Although there is no definitive evidence that these varying educational experieilces lead to these effects, that intensive Jewish education leads to a greater sense of attachment to Jews than does intermittent or no education, there are strong associations that point in that direction. Obviously those who receive no Jewish education-children of the unaffiliated-might be expected to feel even more distant both from Jews in general and from those who received a more comprehensive and inten- sive Jewish education And thus one of the by-products of the patterns of Jewish education (or lack of it) in America is the perpetuation of division among Jews.

The Orthodox versus the Non-Orthodox

Considering all these divisions among Jews, one might be tempted to conclude that at bottom all the rifts are between Orthodox and Non- Orthodox Jews. Undoubtedly, there are such divisions. In a recent survey, Steven M. Cohen and I found that no more than 41% of Orthodox Jews strongly agreed with the statement "an Orthodox Jew can be close friends with Jews of all degrees of religious observance." Even among those Jews who might be characterized as less parochial, "Modem Orthodo~"75% admitted that all or most of their close friends were also Orthodox (among the more traditionalist Orthodox the number jumped to 96%). And when asked how close they. felt to other Orthodox Jews, over 90% said they felt either very or somewhat close, but no more than 59% had those feelings of closeness toward non-Orthodox Jews. Finally, while over 85% of Orthodox Jews overwhelmingly admitted to feeling very or somewhat similar to other Orthodox Jews, no more than 43% felt equal degrees of similarity to non-Orthodox Jews. Nor is it unusual to find statements from Orthodox rabbis and leaders such as one made last year by Rabbi Nisson Wolpin, editor of the Javish Observer, that "secularists, atheists, Reform and Con- servative 'believers' who reject entire segments of the Torah, Written and Oral [are] all responsible for leading away hundreds of thousands of Jews from belief, under the guise of conserving Jewish values," On the other side, a recent Dahaf poll in Israel found that only 19% of the Jews it polled described Orthodox Jews favorably; 25% called them "opportunists, liars and charlatans." Nor is it extraordinary to read statements such as one by Rabbi Alexander ~chindler'ofthe Reform Union of American Hebrew Congregations blaming "Orthodox zealots" for establishing a divisive "selecting process" to separate Jew from Jew. Yet to suggest that sectarianism is simply a division between the Orthodox and the non-Orthodox is less than accurate. First, as already indicated, there are Conservative Jews who are divided on some of these issues, with some leaning one way and others another. Hence, in some cases there are not two positions-pro and con-but three: for, against, and sometimes-for-and-sometimes-against Second, the Orthodox are not a monolith; they are often deeply divided among themselves. Some Orthodox Jews, notably those who have come to be called "Modem Orthodox," have sought rapprochement with their non-Orthodox counterparts. There are numerous examples where that has occurred: the presidents of the Conservative Rabbinical Assembly and the Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America exchanged platforms at each others' conventions; Rabbi Louis Bemstein, president of the Orthodox group, was reported by the New York Times to have said that cooperative ventures between the Orthodox and Conservatives in this country deserved further study. In Denver, Orthodox, Conservative and Reform rabbis cooperated in the granting of conversions to those who sought to enter Judaism. Some Orthodox have affdiated their synagogues with the interdenominational Synagogue Council of America. Increasing numbers of Orthodox Jews sit on Federation committees with non- Orthodox Jews. Many Orthodox institutions have been assisted finan- cially with money from non-Orthodox Jews, while signifxcant numbers of Orthodox Jews serve as teachers in non-Orthodox institutions for Jewish education Clearly, in some quarters of Orthodoxy there is an attitude that dis- courages Jewish disunity. In the words of Rabbi Reuven Bulb of Con- gregation Machzikei Hadas in Ottowa: "If the Orthodox stubbornly insist that Conservative and Reform Jews are out of the pale, their casting off will become a self fulfilling prophecy, and Orthodoxy will be party to, and at least partially responsible for, a mass defection from Jewish ranks." Indeed, the rifts within Orthodoxy between the Modems and the Traditionalists are at least as wide, if not wider, than the divisions between the Orthodox and the non-Orthodox As one analyst of Orthodoxy, Mar- vin Schick, once put it: "Quite a few leaders of the Orthodox left seem more uncomfortable at meetings with belligerent right-wingers than they are when they get together with non-Orthodox leaders who eat with uncovered heads...." And by now everyone is familiar with the bitter divisions among various Hasidic groups. The brawls on New York city streets between Belzer and Satmar Hasidim were widely reported in the media, while the ongoing rivalry between Lubavitcher and Satmar Hasidim have also been expressed in public and are among the bitterest divisions on the contemporary Jewish scene.

