Baruch J. Cohon, ed.. Faithfully Yours: Selected Rabbinical Correspondence of Rabbi Samuel S. Cohon during the Years 1917-1957. Jersey City: KTAV Publishing House, 2008. xvii + 407 pp. $29.50, cloth, ISBN 978-1-60280-019-9.

Reviewed by Dana Evan Kaplan

Published on H-Judaic (June, 2009)

Commissioned by Jason Kalman (Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion)

Samuel S. Cohon is a largely forgotten fgure. became popular, was deeply interested in Jewish The results of googling his name are quite limited. mysticism. Cohon helped guide the Reform move‐ Michael A. Meyer discusses him in his Response to ment through difcult terrain at a critical time in Modernity and a select number of other writers American Jewish history. Cohon is best known for have analyzed specifc aspects of his intellectual his drafting of “The Columbus Platform: The Guid‐ contribution to American , but ing Principles for Reform Judaism,” which is seen there has been relatively little written about Co‐ as having reversed the anti- of the “Pitts‐ hon.[1] The American Jewish Archives in Cincin‐ burgh Platform” of 1885. He is also of historical nati, Ohio, has an extensive collection of his pa‐ importance because of the role that he played in pers, and booksellers still stock a number of his critiquing the Union Prayer Book (UPB), which books, but most American Jews have no idea who was the prayer book in virtually every Reform he was. Even those with a serious interest in temple from the end of the nineteenth century American Jewish history or Reform Judaism are until the publication of The Gates of Prayer: The unlikely to know very much about him. But, from New Union Prayer Book in 1975. Cohon edited the 1923 to 1959, Cohon was one of the most infuen‐ revised edition of the UPB, which was published tial Jewish theologians in the United States. Cohon in 1940; edited the Union Hagaddah (1923); and worked as a pulpit rabbi for ten years before ac‐ was a major infuence on the CCAR (Central Con‐ cepting a call to become a professor of Jewish the‐ ference of American Rabbis) Rabbi’s Manual ology at the Hebrew Union College (HUC), where (1928). he taught for thirty-three years. Faithfully Yours is a collection of letters that Cohon was a leading advocate of what later Cohon wrote or received during the years 1917 to became known as “the return to tradition.” He be‐ 1957. It is not a biography or an analysis of Co‐ lieved in a transcendent God and, long before it hon’s thought. Nevertheless, the volume is a very H-Net Reviews welcome addition to the scant literature on the vice and Cohon responding with an informal reli‐ subject. The correspondence was copied and pre‐ gious ruling. Along with Israel Bettan and a few pared for publication by his widow, A. Irma Co‐ others, Cohon became a sounding board for for‐ hon, and was edited by his son, Baruch J. Cohon. mer students who encountered unusual situa‐ This book is the fnal publication in a series of tions. While the terminology is not used, the cor‐ manuscripts transcribed and edited by Irma over respondence bears a great deal of similarity with a roughly thirty-year period. When Cohon died in traditional she’elot ve-teshuvot, responsa litera‐ 1959, he left a large quantity of unpublished ma‐ ture. The material has some likeness to the Re‐ terial of various types. Irma, who was deeply de‐ form responsa published by Rabbi Solomon B. voted to her husband’s memory and to the work Freehof (for example, Reform Responsa for Our that he had done, spent the succeeding years pre‐ Time [1977]) in numerous volumes, which every paring some of these documents for publication. Reform rabbi of the generation that is now in the These included Jewish Theology (1971); Religious process of retiring had on their bookshelves. In Affirmations (1983); a combined edition of What fact, Faithfully Yours includes an extensive re‐ We Jews Believe and A Guide to Jewish Practice, view of the manuscript of one of Freehof’s earlier for the Enlightened, Modern Jew; Day Book of Ser‐ books, Reform Jewish Practice, which was pub‐ vice at the Altar as Lived By Samuel S. Cohon lished in 1944. HUC President Julian Morgenstern 1888-1959 (1978); and Mekorot Hayahadut (1988). had asked Cohon to evaluate the manuscript, Irma became ill in the fnal stages of editing the which Cohon did and sent directly to Freehof. It is Hebrew source book for Keter Publishing House, a shame that Cohon never took all of the religious and Baruch completed the task. After his mother decisions that he wrote up and reworked them passed away in 1991 and he retired in 1994, into a comprehensive guide to Reform Jewish Baruch turned his attention to continuing Irma’s practice, similar to what Mark Washofsky did two editing work, culminating in the publication of generations later (Jewish Living: A Guide to Con‐ Faithfully Yours. temporary Reform Practice [2001]). Nevertheless, The volume has a detailed table of contents, Cohon’s correspondence opens a window into which lists each letter, the date it was sent, the congregational life and particularly into the person with whom Cohon was corresponding, dilemmas that Reform rabbis faced in the period and the subject. Perhaps because of this detail, the straddling World War II. editor felt that there was no need for an index. Cohon had a great deal of confdence, pre‐ The editor included a very brief introduction, senting what he saw as the Reform position clear‐ which explains who the writer was and why the ly and without apologetics. When appropriate, he correspondence has historical signifcance. was able to cite from his extensive knowledge of Baruch does add comments in bold type after rabbinic literature. Scholars from the more tradi‐ some of his father’s responses, adding back‐ tional movements acknowledged that his Talmu‐ ground information that could be helpful in un‐ dic expertise was comparable with that of an Or‐ derstanding the context of Cohon’s reply. thodox posek or a Conservative professor of Tal‐ Taken as a whole, the correspondence shows mud at the Jewish Theological Seminary. Cohon’s Cohon as one of a handful of professors at HUC son told me that when Rabbi Abraham Joshua who served as religious resources for Reform rab‐ Heschel came to teach at HUC, he wanted Cohon bis facing difcult decisions in the pulpit rab‐ to be “his Rebbe.” What is particularly impressive binate. The material is fascinating, typically con‐ is how he related positively to the writings of the sisting of a former student writing to him for ad‐ classical Reform rabbis of the previous generation while presenting a signifcantly more traditional

