PROCEEDINGS ס־ סכ Oo M M ס Z O (0 NOVEMBER 14-18, 1971

Cz 4־ n ס (0 < z> G O Q UNITED SYNAGOGUE OF AMERICA C PI o z < 1971 Biennial Convention PzI H oz PROCEEDINGS ס־ סכ oO m m ס z o (0 NOVEMBER 14-18, 1971

(0 CONCORD HOTEL, KIAMESHA LAKE, N. Y.

"To renew the old, to sanctify the new" (Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook) K 3 tl mi UNITED SYNAGOGUE OF AMERICA

1971 Biennial Convention

PROCEEDINGS

NOVEMBER 14-18, 1971 CONCORD HOTEL, KIAMESHA LAKE, N. Y.

"To renew the old, to sanctify the new" (Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword v Program xvi Welcome Address — Harold Stubenhaus 1 Induction of New Congregations — Maxwell Kaye 3 Plenary Sessions 4 President's Biennial Report — Jacob Stein 7 Jewish Education, The Number One Priority — Bernard Segal 17 ״ Greetings and Introduction of Rabbi Robert Gordis — S. Gershon Levi ..19 The Amateur Spirit, the Secret of Vitality in Judaism — Robert Gordis .... 22 Not Identity, But Identication is the Problem — Gerson Cohen 35 On the Alienation of Our Youth — Elie Wiesel 37 Watershed for Conservative Judaism — Mordecai Waxman 40 "If I Forget Soviet Jewry, Let My Right Hand Wither Away" — Gideon Hausner 44 Schechter, the Man . . . And Another Man — Bernard Mandelbaum 47 Revolution in Man's Heart — Louis Finkelstein 50 Calling a Halt to Hopelessness — Jacob Stein 53 Divrei Torah: Memorial Tribute to Charles Rosengarten — A. Joseph Heckelman 55 Two Impulses of Man — Mordecai Kieffer 58

Conferences in Convention: The Brutalization of Society Why is Health a Luxury? — Edmund O. Rothschild 61 The Role of the Synagogue in Mental Health — Sydney R. Katz 66 Drugs and Drug Abuse — Simon Slavin 70 The Jewish Poor —Ann G. Wolfe 83 Drug Abuse is a Jewish Problem — Elliot T. Spar 87

Conference on Summer Activities One Attempt to Activate the Sluggish Summer Activities: The Synagogue Moves to the Home — Joel T. Klein 90

iii The Current Scene in Education: Opportunity and Challenge The American Jewish Community, The Public Schools and Cultural Pluralism: The Reality and the Myth — Seymour P. Lachman 95 The Jewish Day School—Our Only Hope — Howard D. Singer 106 American Jewish Education: Realities and Prospects — Eli Grad 111 Jewish Education—Day School and Supplementary — Elvin I. Kose 117 Experiment, Experience and the Supplemental School — Alvin Mars 122 The Alienated Student—and His Institutions — Norman Adler 129 The Adult in Education — Louis M. Levitsky 135

Conference on Jewish Identity No Jews, No Jewish Identity — Milton Himmelfarb 140

Synagogue Long-Range Planning — The Changing Society and Its Effect on the Synagogue Cooperative Action — Arthur J. Levine 146 Future of the Synagogue — Wolfe Kelman 150 The Congregation Program — Raphael Ellenbogen 157

Laboratory for Leaders The Future of the Small Congregation — Simcha Kling 163 Administration and Finances in the Small Congregation — Robert Fischer 168 The Religious School and the Small Congregation — Abraham Gittelson 170 Religious Services in the Small Congregation — Joseph Wiesenberg 173

Special Conference for Rabbis on Intermarriage Introductory Remarks — Irving Lehrman 176 How to Prevent Intermarriage — Israel Mowshowitz 177 No Half-Way Conversions — Judah Washer 185 Where Intermarriage has Already Taken Place — Armond E. Cohen 189

Jewish Law in Our Times — Benjamin Kreitman , ,193 New Affiliates 195 Solomon Schechter Awards 196 Citation to Outgoing Officers 198 Revised By-Laws 199 Introduction to Guide to Congregational Standards — Judah Gribetz 207 Bingo Resolution 216 Resolutions 217

iv FOREWORD "The old must be renewed—the new must be made sacred." With this sage teaching of the late Chief Rabbi Abraham Kook as its 1971 convention theme, the United Synagogue of America has charted a future course for itself which is constructive, authentically Jewish and entirely in consonance with the philosophy of the Conservative Movement. The convention delegates found Rabbi Kook's counsel especially valuable when applied to the problems of the wider society of our times. For it is crucial that we examine the old as well as the new in confronting the powerful and conflicting forces that have shaken the very foundations of our civilization. The old contains rich insights and values which can be most helpful in insuring the future of the world and the role of Judaism in resolving the dilemmas of modern life. At the same time, as Rabbi Kook reminds us, we must be bold enough to study new ideas and undertake new approaches to unprecedented problems. Never must we be found wanting in our receptivity to novel and creative attempts to improve the lot of mankind. But the new ideas must be tested by fundamental and eternal verities. They must be sanctified by reverence for God and love of man. One of the chief tasks of the convention was to analyze and evaluate the demographic, social, and economic changes that have transformed American life, and in the process point to the need for some drastic restructuring of the synagogue. The knowledge derived from these deliberations will be essential to enable the synagogue to respond to the needs of our times and to remain the central institution of the Jewish community. Jewish religious education, youth activities, adult studies, summer activities as well as every other area of synagogue activity were likewise subjected to a searching reexamination. The United Synagogue of America utilized its 1971 Biennial to subject itself to the most thoroughgoing self-examination and reassessment since the time of its founding in 1913. The very by-laws of the organization were completely revised at this convention. The Guide to Congregational Standards was extensively restructured for the first time since its original adoption in 1952. Convention speakers and delegates addressed themselves vigorously and forthrightly to the religious and ethical dimension of problems posed by current and expected developments in science, technology, industry, and government. Informative and illuminating sessions were devoted to such subjects as the brutalization of society; narcotics addiction; public vs. parochial education; population control; environmental and cultural pollution; the welfare quandry; the human impact of computerization and the problem of ethnic identity. The 1971 Biennial provided a careful appraisal of the most agonizing questions of our generation. Its deliberations and evaluations can contribute not insignificantly to the development of ideas and programs that may well insure the survival of the world. These Proceedings of the 1971 United Syna- gogue Biennial are published, not only as a historic record of an important meeting, but in the confidence that serious students of society will probe its treasure trove of information and insights for a long time to come.