A Clash of Worldviews

Given the complexity of the picture, what then are the real dividing lines. A careful and objective analysis suggests that what basically divides Jews are competing worldviews which, although associated with the mat- ter of Orthodoxy and non-Orthodoxy, go much deeper. Only by understanding the division in these terms can one explain the rifts within Orthodoxy and the ambiguities of those Jewish groups who find them- selves in the middle between the extremes. And what are those worldviews? Put most simply, one worldview seeks to prevent all change while the other encourages or embraces change. Both views, however, remain convinced that they will insure the survival of Judaism and the Jews-a goal that all appear to share. Among Jews, the famous slogan of Rabbi Moses Sofer, the 19th century Hungarian rabbi that "the new is prohibited by the Torah," epitomizes the view that opposes all change. From this perspective, anachronism is the first principle of order, and yesterday is more important than today or tomorrow for it is the repository of all authority, the treasury of all wisdom In this worldview, change is suspect and ultimately threatens to erode Judaism. The new is never improved; the old is always time-honored and favored. The enemy to those who hold this point of view is anyone or any- thing that encourages or embraces change. And sometimes the most dangerous enemy seems to be the neighbor, even more than some distant and different Jew whose life orbit never touches mine. On the other side is the worldview that says that those who fail to adapt and change will become fossilized and covered by the sands of time. The view from here is that reform, reconstruction, and liberalization are all necessary responses to change. In the end these adaptations are judged vital to the future of American Jewish existence. Anyone who rejects change and refuses to adapt to changing conditions is considered a threat to the progress of Judaism and in the final analysis an obstacle to Jewish su~val. (2) Has There been Disunity like this. Before?

There is a well-known Jewish joke about the Jew on a desert island who builds two synagogues: one he goes to and one he does not What makes this joke so familiar to Jews is the truth embedded in the humor. Disunity and the threat of schism have been companions to Jewish existence from almost the very beginning. A brief look at some of the major divisions is instructive.

The Biblical Period

Even before the Israelites had completed their wandering through the Sinai wilderness the Bible reports that Moses' cousin, Korach, mounted an insurrection. Or, as the commentator Onkelos explains: "he separated himself from the rest of the congregation to establish dissension." After Korach's revolt, although there were uprisings against King David's rule, perhaps the best known schism of the Biblical period was the one that led to the division of Israel into two kingdoms: Judah and Benjamin on one- side and the remaining ten tribes on the other.