2 H-Net Reviews approach to Reform Judaism. He seemed to see girls in confrmation class handed in an essay that the evolution of Reform Judaism as not only ongo‐ her husband believed had been copied from some ing but also natural. Let me give a few examples sort of published document. Cohon was able to that illustrate the nature of the material. identify it as a sermon written by Rabbi J. In 1935, Rabbi Marius Ranson of Congrega‐ Leonard Levy and sent Hilda a pamphlet with the tion Sharey Teflo of East Orange, New Jersey, published sermon. Rabbi Lichtenberg wrote back wrote Cohon that one of the boys in his confrma‐ about a month later explaining that once he re‐ tion class had been insisting that he did not be‐ ceived the published version of the sermon, he lieve in God. The boy’s father was anxious to have went to a Mr. Zale, the secretary-treasurer of the the boy confrmed, but the mother, an “Ethical congregation. Mr. Zale told the rabbi that the be‐ Culturalist,” had expressed a deeply felt opposi‐ havior of the child did not surprise him because tion to organized religion of any type. Rabbi Ran‐ the family was known “as people to whom truth‐ son wrote that he was thinking of refusing to con‐ fulness means nothing and pretense everything.” frm the boy, and had apparently already shared They had, according to Zale, “practically no this possibility with the father, who vehemently friends in the congregation.” insisted that confrmation was not a religious rite They decided to handle the situation gently so but rather a graduation ceremony. Since the boy as not to allow the plagiarism to escalate into a had attended religious school at the synagogue for major confrontation. Zale advised the rabbi to tell the past six years, he should be entitled to gradu‐ the girl that her essay was “too good” and that she ate and attend a graduation ceremony. should rewrite it in simpler language. As soon as Cohon explained that the confrmation cere‐ the daughter returned to her house after Sunday mony was introduced by the Reform movement school and told her mother, the mother called the as a substitute for bar mitzvah, and was “essen‐ rabbi to tell him that although she did not believe tially religious in character.” The purpose of con‐ the rewrite was justifed, she would nevertheless frmation, “as the very name indicates,” was not cooperate. Within a few days, the rabbi received to evaluate academic achievements but rather to the rewritten essay. Unfortunately, during the confrm “their frmness in Jewish religious convic‐ confrmation rehearsal, the girl started to recite tions.” Cohon therefore advised Ranson to exclude her original essay. The rabbi and Zale then had to the boy from the confrmation ceremony. Never‐ tell the girl’s father exactly what had happened. theless, Cohon added that the father might be ap‐ Although the father denied that his daughter had peased by issuing the boy a certifcate of atten‐ actually plagiarized anything, they were able to dance. Further, he suggested that the boy might pressure him into forcing his daughter to read the be “won over through kindliness” (pp. 198-201). rewritten essay (pages 309-311). In a period be‐ This response was typical in that Cohon sought to fore the Internet, many of his students relied on uphold tradition while avoiding the infexibility Cohon for information relating to scholarly and that might permanently alienate anyone from rabbinical publications not easily accessible to congregational life. them. Cohon was always careful to urge congrega‐ tional rabbis to be cautious in applying book Some of the material is valuable for the light knowledge to people in real-life situations. that it sheds on the importance of social status in Reform congregational dynamics. For example, in The collection includes dozens and dozens of another letter from 1941, Hilda Lichtenberg, the letters which present specifc situations that re‐ wife of Leo Lichtenberg, the Reform rabbi in Wi‐ quired rabbinic responses. The majority of them chita Falls, Texas, wrote Cohon that one of the are fairly simple. Can a rabbi ofciate at the buri‐