RABBI ALVIN KASS, Editor RABBI ALVIN KASS, Editor

JEANETTE WEISSBRAUN, Assistant Editor

vi UNITED SYNAGOGUE OF AMERICA OFFICERS AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1971-1973

President

JACOB STEIN

Vice Presidents

HARRY ARON FRANCIS MINTZ JOSEPH BERLIN ABRAM PIWOSKY HORACE BIER MORRIS ROTHSTEIN HAROLD GROH PHILIP SELBER VICTOR HORWITZ JERRY WAGNER ARTHUR J. LEVINE EDWARD D. WYNER BEN MAGDOVITZ

Treasurer Secretary

HAROLD STUBENHAUS HAROLD PRESSMAN

HONORARY DIRECTORS

MILTON BERGER VICTOR LEFF ABE BIRENBAUM REUBEN H. LEVENSON HYMAN BRAND JOSEPH M. LEVINE ARTHUR S. BRUCKMAN PERRY LEVINSON JACK; GLADSTONE BENJAMIN MARKOWE BERT GODFREY CHARLES OLIFF REUBEN GOLDMAN ISRAEL OSEAS HERMAN GREENBERG JOSEPH I. SACHS B. L. JACOBS SIDNEY L. SCHIFF DR. MAXWELL M. KAYE DR. HENRY SIMON HARRY LAKIN SAMUEL WOLBERG

REGIONAL PRESIDENTS Empire State: Ontario-Canada: DR. SHELDON I. KRIEGEL HAROLD COHEN

Vll REGIONAL PRESIDENTS (Cont'd.)

Central States: Pacific North-west: HERMAN FRIEDSON EDWARD! MOSKOWITZ Connecticut Valley: Pacific Southwest: WALTER FRIED CHARLES L. LIPPITT Eastern Pennsylvania: Philadelphia Branch: ALVIN WEISS EDWARD B. ROSENBERG New England: Seaboard: HYMAN PAVE HAROLD GROH New York Metropolitan: Southeast: VICTOR ZAGER DR. HAROLD C. RIVKIND Midwest: Southern New Jersey: MAX CHILL ISADORE SILVERSTEIN Northeast: Southern Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky: JOSEPH BERLIN CHARLES ABRAMOVITZ Northern California: Southwest: ARTHUR ZIMMERMAN DR. BERNARD FLANZ Northern New Jersey: Western Pennsylvania: SIMON SCHWARTZ DAVID L. CHAMOVITZ, M.D. Northern Ohio: NATHAN I. DIMOND

CANTORS ASSEMBLY REPRESENTATIVE

HAZZAN YEHUDAH MANDEL

EDUCATORS ASSEMBLY REPRESENTATIVE

DR. SHIMON FROST

JEWISH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY REPRESENTATIVES

RABBI MAX ARZT RABBI DAVID KOGEN RABBI NEIL GILLMAN DR. BERNARD MANDELBAUM DR. SIMON GREENBERG

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SYNAGOGUE ADMINISTRATORS REPRESENTATIVE

HOWARD S. DANZIG

viii NATIONAL FEDERATION OF JEWISH MEN'S CLUBS REPRESENTATIVE

MAX M. GOLDBERG

NATIONAL WOMEN'S LEAGUE REPRESENTATIVE

MRS, HENRY N. RAPAPORT

RABBINICAL ASSEMBLY REPRESENTATIVES

RABBI S. GERSHON LEVI RABBI SOL LANDAU

DIRECTORS AT LARGE Gerrard Berman Judah Gribetz Emanuel Scoblionko Martin D. Cohn L. Louis Karton Nathan Shafran Monte Daniels George Maislen Arthur Siggner Franklin Feder Hyman B. Meltz Dr. Solomon Soloff Fred R. Fine Joseph Mendelson Morris Speizman Dr. Morris Fond *Henry N. Rapaport Jerry Sussman Seymour Goldberg Meyer Robinson Harry Tarler Morton Grebelsky Samuel Rothstein Louis Winer Philip Greene Sheridan Schechner David Zucker

* Honorary President

NATIONAL COUNCIL 1971-1973 Representatives of the Representatives of the Morton Tabas Cantors Assembly: National Association Hazzan David J. Leon of Synagogue Representatives of the Hazzan Saul Meisels Administrators: National Women's Hazzan Samuel Mrs. Larry Jaffe League: Rosenbaum Martin Leichtling Mrs. Albert Fried Hazzan Moses J. David I. Siegel Mrs. Louis E. Goldstein Silverman Max D. Weinles Mrs. Sol Henkind Mrs. Louis Sussman Representatives of the Representatives of the Educators Assembly: National Federation of Representatives of the Rabbi Albert Berliner Jewish Men's Clubs: Rabbinical Assembly: Paul Burstin Henry M. Berman Rabbi Maurice S. Cohen Dr. Eli Grad Rabbi Joel Geffen Rabbi Sidney S. Guthman Harry Malin Paul Goldberg Rabbi Joshua Stampfer

ix NATIONAL COUNCIL* (Contd.)

Representatives from Max Rovner Hillel Aronson United Synagogue Louis Stone Dr. Robert Coblens Regions: NEW YORK Frank Fishkin Dr. Alvin May EMPIRE STATE: METROPOLITAN: Albert J. Brunn Paul Gelbard PHILADELPHIA BRANCH: Bernard Goldberg Edwin M. Levy Carroll Baylson Isodore Goodman Irving Silverman Manuel Grife Kalman Mintz Morris Tear Gerald J. Haas Fred Schneider Harry Waterston Samuel Horowitz CENTRAL STATES: NORTHEAST: Isadore Marder Jerome Farber Abe Chodos SEABOARD: Hyman S. Gale Dr. Arthur Gladstone Herbert Goldman Joseph Kaplan Judge Benjamin R. Guss Ernest Greenwald Melvin Orenstein Norman Potechin Martin Kamerow Sidney G. Sheps Meyer Schecter Charles M. Pascal CONNECTICUT VALLEY: NORTHERN CALIFORNIA: Sydney J. Shuman Morris Bufferd Dr. Henry C. Bernstein SOUTHEAST: Harvey Ladin Nat Landes Joseph Golden Harold Rosen NORTHERN NEW JERSEY: Sylvan Makover Norman Wilion S. Alexander Banks Seymour Mann George Yudkin Norman Glikin Phillip Schiff Ronald H. Landau Maurice Shapiro EASTERN Ralph W. Wolff SOUTHERN NEW JERSEY: PENNSYLVANIA: Dr. Gerald Zinberg Judge Joshua V. Davidow Ernest Boas NORTHERN OHIO: Dr. Leonard T. Rosen David Brumberg David A. Kat2 Charles B. Tolin Aaron Katz Charles H. Mendel Carl H. Wolff David Sorin David Schwebel MICHIGAN: Leonard Segall SOUTHERN OHIO, Louis Berry Harry T. Tucker INDIANA AND Max H. Goldsmith KENTUCKY: ONTARIO-CANADA : Louis H. Kasle Richard Lieberman Fred Ganz David Safran Mose Marcus Nathan O. Hurwich T. George Sternberg Samuel Stern Sidney I. Starkman Sherman Weinstein MIDWEST: Dr. George Starr SOUTHWEST: Harold J. Dray Dr. Hyman Wilensky Ervin Donsky Allen H. Dropkin PACIFIC NORTHWEST: Albert Fridkin Dr. Sheldon Kamin Reynold Atlas Dr. Edward Genecov Marvin Schenbaum Sid Meltzer Mike Kavy Sydney H. Slone Norman Rosenzweig Isadore Roosth NEW ENGLAND: Sam Schauffer Paul Goldman Dr. David Zack WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA: Leonard Matthews PACIFIC SOUTHWEST: William Morgan Lester H. Aronson Dr. Mervin L. Binstock