Pharisees and Sadducees and the Talmudic Period

The opposition between the Pharisees and Sadducees in ancient Pales- tine is a familiar episode in Jewish history. The latter differed from the Pharisees chiefly in that they espoused a literal interpretation of the Bible, rejected the oral laws and rabbinic traditions and denied the ideas of an afterlife and the coming of a Messiah. So vituperative did the division grow that it was possible for the Talmud (Eruvin 68b) to quote Rabbi Yehuda who declared, "a Sadduccee is nothing but a non-Jew." Although this judgment was made in a limited context, it points to the depth of divi- sion between the two groups. In a famous Mishna in Sanhedrin (90a), the rabbis assert "Every mem- ber of the congregation of Israel has a place in the world to come." And then they proceed to enumerate a list of those who do not, dissenters who could no longer be considered part of Israel: those who do not believe that the resurrection of the dead and those who deny the divine origins of the Torah. To this list, the sage Akiva added several others. Undoubtedly, this was not simply an academic discussion; there were people and groups the rabbis had in mind The sages argued about the acceptability of converts as well. The dis- pute (Berachot 28a) between Rabbi Joshua and Rabban Gamaliel about whether or not a certain Judah the Ammonite could in fact become a Jew is perhaps the most famous. One school of thought accepted him (and pre- sumably his offspring) into the Jewish people; the other did not And there were often crucial differences between Babylonian and Palestinian Jews. Thus, for example, the scholar Joel Mueller reports that the two groups differed on whether or not a ring could effect kiddushin (marriage), whether or not one could carry money on the Sabbath- Babylonians did; Palestinians did not-and whether or not a widow could remarry without halitza, the ritual of renouncement that her husband's surviving brother customarily made. Finally, the difference between the schools of Hillel and Shammai are well known, and while always carried on "in the name of heaven," they sometimes yielded feelings of division that were not easily stilled.

Karaites and Rabbanites

In the eighth century, beginning in the heartland of Mesopotamian Jewry, the Karaites established a sectarian challenge to what they viewed as the intolerably exclusive rabbinic hold over the process of Biblical exegesis; they too felt capable of interpreting God's law. In time, Karaites came to be characterized as a sect who replaced many rabbinical traditions with their own. Although throughout centuries they were often divided among themselves-with one ninth century Karaite elder refer- ring to an earlier Karaite leader "as a fool and an ass" while another called him "first among the fools"-the primary division remained the one bet- ween Karaites and the rest of the Jewish community which essentially followed rabbinic doctrine. The great Jewish leader Saadia Gaon pros- cribed Karaites as pure heretics. And throughout the tenth century rapprochement between the two groups seemed unthinkable and impossible. Nevertheless, for centuries, both Karaites and Rabbanites considered each other as Jews and regarded even the most violent polemics between them as an internal Jewish quarrel. In part this was because the outside world looked upon both groups as Jews. During the Chmielnicki per- secutions in 1648, hardly any difference was made between the two groups. In Lithuania and Poland, state taxes payable by both groups were remit- ted in a lump sum. But the union between the groups was tenuous and in the eighteenth century, in Russia, a law was passed which gave each group independent status. And the policy of Karaite leaders in nineteenth and twentieth century Russia and Poland who sought to completely dissociate themselves from the Rabbanite counterparts in order to escape the crush- ing persecutions imposed on Jews there, "led to a quiet but profound estrangement," in the words of historian Leon Nimoy. Sephardim and Ashkenazim While there are ria-differences in the basic tenets of Judaism between Sephardim, descendants of Jews who lived in the Iberian peninsula before the expulsion of 1492, and Ashkenazim, Jews of European origins, these two groups differed markedly in matters of detail and outlook They prayed from different prayer books, worshipped in separate synagogues, and practiced diverse customs. And because they had lived in separate countries, often spoke different Jewish dialects: the Sephardim using Ladino and the Ashkenazim more and more depending on Yiddish. Ultimately, these differences were reinforced by a history of cultural dis- similarities and varying responses to the compulsion to abandon Judaism and conveit (in fifteenth century Spain, for example, Sephardim often made public statements of conversion even as they remained secret Jews, while in Crusader Europe Ashkenazim often died rather than publicly convert). These differences led to tensions, rivalries and at times to some- thing approaching schism at various points in Jewish history. For a long time the two groups seldom if ever intermarried, the Ashkenazim calling into question the Sephardim's Jewishness after the latter's experiences as Marranos and the Sephardim looking upon themselves as an elite. In nineteenth century Jerusalem, divisions between the two groups reached significant proportions because the Sephardim were recognized by the Ottoman authorities as legal residents of the city while the Ashkenazim were not And around the same time in America, German immigrants were discovering that their Sephardic cousins who had pre- ceded them to the New World did not always esteem the newcomers and their different ways.