3 H-Net Reviews al service of a Jewish woman who is being buried stressing Jewish ethics at the expense of ceremo‐ next to her non-Jewish husband in a Christian nial practice. Arguing that there needed to be a cemetery? Cohon relied on Rabbi Kaufmann balance between halacha and aggadah, Cohon be‐ Kohler’s rulings in The Rabbi’s Manual, which came the most infuential Reform Jewish theolo‐ prohibited the ofciation at the burial of a Jew in gian of his generation. He is best remembered for a Christian cemetery if the decision was the result the central role that he played in the writing of of conversion to Christianity. Cohon ruled that be‐ the “Columbus Platform.” In 1935, CCAR President cause the woman wanted to be buried in a Chris‐ Felix Levy appointed a commission to draft a new tian cemetery solely for the love of her dead hus‐ platform for the movement. Rabbi Samuel Schul‐ band, the rabbi should ofer prayer at her inter‐ man of Temple Emanu-El in New York was ap‐ ment. However, the rabbi should make it clear pointed chairman of the commission and wrote that “the action is exceptional” (pp. 332-333). Co‐ what he intended to be the frst draft of the new hon relied on this exceptional case loophole, re‐ platform. Terribly dissatisfed with what Schul‐ peatedly urging his former students to make ex‐ man had written, Cohon wrote an alternative ceptions to the principles he explained in order to draft, which was then accepted as the basis for avoid hurt feelings. the platform. Schulman had not been able to at‐ There is a bit of material related to the con‐ tend the second meeting of the commission be‐ troversy over Zionism in the Reform movement, cause he had been ill and was very insulted that including an exchange with Rabbi Louis Wolsey Levy had made a presidential decision to replace of Rodeph Shalom Congregation in Philadelphia, his draft with Cohon’s. Schulman resigned as one of the leaders of the American Council for Ju‐ chairman of the commission, but came to the 1937 daism. There is also a written response to a verbal CCAR convention in Columbus, Ohio, determined request made by HUC President Morgenstern in to push for a vote of the full membership. Part of 1946 for specifc suggestions on how to respond to the confict had to do with religious policy. Schul‐ political events in Palestine. One of the longest re‐ man was a classical reformer who had served sponses was to a 1934 request from Rabbi Philip F. Temple Emanu-El, one of the most diehard classi‐ Waterman of Grand Rapids, Michigan, who had cal Reform congregations in the country. But had a disturbing conversation with an interna‐ much of the preference for Cohon’s draft had tionally known surgeon, who, despite his educa‐ nothing to do with theology. Rather, it was felt tional background, “has been taken in by some of that Cohon’s draft was simpler and more directly the most anti-Semitic propaganda” (p. 69). Cohon’s addressed the central concerns of American Re‐ correspondence--or at least the selection of corre‐ form Jews at what was a very traumatic time in spondence chosen for this volume--covered a Jewish history. His document refected the great many topics rather than focusing on primar‐ changes that had been taking place in the move‐ ily one or two specifc concerns. ment since the 1885 Pittsburgh conference, but also showed the remarkable continuity that exist‐ The collection includes little on Cohon’s theo‐ ed in Reform thought over that ffty-year period. logical interests. This is probably deliberate since the focus is on practical issues that concerned Schulman’s supporters proposed a resolution how rabbis should respond to various situations. against adopting any platform, and were able to Nevertheless, I personally would have enjoyed fnd eighty-one votes in favor of this resolution reading about the discussions relating to the for‐ opposed to eighty-one votes against. According to mulation of a Reform Jewish theology for the Reform folklore, both sides went out onto the golf times. Cohon criticized classical Reform for overly course to fnd rabbis that they thought would sup‐ port their position and hauled them of in order to