x NATIONAL COUNCIL* (Contd.)

Jonathan J. Duker Dr. Milton Goldin Samuel Poze Samuel Horovitz Solomon E. Green Dr. Gerard Rabin Martin Shrut Harry Greenblatt Leo Rabinovitz Dr. William Stark Herman Greenstein Robert Rapaport Rabbi Harry Halpern Max Ratner MEMBERS-AT-LARGE : Moses Hornstein Robert W. Rice Karl Adler Bernard Kanter Ben Sager Hon. Daniel Albert Abe J. Kaplan Harry B. Schwartz Charles Altman Herman Katz Bernard G. Segal Philip Arnoff Simon Katz Abraham Silverman Benjamin Asarch Reuben Kaufman Sol Singer Morris Mac Benisch David Kline Morris Spar Jacob H. Beratan Rabbi Benjamin Samuel Specter Max Berns Kreitman Larry Suttenberg Marvin Berger Macey Kronsberg Morton Tarr Norman Bernstein Samuel Krupnick Louis Weiland Arthur Brand Irving Kurtz Leon Weiner Philip Bravman Jules Levenstein Arthur D. Weinstein Irwin I. Cohn Dr. Louis M. Levitsky Myron Weinstein Arnold Delin Justice A. H. Lieff Samuel Weitzman Irving S. Eisenberg Jack Lipson Marshall Wolke Samuel Friedland Eugene Matanky Austin Wolf Harry Friedman Solomon Neustat Irving J. Yeckes Joseph Friedman Arnold Newberger Stanley Yukon S. Harry Galfand Samuel Offen Allen Ziegler Hyman B. Garb Dr. Joseph Peyser B. Sol Goldfinger Dr. Samuel Perrin

xi THE UNITED SYNAGOGUE OF AMERICA BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1969-1971 OFFICERS

President

JACOB STEIN

Vice Presidents

JOSEPH BERLIN ARTHUR J. LEVINE ABE BIRENBAUM MORRIS SPEIZMAN SEYMOUR GOLDBERG DR. THEODORE SUHER VICTOR HORWITZ JERRY SUSSMAN L. LOUIS KARTON

Treasurer Secretary

HAROLD STUBENHAUS HAROLD PRESSMAN

Honorary President

HENRY N. RAPAPORT

HONORARY DIRECTORS

MILTON BERGER REUBEN H. LEVENSON HYMAN BRAND JOSEPH M. LEVINE ARTHUR S. BRUCKMAN PERRY LEVINSON JACK GLADSTONE BENJAMIN MARKOWE BERT GODFREY CHARLES OLIFF REUBEN GOLDMAN ISRAEL OSEAS HERMAN GREENBERG JOSEPH I. SACHS B. L. JACOBS SIDNEY L. SCHIFF DR. MAXWELL KAYE DR. HENRY SIMON VICTOR LEFF SAMUEL WOLBERG

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

RABBI BERNARD SEGAL

xii PRESIDENTS OF REGIONS

Capital State: Northern Ohio: DR. SHELDON KRIEGEL NATHAN DIMOND Central States: Ontario-Canada: BEN MAGDOVITZ ARTHUR J. SIGGNER Chicago Council: Pacific Northwest: HARRY ARON EDWARD MOSKOWITZ Connecticut Valley: Pacific Southwest: WALTER FRIED FRANCIS MINTZ Eastern Pennsylvania: Philadelphia Branch: ALVIN WEISS ABRAM PIWOSKY Michigan: Seaboard: T. GEORGE STERNBERG HAROLD GROH New England: Southeast: GEORGE J. BERNSTEIN DR. HAROLD C. RIVKIND New York Metropolitan: Southern New Jersey: DAVID ZUCKER CHARLES TOLIN Northeast: Southern Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky: JOSEPH BERLIN MAX ABRAMS Northern California: Southwest: VICTOR HORWITZ DR. BERNARD FLANZ Northern New Jersey: Western Pennsylvania: HORACE BIER EDWARD L. GLICK

ORGANIZATIONAL REPRESENTATIVES AND DIRECTORS AT LARGE Samuel Ades Judah Gribetz Samuel Rothstein Dr. Max Arzt Mrs. Sol Henkind Sheridan Schechner Gerrard Berman Dr. Arthur T. Jacobs Emanuel G. Scoblionko Max Chill Rabbi Wolfe Kelman Lionel Semiatin Gabriel Cohen Rabbi David Kogen Philip Selber Martin D. Cohn Harry Lakin Nathan Shafran Monte Daniels George Maislen Rabbi Ralph Simon Franklin Feder Dr. Bernard Mandelbaum Dr. Solomon Soloff Fred R. Fine Hyman B. Meltz Larry Suttenberg Joseph Friedman Dr. Samuel Perrin Morton Tabas Dr. Morris Fond Samuel Poze Harry Tarler Dr. Simon Greenberg *Henry Rapaport Jerry Wagner Phiip Greene Meyer Robinson Louis Winer Morton Grebelsky Charles Rosengarten Victor Zager * Honorary President