Hasidim and Misnagdm

Following upon the deep rifts among Jews that were left behind by the failed messianic movements of Sabbatai Tzvi and Jacob Frank, the rise of hasidism led to yet another division in the Jewish community. In Poland and especially in Lithuania, Hasidi were vigorously opposed by Mis- nagdim. The great historian Simon Dubnov reports that sectarian out- breaks between the two groups began in 1772. At first the Misnagdim simply referred to the Hasidim as "minim,:' a term that associated them with other divergent sects of Judaism over the ages, but in time the denunciations grew far more bitter. In 1781, as Dub- nov records, the elders of the Jewish communities in Minsk, Pinsk, Brisk, Horodna and Slutsk proclaimed the Hasidim to be in herem (excom- munication). "There are among us sects and groups which have separated themselves from the just and wider community. They make new customs for themselves and sinful laws. They take apart the yoke of Torah from their necks and encourage chaos." Accordingly, Misnagdim prohibited any association with Hasidim, marriage with them, business contacts or any other negotiations, the bury- ing of their dead, and just about removed them from the congregation of Israel In Horodna in 1781, Misnagdim urged Jews neither to join with Hasidirn nor "even to shake their hands." In the town of Brody, the Mis- nagd& warned their supporters: "Should a guest come to our community and not want to eat from the slaughter of the permanent slaughterers in the city [i.e. not accept our standards of kashrut] or want to carry on any new custom or pray in the fashion of the Sephardim ..., the host should inform the community leader and chase that man out of town, and whoever chases him out and successfully repel him has earned the grace of Heaven" And why? "Because they deviate from all paths, and among them the truth is missing." For their part, the Hasidim "burned the books and pamphlets which had been published against them." They continued to collect adherents and vilifjr the Misnagdim in their stories and homilies.

Zionists versus Anti-Zionists

Among the most distinctive of Jewish controversies is the division bet- ween the pro- and anti-Zionists. The players in this dispute have changed over the years. To some, Zionism, particularly in its secular, socialist incar- nation, was tantamount to a challenge against the most deeply held beliefs in messianism How, the anti-Zionists argued, could unbelievers like Herzl and later Ben Gurion redeem the land of their forbears? Would Heaven use these people to bring about an end to the long Jewish exile? Other anti-Zionists, among them the early Reform Jews, looked upon Zionism as a repudiation of the possibilities of acculturation into the host societies in which Jews found themselves. Zionists, they argued, were sim- ply pressing the Jews into yet another ghetto. To the Zionists, on the other hand, those who resisted the dream of a national return and renaissance in the ancient homeland-for whatever reasons-were golus Javs, people permanently embedded in an exile and an exile mentality. Although today most Jews are pro-Zionist supporters of Israel, there remain residual groups of anti-Zionists, like the Satmar Hasidim on the right and the American Council for Judaism on the left. In addition to these disputes there were of course many others. Some remained local while others went on to affect the wider Jewish world It is neither possible nor necessary to review all of these here because the list of divisions is almost endless. One point, however, is beyond dispute: sec- tarianism, division, and dissensus have been a continuing element of Jewish communal existence from the beginning and throughout the centuries. Accordingly, in answer to our second question it is difficult to say that the current rifts and disputes represent something new. Rather, they seem to represent a contemporary incarnation of a continuing condi- tion of Jewish life. To be sure, the controversies over matters of patrilineal descent, halachically contested divorces (as well as the resulting offspring) and conversions represent a qualitative change over many if not all past schisms. Unlike most of the other conflicts mentioned earlier, these three are characterized not simply by a variant worldview and approach to Judaism Although clashing worldviews and approaches to Judaism may at first account for differences in defining who and what is a Jew or how marriages should be terminated, they have have as an ancillary result generated structural divisions among those who hold one viewpoint and those who hold another, for they create additional institutional barriers to unity. And unlike ideological disputes which often get washed away over the long term, structural divisions seem to deepen with the passage of time. Even those ready and willing to overlook ideological differences may find themselves divided by the halachic problems inherent in the matters of patrilineal descent, divorce and conversion. Or to put it simply: what hap- pens to those who seem to be irrevocably defined as outside the boun- daries of the Jewish community by some: the child of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother, the mamzer, and certain converts as well as their off- spring? All this leads to the next general question.