4 H-Net Reviews vote. But, whereas at the time it was seen primari‐ sical Reform. Some rabbis were caught between ly as a power struggle between the old and new members from Eastern European backgrounds, guard, in retrospect, the vote was interpreted as a who wanted more Hebrew and a more traditional referendum on the Reform movement’s approach atmosphere in prayer, and the “German Jews,” to Zionism. This was certainly a central issue but who wanted to maintain the classical Reform ap‐ it was not the only factor in the confict over the proach that stressed prayer in the vernacular and “Columbus Platform.” In any case, Levy cast the strict decorum. Rabbi Phillip Jafa of Phoenix, Ari‐ deciding vote against the resolution to abandon zona, wrote Cohon in 1936 that his congregation the adoption of a platform and a revised version had just adopted the UPB, volume 2, as well as the of Cohon’s draft was accepted with only eight neg‐ experimental edition of volume 1 for Friday ative votes. Material on this episode can be found evening services. Jafa explained that while many in the Samuel S. Cohon Papers 2/6-2/7 at the Amer‐ of the older Eastern European members “natural‐ ican Jewish Archives. ly object to the excessive use of English,” the small Cohon also played a central role in the revi‐ group of Reform born members objected to the sion of the UPB. The UPB had originally been pub‐ chanting of the Torah portion from the pulpit. He lished in 1895 and had been revised in 1918 (vol‐ asked Cohon whether it was acceptable Reform ume 2 for the High Holy Days had been revised in practice for the rabbi to chant the traditional 1920). But the revision was very slight. There was Torah portion from the pulpit. Cohon answered a bit more congregational participation and a lit‐ that it was, citing three cases where that was the tle more Hebrew. The revised UPB also used the actual practice. Cohon endorsed this approach, new Jewish Publication Society Bible translation but explained that the fnal decision had to be as the basis for the biblical passages that were in‐ made by the congregation itself. “If they fnd the cluded in the prayer book. But otherwise, it was chant from the pulpit annoying to them, then, in virtually unchanged. In 1928, Cohon wrote a blunt the interest of peace, the sacrifce should be critique of the UPB, arguing that it stressed ratio‐ made.” Cohon, however, stressed that he consid‐ nalism at the expense of emotion. The prayer ered the abandonment of this practice to be “a book needed to be reedited to stress the omni‐ distinct sacrifce” (pp. 201-203). scient nature of God. In addition, Cohon wanted Cohon was an incredibly infuential leader of to include prayers that would stress the personal the Reform movement. His career spanned the pe‐ relationship with God. The newly revised UPB riod when the Reform movement made the transi‐ was eventually published in 1940 (volume 2 for tion from classical Reform to what became known the High Holy Days appeared in 1945), incorporat‐ as neo-Reform. Cohon was a progressive and yet ing many of Cohon’s recommendations. Faithfully also deeply traditional thinker who took positions Yours does not include material on the extended that, with minor emendations, would be generally negotiations that led to the fnal text of the new accepted by most Reform Jews today. He knew a prayer book. Baruch told me that this material great deal about traditional Judaism and was able was simply not there. His hypothesis was that to explain the halachic background for many Re‐ most of the discussions on this and other related form positions on various ritual matters. He dis‐ topics were verbal and were therefore never in played sensitivity to the needs of individuals and manuscript. congregations, urging rabbis to make exceptions There are a number of letters that refer to the to the rules when he felt that it would be in the difculty of reintroducing traditional practices in best interests of the Jewish community and the fu‐ congregations that had grown accustomed to clas‐ ture well-being of the religion. The publication of such a broad and varied collection, which

5 H-Net Reviews spanned the critical decades from the end of World War I until the late 1950s, gives us a de‐ tailed look into the types of ritual and policy is‐ sues that Reform rabbis throughout the country were facing at that time. Faithfully Yours provides us with a large selection of fascinating correspon‐ dence, revealing a great deal about Cohon’s ap‐ proach to practical halacha as well as the social history of Reform congregational life in the Unit‐ ed States. Note [1]. Michael A. Meyer, Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 317-320.

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-judaic

Citation: Dana Evan Kaplan. Review of Cohon, Baruch J., ed. Faithfully Yours: Selected Rabbinical Correspondence of Rabbi Samuel S. Cohon during the Years 1917-1957. H-Judaic, H-Net Reviews. June, 2009.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=24509

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

6