xiii NATIONAL COUNCIL*

Joseph Abell Rabbi Joel Geffen Herman Landau Charles Abramovitz Paul Gelbard Ronald Landau Karl Adler Dr. Edward Genecov Nat Landes Hon. Daniel Albert Bernard Gladstein Jules L. Levenstein Dr. Harvey Allen Norman Glikin Dr. Louis Levitsky Charles Altman Max Goldberg Judge A. H. LieS Philip Arnoff B. Sol Goldfinger Elliott A. Lipitz Hillel Aronson Herbert Goldman Charles Lippitt Rabbi Moshe Babin Max H. Goldsmith Jack Lipson Marvin, Berger Mrs. Syd. Rossman Sylvan Makover Dr. Henry Bernstein Goldstein Harry Malin Norman Bernstein Isadore Goodman Seymour Mann Louis Berry Sol E. Green Isadore M. Marder Ernest S. Boas J. Harry Greennblatt Mose Marcus Arthur Brand Herman Greenstein Leonard Matthews Philip Bravman brnest Grcenwald Dr. Alvin May David Brumberg Sidney L. Grossman Hazzan Saul Meisels Morris Bufferd Gerald Hass Charles H. Mendel Paul Burstin Rabbi Harry Halpern Samuel Miller Dr. David L. Chamovitz Samuel Horowitz Herbert Moline Archie Chaset Sam Huppin William Morgan Dr. Robert Coblens Nathan O. Hurwich Sol Nathanson Harold Cohen John Hurwitz Arnold Newberger Irwin I. Cohn Dr. Seymour Hyman Solomon Neustadt Michael Cutter Cyril Jacobs Samuel Offen Howard Danzig Hyman, M. Jacobs Irving Pack Judge Joshua V. Davidow Albert Jacobson Hyman B. Pave Herman Davis Martin Kamerow Dr. Milton Pearlman Arnold Delin Bernard Kanter Albert H. Price Jack Efren Abe J. Kaplan Dr. Gerald Rabin Irving S. Eisenberg Rabbi Abraham Karp Leo Rabinovitz Bernard Feinberg Louis Kasle Robert D. Rapaport Michael Feldman Dr. Aaron Katz Max Ratner Jerome Fischbein Herman M. Katz Robert W. Rice Frank Fishkin Simon J. Katz Irwin M. Ringold Benjamin Flamm Reuben Kaufman Isadore Roosth Lewis I. Fox Bert Klatzker Harold Rosen Dr. Lewis Freedman B. Max Klëvit Dr. Leonard Rosen Albert Fried David Kline Hazzan Samuel Rosenbaum Melvin Fried Mrs. Barnett E. Kopelman Ed. Rosenberg Samuel Friedland Hazzan Arthur S. Koret Herman Rothenberg Harry Friedman Rabbi Benj. Kreitman Max Rovner S. Harry Galfand Macey Kronsberg Rabbi Charles Rubel Hyman Garb Irving Kurtz David Safran Henry L. Gartner Harvey Ladin Benjamin W. Sager

xiv NATIONAL COUNCIL* (Contd.)

Marvin Schenbaum Abe Silver Arthur D. Weinstein Phillip Schiff Abraham Silver Myron Weinstein Elliot S. Schwartz Abraham Silverman Dr. Marvin Weintraub Harry B. Schwartz Irving Silverman Charles Weitzman Simon Schwartz Hazzan Moses Silverman Samuel Weitzman David Schwebel Sol Singer Dr. H. M. Wilensky Bernard G. Segal Abraham Spack Austin Wolf Leonard Segall Dr. Charles Solomon Carl H. Wolff Dr. Leo Selesnick Samuel Spector Ralph W. Wolff Alex Serota Sidney I. Starkman Marshall Wolfe Maurice Shapiro Mrs. Louis Sussman Edward D. Wyner Samuel T. Shear Morton Tarr Irving J. Yeckes Dr. Louis J. Sheps Severyn Teibloom George J. Yudkin J. Shinder Harry Tucker Stanley Yukon Martin Shrut Harry Waterson Allen Ziegler Syd. Shuman Louis Weiland Arthur B. Zimmerman David I. Siegel Max D. Weinles

*National Council includes officers and board of directors.

xv A WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1971

*3:00 P.M. Registration Cordillion Room 3:15 P.M. Special Meeting: Board of Directors Roman Room United Synagogue of America PRESIDING: Jacob Stein, Qreat !Neck, %lew york President, United Synagogue of America to be followed by Meeting of Committee on Regional Activities Harold Pressman, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Chairman, Committee on Regional Activities Dr. Max M. Rothschild, Director, Department of Regional Activities 3:30 P.M. Opening of United Synagogue Exhibits Sun Lobby Morton Grebelsky, !Miami, Florida Chairman, United Synagogue Exhibit Committee 4:15 P.M. Minhah Service Convention Synagogue Ma'ariv Service 7:00 P.M. Opening Banquet Dining Room "To renew the old, to sanctify the new." CHAIRMAN : Harold Stubenhaus, West bury, New york Chairman, Convention Committee BIRKAT HA-MAZON : Hazzan Jacob Singer, Rockaway Park, New york Jemple Beth El INDUCTION OF NEW CONGREGATIONS : Dr. Maxwell Kaye, Jrvington, New Jersey Chairman, Committee on Affiliations United Synagogue of America REPORT OF TIIE EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT: Rabbi Bernard Segal, Executive Vice-President United Synagogue of America GREETINGS AND INTRODUCTION OF RABBI ROBERT GORDIS : Rabbi S. Gershon Levi, President, Rabbinical Assembly KEYNOTE ADDRESS : "Judaism and the Challenge of the Seventies" Rabbi Robert Gordis, Professor of Bible Jhe Jewish Jbeological Seminary of America 10:30 P.M. Imperial Room Social Program *Eastern Standard Jime

xvii Monday NOVEMBER 15, 1971 8:00 A.M. Shaharit Service Convention Synagogue READER : Hazzan Irving Pinsky, 7Vaterbury, Connecticut Beth £I Synagogue

D'VAR TORAH : Rabbi A. Joseph Heckelman, Waterbury, Connecticut Beth €1 Synagogue

MEMORIAL TRIBUTE TO CHARLES ROSENGARTEN

9:00 A.M. Breakfast Dining Room

9:45 A.M. Openingof Synagogue Suppliers' Exhibits Promenade £obby Philip Greene, Jamaica, ?1Jew york Chairman

COORDINATOR : George L. Levine, Director United Synagogue Book Service

9:45 A.M. Plenary Session Imperial Room CHAIRMAN : Jacob Stein, Qreat ,Neck, New york President, United Synagogue of America

PARLIAMENTARIAN : Max Chill, Oak Park, Illinois President, !Midwest Region United Synagogue of America

GREETINGS : Mrs. Henry N. Rapaport, Scarsdale, ?Jew york President, National ,Women's League

Max M. Goldberg, Washington, D.C. President, National federation of Jewish Men's Clubs

COMMITTEE REPORTS : Report of Chairman of Nominating Committee: George Maislen, 7reeport, New york Past-President, United Synagogue of America