(3) What are the likely consequences of disunity?

Prophecy and prediction are always dangerous, first because the pro- phet places himself in jeopardy by presuming to warn his contemporaries and second because predictions have an uncanny habit of being wrong. Nevertheless, a quick review of the course that Jewish disputes in the past followed offers some hints. The earth shattering results of Korach's revolt left the Israelites united, if somewhat chastened The uprising subsided, with the help of God, while Moses found a way to reconcile the disaffected In later generations, the children of Korach were the subject of many of the greatest Psalms of praise. As for the division of the Northern Kingdom from Judah and Ben- jamin, while both kingdoms played a part in ancient Israelite history, after the exile of the ten northern tribes by the invader, the overwhelming majority of today's Jews trace their direct roots through Judea. In truth, however, we know very little about the social and political outcomes of these divisions; they simply happened too long ago, and the documents left behind are sketchy at best and steeped in legend and religious belief. The course which the dispute between the Pharisees and Sadducees ultimately took is likewise largely unknown. Whether the latter left the congregation of Israel or were ultimately reabsorbed into it is not clear. Nevertheless, we do know that while Rabbi Yehuda on one occasion announced that a Sadducee was equivalent to a non-Jew, Rabban Gamaliel the head of the academy, argued in the other direction. Unques- tionably, then there was a trend toward unity and consensus that operated at the same time that disunity and dissensus were being expressed And the controversies between the schools of Hillel and Shammai, once at the cutting edge of Jewish disagreement, are now both part of the sacred canon of Talmud study. Even though in almost every case, Hillel's point of view predominates, the contemporary student of Talmud must master as well the opinion and reasoning of Shammai There are still Karaites to be found today, although their numbers have dwindled enormously. Some are in America; others may be found in IsraeL Although their customs and heritage are different (they have their own synagogues, graveyards, and religious courts of law), a Karaite is these days virtually indistinguishable from a Jew. On the Israeli identity card of many, the entry reads "Karaite Jew." What was once a sect, deeply divided from the mainstream, seems these days to have evolved into one of many of the ethnic groups that make up Jewry. There are still people who talk about social and cultural divisions bet- ween Sephardim and Ashkenazim-although for the most part the "Sephardim" to which they refer are in fact Middle-Eastern Jews, people who trace their origins from Moslem countries like Yemen, Iraq, Morocco and Tunisia. While distinctions in ritual and religious customs remain between Ashkenazim and Sephardim, the social divisions between both groups appear to be waning. In Israel where the contact between the two has been greatest in contemporary times, demographers report a growing intermarriage rate. And although there are differences, these appear to have less to do with being Ashkenazic and Sephardic than they have to do with ethnicity and economic class. As for language, both speak Hebrew; Ladino and Yiddish being languages that few any longer use. In America, although an important Sephardic community exists, there are none of the rancorous or even subtle divisions that once characterized relations between the German Jews and the Sephardim who preceded them to these shores. One is as likely to find an Ashkenazi in the New York City Spanish-Portuguese Synagogue, Shearith Israel as a Sephardi. Hasidim are still clearly identifiable by their dress and many of their practices, but in many ways they have become indistinguishable from other traditionalist Orthodox Jews. The fires of the Holocaust and the winds of assimilation have made the divisions between Hasidim and Mis- nagdim minuscule in comparison The day when a Misnagid would chase a Hasid out of his neighborhood is long past-anyone doubting this need only visit Boro Park in Brooklyn or Munsey in Rockland County, New York And if the activities of the Lubavitcher Hasidim are of any significance, they point out the willingness of Hasidim to service the religious needs of all sorts of Jews. That is not to say that all is sweetness and light As already noted, disputes and rifts still rage. But these days they are as likely to be among various sects of Hasidim as between Rmidim and non-Hasidim. The divisions that remain between pro- and anti-Zionists, as already suggested, are now limited to fringe elements. While they play somewhat of a role in Israeli politics, their part in American Jewish sectarianism is largely nonexistent American Jews-as indeed the world community of Jews-overwhelmingly support Israel. As for the disputes between the champions of Orthodoxy and Refonn, although they continue to flare, I have seen Rabbis Alexander Schindler, the Reform Jewish leader, and Menachem Porush, a high official of the Orthodox Agudah party in Israel, embrace like brothers at a meeting of the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture inJerusalem An4 as Rabbi Alexander Shapiro, president of the Conservative Rabbinical Assembly, recently pointed out during a meeting with his Orthodox and Reform counterparts, "We are able to communicate with one another and we are talking to one another. We are not cursing at one another, God forbid We are not saying to one another, "You are not Jews," (quoted in Moment Magazine, April 1986). Finally, even Lubavitcher Hasidim make their way to the enclaves of Reform Jewry. If there is any lesson to be learned from the course that all these disputes have taken, it is that a counterforce of unity and consensus to even the most bitter disunity and dissensus emerges over time. To be sure, pressures from without play a part in all this; restrictions on Jews, persecutions, assimilatory quicksand and political change have attenuated the effects of internal divisions among Jews. The enemies from without have always made the antagonists from within seem less menacing. All of which brings us back to today's divisions. They are, the Times writes, "marked by uncommon bitterness." In the light of history, such a characterization would be hard to support Other disputes among Jews have also been marked by enormous bitterness. But what of the matter of isolation of Jew from Jew, the possibility that Orthodox and some Conservative Jews will scrutinize family pedigrees before marriage, or that day schools and Jewish camps will investigate the lineage of their applicants? Does this signify a deeper rift than ever before? To begin these divisions which some warn will occur and irrevocably destroy the unity of the Jewish people already exist and have since the first glimmerings of religious reform in nineteenth century Ger- many. For years, traditionally observant Jews (both Orthodox and Con- servative) have scrutinized family pedigrees prior to marriage. While weddings between the observant and non-observant occur, they are in practice the exception rather than the rule. Among the various hasidic sects, these restrictions are even more severe (although hardly anyone seems to be worried about the fragmentation of Orthodoxy in those cir- cles). Moreover, yeshivas, day schools and Jewish camps do examine lineage, routinely adding questions about the religion and Jewish affilia- tion of parents and grandparents to application forms. Finally, not only do Jews of varying outlooks often live in different neighborhoods, but as the data reported above on the feelings of closeness and similarity to other Jews on the part of the Orthodox indicate, there are already significant barriers of estrangement Disunity and division are facts of contemporary American Jewish life-as they have been in Jewish life throughout the ages. The question to be asked is whether these divisions will get qualitatively worse and finally obliterate the unity of the Jewish people? Or put differen- tly, can both ideological and structural divisions be bridged? To answer that question, we must look first to see if there are-in addi- tion to the undeniable division-also signs of conciliation and unity. The exchange of platforms between the leaders of the Conservative Rabbinical Assembly and the Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America is one. Not all Orthodox rabbis vilify the non-Orthodox In a recent book on Orthodoxy, the editor, an Orthodox rabbi from Canada, argued: "Conser- vative and Reform Judaism, whist having a higher assimilation rate than Orthodox Judaism, have at the same time curbed even more serious assimilation.. . . It is thus abundantly clear that burning all the bridges between Orthodoxy and Reform is not only contrary to the best interests of the total Jewish community, it also runs counter to the best interests of Orthodoxy." Likewise, the admission by Reform Rabbi Jakob PetuchowsG in a recent issue of Moment magazine, that "neither the advocates of change nor its opponents may have the requisite sense of responsibility to the future and destiny of Judaism" offers hope of understanding and rap- prochement between Jews of different persuasions. Finally, the universal concern about the matter of schism is a good sign If all Jews are worried about the same problem, this in itself suggests some light at the end of the tunnel. But are there other matters over which American Jews of all stripes and persuasions are united besides their concern about schism? Among these are: support for Israel concern over the plight of Soviet, Ethiopian, Syrian or other distressed Jewries, and vidance in the struggle against antisemitism-matters of significant concern and importance and factors reinforcing solidarity. Disunity and division surely exist but the forces and voices of unity and conciliation are still very much alive.