ELECTIONS : PRESIDENT'S REPORT : Jacob Stein

Qreat Neck, New york

DISCUSSION :

xviii WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1971

CHAIRMAN : Henry N. Rapaport, Scarsdale, New york Honorary President, United Synagogue of America Report of Chairman of Committee to Revise the By-Laws Samuel Rothstein, Brooklyn, New york Vast-President, United Synagogue of America 1:00 P.M. Lunch Dining Room BIRKAT HA-MAZON 1:00 P.M. National Federation of Empire Dining Room Jewish Men's Clubs Luncheon Seminar "How to Combat the Apathy Towards Congregational Activities"

PRESIDING: Max M. Goldberg, Washington, D. C. President, National federation of Jewish !Men's Clubs

DISCUSSANTS : Rabbi Joel S. Geffen, Spiritual Advisor National federation of Jewish !Men's Clubs Morton Tabas, Honorary President National federation of Jewish !Men's Clubs Abraham A. Silver Vice-President, National federation of Jewish !Men's Clubs Max M. Goldberg

President, National federation of Jewish !Men's Clubs 2:15 P.M. Plenary Session (continued) Imperial Room CHAIRMAN : Horace Bier, Jrvington, New Jersey Congregation B'nai Israel PARLIAMENTARIAN : Henry N. Rapaport, Scarsu lie, New york Honorary President, United Synagogue of America Report of Chairman of Committee on Congregational Standards — Revised Guide to Congregational Standards: Judah Gribetz, Rockaway Park, New york Jemple Beth El CONSULTANT : Morris Laub, Secretary Committee on Congregational Standards Presentation of Board of Directors Resolution on Bingo Victor Zager, North Bellmore, New york President, New york !Metropolitan Region

xix MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 19 7 1

Report of Negotiations with the Jewish Theological Seminary Philip Greene, Jamaica, New york Chairman, Budget and finance Committee United Synagogue of America Report of Chairman of Resolutions Committee Jerry Wagner, Bloomfield, Connecticut Bethmiel

CONSULTANT: Morris Laub, Director Joint Commission on Social Action of the United Synagogue of America, Rabbinical Assembly, National federation of Jewish !Men's Clubs, National ,Women's League 4:15 P.M. Minhah Service and Ma'ariv Service to be conducted at the Plenary Session

READER : MINHAH Isadore M. Marder, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Jiar Zion Temple

READER : MA'ARIV Ronald Landau, Jrvington, New Jersey Congregation B'nai Israel 7:00 P.M. Dinner Dining Room CHAIRMAN : Morris Speizman, Charlotte, North Carolina President, World Council of Synagogues

BIRKAT HA-MAZON: Ben Magdovitz, St. Louis, Missouri Congregation Bnai Amoona

GREETINGS : Rabbi Gerson D. Cohen

ADDRESS : "On the Alienation of Our Youth" Mr. Elie Wiesel, Noted Author and Lecturer 10:00 P.M. Conferrals of Solomon Schechter Awards Imperial Room Dr. Morris Fond, Roslyn, New york Chairman, Solomon Schechter Awards Committee

CONSULTANT: Rabbi Paul Freedman, Director Department of youth Activities United Synagogue of America 10:30 P.M. Social Program Imperial Room

xx Tuesday WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1971 8:00 A.M. Shaharit Service Convention Synagogue READER: Harold B. Pressman, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Jemple Sinai—Assisted by members of the Jemple Sinai Borchee Nafshee !Minyan

D'VAR TORAH : Dr. Sidney Greenberg, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Jemple Sinai

8:30 A.M. Regional Breakfasts 9:00 A.M. Breakfast Dining Room

9:45 A.M. Plenary Session: Resolutions (continued) Imperial Room CHAIRMAN : Harold B. Pressman, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Secretary, United Synagogue of America

PARLIAMENTARIAN : Francis Mintz, Cos Angeles, California Beth Am Report of Chairman of Resolutions Committee Jerry Wagner, Bloomfield, Connecticut B etbWllel

11:30 A.M. OPEN BOARD MEETING Cordillion Room NATIONAL WOMEN'S LEAGUE OF THE UNITED SYNAGOGUE OF AMERICA PRESIDING: Mrs. Henry N. Rapaport, President 1National Women's League

1:00 P.M. Lunch Dining Room BIRKAT HA-MAZON

2:30 P.M. Parallel Conferences within the Convention Cordillion Room 1. THE BRUTALIZATION OF SOCIETY "Health and the Delivery of Health Services"

CHAIRMAN: Dr. Joseph Peyser, Hillside, New Jersey Shomrei Jorah

OPENING REMARKS : Henry N. Rapaport, Scarsdale, New york Chairman Joint Commission on Social Action of the United Synagogue of America, Rabbinical Assembly, National federation of Jewish !Men's Clubs, National Women's League

xxi WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1971

PRESENTATIONS : Dr. Edmund O. Rothschild '.Member, Hoard of Directors of the New york City Health and Hospitals Corporation Sidney R. Katz, Executive Director Karen Homey Clinic, New york, New york

CONFERENCE COORDINATOR : Morris Laub, Director Joint Commission on Social Action of the United Synagogue of America, Rabbinical Assembly, National federation of Jewish !Men's Clubs, National Women's League

Qrecian Room 2. CONFERENCE ON SUMMER ACTIVITIES CHAIRMAN: Mrs. A. David Arzt, South Baldwin, New york Chairman, Summer Activities Committee United Synagogue of America

PRESENTATION: Dr. Daniel Elazar, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Professor of Political Science Director of Institute for Study of federalism Jemple University

CONFERENCE COORDINATOR : Pesach Schindler, Assistant Director Department of Education United Synagogue of America

Corinthian Room 3. THE CURRENT SCENE IN EDUCATION: OPPORTUNITY AND CHALLENGE "Public Education — Elementary and Secondary"

CHAIRMAN : Martin D. Cohn, Hazleton, Pennsylvania Agudas Israel

PRESENTATIONS : Dr. Seymour P. Lachman, Vice President New york City Board of Education Rabbi Howard D. Singer, West Hartford, Connecticut 7he Emanuel Synagogue

DISCUSSANT: Joseph N. Landsburg, Havertown, Pennsylvania !Member, Boards of School Directors of Jiaverford Jownship and of Deleware County

CONFERENCE COORDINATOR: Rabbi Marvin S. Wiener Director, ?National Academy for Adult Jewish Studies United Synagogue of America

xxii WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1971 gypsy lounge 4. CONFERENCE ON JEWISH IDENTITY

CHAIRMAN: Seymour Goldberg, Linden, New Jersey Vice President, United Synagogue of America