(4) What can or should be done in response and what might the future bring?

ALI this is not to say that the prophets of disunity are completely wrong and there is no cause for alarm. Current lines of fracture among Jews undermine the establishment of unity. However, it is important to keep in mind that the American Jewish community already lives with fragmentation, as Jews have always done. And as for those who point to the structural divisions as a threat of a dif- ferent order from any ever faced before, there is ample evidence that even the most stubborn structural and halachic problems can be overcome. The contemporary configuration of American Jewry may create very com- plicated and technical problems for halachic judges and those who keep track of the precise boundaries among Jews, but it is doubtful that they will create insoluble ones. Opposing those who argue that disunity will increase and that unlike ideological differences structural ones cannot be washed away by time but rather become deeper, one may place the experience of history which suggests that even the bitterest disputes get resolved in one way or another-either the various groups of Jews find that the forces that divide them are less significant than those that unite them, or some external adversary reminds them that they are one. Yet if the long view of history gives some cause for optimism about Jewish unity and conciliation, what of the immediate future-are there steps that can be taken to mitigate the hostility and divergence that are now rife? Although there are no certain solutions, some steps would seem particularly appropriate. First, since it is clear that the voices of gloom and disunity are making the headlines, it would be useful to give greater attention to those who demonstrate that consensus and unity are still possible, and that they exist in some quarters. This is not just a matter of telling "good news." Rather, it is a means of insuring that rifts and schism do not become self-fulfilling. Jews (and others) need to realize that there are still matters that unite them. In this regard, increased opportunities for dialogue between varying Jewish worldviews need to be encouraged, particularly under the auspices of such "neutral" organizations as the American Jewish Congress. In Israel the Gesherprogram which brings together young people from observant and non-observant backgrounds offers another example of dialogue. Projects like it are as or even more necessary in America as in the Jewish homeland In an atmosphere of dialogue, hand-wringing and prophecies of doom often give way to hand-clasps and outlooks of optimism. People who come together to talk find they can work even the most complicated things out Second, while the immediate matter that seems to exercise the Jews is the question of who has genuinely converted or which persons may be counted as part of the congregation of Israel the question of who and what is a Jew goes far deeper. It is not only important who gets into the Jewish fold, it is at least if not more vital what the content of that Jewish life is. As sociologist Egon Mayer has reminded us, the real division in American Jewry (and indeed, among world Jewry as well) is between those who participate actively in Jewish life and those who do not If actions are taken to more vigorously involve Jews of all walks of Jewish life, the matter of who gets in will become less and less important Even structural problems can be worked out in the context of active involve- ment in Jewish life. Has there ever been a case of an actively involved and highly committed Jew who found himself excluded from being counted in the nation? To be sure, non-Orthodox conversions and the decision to accept pat- rilineal as well as matrilineal descent as criteria for inclusion in the Jewish community represent significant departures from halacha. But they only exacerbate already existing differences among Jews; they do not create them. Those who have fallen apart because of this issue were already deeply divided-at least, in terms of religious observance and Jewish activity. Were these already existing divisions to begin to evaporate and were the entire Jewish community to come closer to one another, the rabbis (including the most traditional and Orthodox) would, as they always have in the past, find ways to incorporate even those Jews whose halachic legitimacy was in question. In an atmosphere of unity and active involve- ment in Jewish life, even long lost brothers and sisters like the Ethiopian Jews and before them the Bene Israel of India have found ways to be included in the congregation of Israel. And rabbinic courts have found means for annulling marriages where there were halachic problems with divorce. To be sure these kind of solutions have only been enlisted in extreme cases. But they set precedents, and