PRESENTATION: Milton Himmelfarb Director of Information and Research American Jewish Committee

CONFERENCE COORDINATOR : Rabbi Paul Freedman, Director National youth Commission United Synagogue of America

Roman Room 5. SYNAGOGUE LONG-RANGE PLANNING "The Changing Society and its Effect on the Synagogue" CHAIRMAN: Arthur J. Levine, Qreat Neck, New york Chairman, National Committee on Synagogue Administration United Synagogue of America

PRESENTATIONS: Judd Teller, Consultant Institute for Jewish Policy Planning and Research Synagogue Council of America Rabbi Wolfe Kelman Executive Vice President Jhe Rabbinical Assembly CONFERENCE COORDINATOR : Jack Mittleman, Director Department of Synagogue Administration United Synagogue of America

4:15 P.M. UNITED SYNAGOGUE TOUR Room A233 SERVICE SEMINAR "Why Your Congregation Should Travel The United Synagogue Way" PARTICIPANTS : Jacob Stein, President, United Synagogue of America Baruch Lilo, United States Passengers' Sales Manager, El At Israel Airlines Yaacov Pachter, Director, Eastern Region Israel Qovernment Jourist Office Mrs. Susan Nissim, !Manager, United Synagogue Jour Service Zev Melamid, Consultant to United Synagogue J our Service

xxiii WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1971

Qrecian Room TIKVAH PROGRAM Summer Camping for "Special" Children Video-tape Presentation

Room A227 TEACHING THE HOLOCAUST CHAIRMAN: Dr. Azriel Eisenberg Chairman, "United Synagogue Commission on Jewish Education PRESENTATION : Gideon Hausner !Member, Israel Xnesset

REGIONAL MEETINGS Minhah Service and Ma'ariv Service to be held at respective meetings 7:00 P.M. Dinner Dining Room CHAIRMAN: Joseph Berlin, !Montreal, Canada Vice-President, United Synagogue of America BIRKAT HA-MAZON Dr. Charles Solomon, !Montreal, Canada Shaar Hasbomayim ADDRESSES : "Jewish Life in America — A Watershed" Rabbi Mordecai Waxman, Qreat Neck, New york Jemple Israel "Israel Facing Past and Future" Mr. Gideon Hausner !Member, Jsrael Xnesset 10:30 P.M. Social Program Imperial Room

NOVEMBER 17, 1971

8:00 A.M. Shaharit Service Convention Synagogue READER: Dr. Sidney Finkel, Westbury, New york Westbury Hebrew Congregation D'VAR TORAH : Rabbi Mordecai Kieffer, Erie, Pennsylvania Brith Sholom Congregation 8:30 A.M. Regional Breakfasts 9:00 A.M. Breakfast Dining Room

xxiv WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1971

10:00 A.M. Conferences within the Convention (continue

Cordillion Room 1. THE BRUTALIZATION OF SOCIETY (Continued) "Drugs and Drug Abuse"

CHAIRMAN: Dr. Harold C. Rivkind, St. Petersburg, ?Florida President, Southeast Region United Synagogue of America

SPEAKERS : Professor Simon Slavin, Philadelphia, Pennsylvar! Dean, School of Administration Jemple University Rabbi Elliot T. Spar, Smitbtown, New york Jemple Beth Sholom

Grecian Room 1. CONFERENCE ON SUMMER ACTIVITIES (Continued) "Thresholding the Summer" A MULTIMEDIA PRESENTATION

PARTICIPANTS : European Pilgrimage Miss Reva Port, Middletown, Connecticut Adath Israel U.S.Y. Dance Group Visiting Israel MissTina Yacknowitz, Nanuet, New york Nanuet Hebrew Center U.S.Y. on Wheels Robert Leifert, Program Coordinator Department of youth Activities United Synagogue of America Ramah Miss Mary Ann Goldstein, Nyack, New york Congregation Sons of Israel Day Camp Mrs. Saul Orlinsky, Roslyn Heights, New york Beth Sholom Family Kallah Visuals

Corinthian Room 3. THE CURRENT SCENE IN EDUCATION (Continued) "Jewish Education— Day School and Supplementary"

xxvi WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1971

CHAIRMAN : Bellmore, New york־ Victor Zager, North President, New york Metropolitan Region United Synagogue of America

PRESENTATIONS : Dr. Eli Grad President Hebrew College B rookline, Massachusetts Rabbi Elvin I. Kose, Union, New Jersey Congregation Beth Shalom Dr. Alvin Mars, Elkins Park, Pennsylvania Educational Director Beth Sholom Congregation

Gypsy Lounge 4. CONFERENCE ON JEWISH IDENTITY (Continued)

CHAIRMAN: David Hermelin, Soutbfield, Michigan Associate Chairman, Central Regional youth Commission United Synagogue of America

PRESENTATION : Rabbi Arnold Turetsky, Jackson Heights, New york Jackson Heights Jewish Center Leader, i970-7i U.S.y. European Pilgrimages

DISCUSSANT : Rabbi Ephraim Warshaw, Qreat Neck, New york Principal, Hebrew High School Jemple Israel

Roman Room 5. SYNAGOGUE LONG-RANGE PLANNING (Continued) "A Program of Self-Evaluation and Long-Range Planning"

THREE SEMINAR WORKSHOPS led by: a. Joseph Abrahams, Newton, Massachusetts Executive Director, Mishkan Jefila b. William Abrams, 1Westmount, Canada Shaar Hashomayim c. Maurice Schiller, Southfield Michigan Shaare Zedek

CONSULTANT: Howard Danzig, Southfield, Michigan Executive Director, Shaare Zedek President, National Association of Synagogue Administrators

xxvi WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1971

1:00 P.M. Lunch Dining Room BIRKAT HA-MAZON

1:00 P.M.-4:00 P.M. Laboratory for Leaders Empire Dining Room CHAIRMAN : Alvin Weiss, Pottstoum, Pennsylvania President Eastern Pennsylvania .Region United Synagogue of America

PRESENTATION: "The Future of the Small Congregation" Rabbi Simcha Kling, Louisville, Kentucky Congregation Adath Jeshurun

WORKSHOP SESSION :

a. Robert Fischer, Past Executive Secretary ,Western Pennsylvania Region United Synagogue of America "Administration and Finances in the Small Congregation" b. Abraham Gittelson, Associate Director Southeast Region United Synagogue of America "The Religious School in the Small Congregation" c. Barry Churchman, Assistant Director Department of youth Activities United Synagogue of America "The Problems of Youth in the Small Congregation" d. Rabbi Joseph Wiesenberg, Director Central States and Southwest Regions United Synagogue of America "Religious Services in the Small Congregation" Discussion and Problem Clinic to follow Panel Presentations.