more importantly, demonstrate the capacity for even the Orthodox point of view to show flex- ibility. The solution then, to the dispute over patrilineal descent and con- version, seems not a continued argument over the fine points of the law and procedure but rather a program of action that will increasingly draw Jews together into a network of mutual obligations, common practices and stronger ties. And out of that unity, ideological divisions and structural rifts can be bridged. A third step to mitigate the destructive influences of sectarianism is thus to create a Jewish community that attracts the involvement of all Jews. This means renewed and creative efforts at Jewish education-not just for children but for all segments of the Jewish community. Ignorance of what it means to be a Jew is the greatest of all threats, not only to the unity of the Jewish people but to its very survival. Intermittent Jewish education is sim- ply not providing enougk it must be supplanted by more intensive instruction. If the risks of the latter are greater Jewish insularity, perhaps that will be part of the price American Jewry will have to pay to diminish its internal disunity. Jews may have to choose between being closer to one another or to everyone else. A renewed emphasis on universal and intensive Jewish education will require a revitalization of the entire Jewish education apparatus, bringing our most able and brightest into the process rather than leaving the job of educating the Jewish people to those among us who have not taken up other professions. If all our superior and talented young people become doctors, lawyers, accountants business people and professionals in secular fields, who will be our Jewish educators, in whose hands will the task of attracting and revitalizing Jews be left? The matter of Jewish divorce and the divisive consequences which follow is perhaps a harder one to remedy since it stems not from a Jewish source alone but is a condition of contemporary American life. Clearly, the American Jewish community needs a policy and institutions aimed at preserving the family. These might include Jewish family life education programs whose aim is to teach Jewish families how to use Judaism as a resource for strengthening the bonds of the family. Whatever else might be said about Judaism, its practices and customs are aimed at preserving family existence; Judaism is good family practice. The problems is that American Jews do not always know how to make the best use of it; and they will have to learn formally what their forbears were able to pick more easily by osmosis in the ghetto. Such programs and a renewed emphasis on family will not by themselves end divorce, but they will instead place the focus and Jewish energies on the positive elements of marital life rather than on the negative ones. We have of late become too concerned with how to end marriage and not enough taken up with the task of how to sustain it The unification of American Jewry means as well additional emphasis on Israel as the single most important consolidating element for American Jewry. As already pointed out, America's Jews overwhelmingly are suppor- ters of Israel. Moreover, for all of its very real divisions, the Jewish state still remains the most vivid illustration of the capacity of Jews of all types to survive together. Incredibly, however, only slightly more than 35% of American Jews have ever been to Israel. More need to go and for longer periods of time. Israel can become the catalyst for Jewish unity abroad Indeed, no young American Jew should be permitted to graduate from any Jewish educational institution without having spent a term in Israel. That way, at least the young will take their attachment to Israel into the future with them.

Conclusion

It would be nice to be able to conclude by saying that if all these steps, many of which would radically alter the face ofAmerican Jewish life, were to be taken, the divisions and disunity afflicting us would disappear. It would help, but problems would always remain. That is the nature of human existance and the character of community life. In the Talmud when there were disputes for which there were no decisive resolutions, the rabbis concluded: "taiku," an acronym that stands for "Tishbi (Elijah and his arrival in the Messianic age) will solve all prob- lems and resolve all questions." But until that time and for the foreseeable future, variations among Jewish worldviews will remain During the Theodo interim, if we are to survive as a people, each side will simply have to be Paul S. more sensitive to the other. Jews will at last have to recognize, in the words Henry F of Jacob PetuchowsG that, in the efforts to reconcile differences among Chiae t them: "Thoughtless innovation is no more helpful than heartless Amram ) Marion rigidity." Judith b Leona (