COORDINATOR : Dr. Max M. Rothschild Director, Department of Regional Activities United Synagogue of America

2:30 P.M. Conferences Within the Convention (continued) Cordillion Room 1. THE BRUTALIZATION OF SOCIETY (Continued) "The Jewish Poor"

CHAIRMAN : Harry B. Aron, Skokie, Minois d'nai Emunah

xxvii WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1971

PRESENTATIONS : Mrs. Ann G. Wolfe, Program Consultant Jntergroup Relations and Social Action Department, American Jewish Committee Rabbi Yaakov Rosenberg, Elkins Park, Pennsylvania Congregation Adath Jeshurun

CLOSING REMARKS: Morris Laub, Director Joint Commission on Social Action of the United Synagogue of America, Rabbinical Assembly, ,National federation of Jewish !Men's Clubs, National Women's League

Grecian Room 2. CONFERENCE ON SUMMER ACTIVITIES (Continued) CHAIRMAN : Brunswick, New Jersey־ Saul Topolsky, New Sharri Sholom

PARTICIPANTS : Mrs. A. David Arzt, South Baldwin, New york Chairman, Summer Activities Committee United Synagogue of America Rabbi Joel T. Klein, !Manchester, New ,Hampshire femple Israel Mrs. Saul Orlinsky, Roslyn Heights, New york Beth Sholom Pesach Schindler, Assistant Director Department of Education United Synagogue of America

Corinthian Room 3. THE CURRENT SCENE IN EDUCATION (Continued) "The Adult in Education (including university experience) "

CHAIRMAN: Rabbi Albert Thaler, flushing, New york Queensboro-Hilt Jewish Center

PRESENTATIONS : Dr. Norman Adler, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Associate Professor, University of Pennsylvania Rabbi Louis M. Levitsky, South Orange, New Jersey Oheb Shalom Congregation

DISCUSSANT : Miss Marylin Schlachter, Princeton , New Jersey Princeton University

xxviii WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1971

GypsyRoom 4. CONFERENCE ON JEWISH IDENTITY (Continued) CHAIRMAN: Rabbi Paul Freedman, Director National youth Commission United Synagogue of America "Program of Action" Developing Specific Recommendations on how to achieve Jewish identity PRESENTATION: Jules Gutin, Atid Coordinator Department of youth Activities United Synagogue of America DISCUSSANT : Sam KeifFer, Westbury, New york President, AJJD

Roman Room 5. SYNAGOGUE LONG-RANGE PLANNING (Continued) "Actions and Directions For the Synagogue in a Changing Society"

CHAIRMAN : B. Sol Goldfinger, New Rochelle, New york Beth El־ Congregation PRESENTATIONS : "The Congregation Program" Ray Ellenbogen, Cedarhurst, New york Executive Director, Jemple Beth €1 "Synagogue Administration" Martin Leichtling, New york, New york Executive Director, Park Avenue Synagogue "Cooperative Action—Local, Regional, National" Arthur J. Levine, Qreat Neck, New york Vice-President, United Synagogue of America

Doric Room SPECIAL CONFERENCE FOR RABBIS ON INTERMARRIAGE CHAIRMAN: Rabbi Irving Lehrman President Synagogue Council of America PARTICIPANTS : Rabbi Israel Mowshowitz, flushing, New york Hillcrest Jewish Center Rabbi Judah Washer, Jeaneck, New Jersey Jewish Community Center Rabbi Armond E. Cohen, Cleveland ,Heights, Ohio Jhe Park Synagogue

xxix WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1971

4:15 P.M. Minhah Service Convention Synagogue READER: Albert Brunn, Buffalo, New york Congregation Sbaarey Zedek

MAARIV SERVICE

READER : Samuel Horowitz, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Beth Hillel of Wynnewood

6:00 P.M. Reception forum Hall

7:00 P.M. Closing Banquet Dining Room CHAIRMAN: Philip Greene, Jamaica, New york Jamaica Jewish Center

BIRKAT HA-MAZON : Hazzan Yehuda Mandel, President Cantors Assembly

INTRODUCTION OF RABBI FINKELSTEIN : Rabbi Bernard Mandelbaum, President fhe Jewish fheological Seminary of America

INSTALLATION OF OFFICERS AND ADDRESS : Rabbi Louis Finkelstein

10:30 P.M. Social Program Imperial Room

Thursday » OVEMBER 18, 1971 8:00 A.M. Shaharit Service Convention Synagogue READER : Sidney Storch, flushing, New york Queensboro Hill Jewish Center

D'VAR TORAH : Rabbi Albert.Thaler, flushing, New york Queensboro Hill Jewish Center

9:00 A.M. Breakfast Dining Room

xxxi WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1971

10:00 A.M. JEWISH LAW IN OUR TIMES

CHAIRMAN : George Maislen, Jreeport, New york Past President United Synagogue of America

PARTICIPANTS : Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, Englewood, New Jersey !Temple Emanuel Rabbi Benjamin Kreitman, Brooklyn, New york Congregation Sbaare Jorah Buffalo, New york־ ,Rabbi Isaac Klein Jemple Shaarey Zedek

DISCUSSION :

1:00 P.M. Closing Luncheon Dining Room BIRKAT HA-MAZON

xxxi

WELCOME ADDRESS

HAROLD STUBENHAUS Chairman, Convention Committee

Distinguished guests on the dais, delegates and friends. On behalf of the officers and directors of the United Synagogue of America, we welcome you to our biennial convention, and declare it open for our deliberations.

This evening represents the culmination of more than one year of work, on the part of a representative group of lay leaders and the most hard working professional staff any convention chairman has ever been privileged to work with. The composition of our committee with members from large and small congregatitons from East coast to West coast, from South to North, and encompassing the United States and Canada, is reflected in our program. I personally have been inspired by the cooperation and contributions they have made in our planning and execution. Special thanks are due to our Executive Vice President, Rabbi Bernard Segal, and our Executive Director Dr. Morton Siegel, for their valuable contributions of time and ideas that have been of incalculable value in planning this convention. The professional staff they lead has never disappointed us, no matter how difficult or how unreasonable were the requests made of them, during this past year. They accomplished all they were asked to do, while attending to their regular duties. To Miss Rachelle Sachs I give my appreciation and praise for a job well done. Rachelle knew no limitations of time or effort. She went about hard tasks quietly, efficiently and with a dedication that we in the United Synagogue have learned to recognize as a trait of all of our professionals. My final word of thanks this evening I have for my very good friend, and tireless worker, Jack Mittelman, our convention director. I have been fortunate enough to work with Jack since the early days of his association with the United Synagogue: Jack Mittelmann is a synonym for hard work. The success of this convention as the success of past conventions, is the result of the degree of dedication and loyalty that knows no peer; no words can adequately recognize his contribution to our convention. Jack, I want to lead this convention in applaud- ing you. Our theme to "Renew the Old and Sanctify the New," from the words of the late Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, the late Chief Rabbi of Israel, was chosen by the committee to indicate the purpose of the Conservative Movement and to point up the problems that we have taken with us into the 1970's. Our Movement was brought into being to conserve Judaism, in the Dias- pora. Even with the creation of the State of Israel we find that our reason for existence is still questionable. We Jews are a stubborn people. And we Con- servative Jews are even more stubborn, in that we refuse to accept a passive role in the preservation of our people. We have survived the thousands of years

1 only because we have been willing to adapt to the times without abandoning our traditions. And seeking out ways to present our theme distinctly to this convention I came across a passage and I would like to quote it: "a vital Judaism in America includes a positive attitude toward Jewish tradition, and an equally clear awareness of the necessity for growth and development. It does not deny the patent fact of the peoplehood of Israel, but places that emphasis properly upon the fundamentally religious character of its civilization. It is genuinely American, yet retains its bond of attachment to Israel, and its zeal for the rebuilding of Eretz Yisraet." I owe my special thanks and appreciation for this restatement of our theme, to our distinguished Rabbi, teacher and keynote speaker, Rabbi Robert Gordis. Thank you for the use of the quotation. Ladies and gentlemen, to proceed with the business of the evening, it is my pleasure at this time to introduce to you Dr. Maxwell Kaye of Irvington, New Jersey, the Chairman of our Committee on Affiliations, Dr. Kaye.

2 INDUCTION OF NEW CONGREGATIONS

MAXWELL KAYE Chairman, Committee on Affiliations, United Synagogue of America

As chairman of the Committee on Affiliations I am pleased and honored to welcome our new affiliates here this evening. The United Synagogue of America, with 829 affiliated congregations, continues to move forward with renewed faith and self dedication in making our religion a positive way of life for the Jewish people. From a group of 22 synagogues in 1913, we have emerged as a dynamic force in world Jewry embracing over 1/2 million Jews in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Israel and Puerto Rico.

Through its activities the United Synagogue of America continues to fulfill its declared purpose: "the preservation of the knowledge and practice of historical Judaism."

As members of a synagogue that is affiliating with our movement, you obviously feel a commitment to your faith and to the practices of Conservative Judaism, and it will be through this membership that you will express your religious convictions as do all other conservative Jews. For you, your affiliation marks the opening of a new chapter in the history of your congregations. Whether it shall mean something significant, or perhaps even momentous, depends upon the resolve which animates all of you who are workers in the vineyard of the Lord. To reap the spiritual bounty which our movement has to offer, we ask you to dedicate yourselves, your time, and your zeal to the cause of the survival of Judaism. Congratulations! May you go from strength to strength.

3 PLENARY SESSIONS

Monday morning, November 15 Monday afternoon, November 15 Tuesday morning, November 16 Thursday morning, November 18

Plenary sessions of the United Synagogue Biennial Convention were held on Monday morning and afternoon, November 15, Tuesday morning, Novem- ber 16, and Thursday morning. November 18. The Monday morning session was chaired by Jacob Stein, president of the United Synagogue, and Henry N. Rapaport, honorary president. Max Chill of Oak Park, Illinois, president of the Midwest Region, served as parliamentarian. During the course of the session; 1. A set of rules and regulations governing the conduct of convention business was adopted. 2. A report was received from the Nominating Committee presented by George Maislen, chairman. Mr. Maislen presented the following slate of candidates for officers for the coming two years: Jacob Stein of Temple Israel, Great Neck, Long Island, New York, for president. For vice-presidents: Harry Aron, Congregation B'nai Emunah, Skokie, Illinois; Joseph Berlin, Shaare Zedek, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Horace Bier, B'nai Israel, Irvington, New Jersey; Harold Groh, Beth El, Norfolk, Virginia; Victor Horwitz, Temple Beth Jacob, Redwood City, California; Arthur J. Levine, Temple Israel, Great Neck, L. I., N. Y., & Park Avenue Synagogue, New York, New York; Ben Magdovitz, B'nai Amoona, St. Louis, Missouri; Francis Mintz, Temple Beth Am, Los Angeles, California; Abram Piwosky, Adath Jeshurun, Elkins Park, Pennsylvania; Morris Rothstein, Mishkan Tefila, Newton, Massachusetts; Philip Selber, Jacksonville Jewish Center, Jacksonville, Florida; Jerry Wagner, Beth Hillel, Bloomfield, Connecticut; Edward D. Wyner, Temple on the Heights, Cleveland, Ohio.

For secretary, Harold Pressman of Temple Sinai, Philadelphia, Pennsyl- vania, and Harold Stubenhaus of Westbury Hebrew Congregation, Westbury, Long Island, for treasurer. Upon motion duly made, seconded and passed, all of the above nominees were unanimously elected to their respective offices. Mr. Maislen then presented the following nominees for election as honorary directors: Milton Berger, Adath Jeshurun, Elkins Park, Pennsylvania; Abe Biren- baum, Har Zion, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Hyman Brand, Beth Shalom, Kan-

4 sas City, Missouri; Arthur S. Bruckman, Temple Emanuel, Parkchester, New York; Jack Gladstone, Ohavi Zedek, Burlington, Vermont; Bert Godfrey, Beth Tzedec, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Reuben Goldman, Esq., Temple Beth El, Rochester, New York; Herman Greenberg, Temple Israel, Great Neck, I. I., New York; B. L. Jacobs, Har Zion, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Dr. Maxwell Kaye, B'nai Israel, Irvington, New Jersey; Harry Lakin, Temple Emeth, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts. Upon motion duly made, seconded and passed, all of the nominees were unanimously elected as honorary directors. Mr. Maislen then presented a list of nominees for election as directors. (See page ix). Upon motion duly made, seconded and passed, all of the nominees were unanimously elected as directors. Upon motion duly made, seconded and passed, all of the nominees were unanimously elected to the National Council. Mr. Maislen then presented a list of nominees for election as members of the National Council. (See pp. ix-xi). 3. President Stein then presented the President's report. (See pp. 7-16). The chair was then assumed by Mr. Rapaport. Mr. Rapaport called upon Samuel Rothstein, chairman of the Committee to Revise the United Synagogue By-Laws for his committee's report. After Mr. Rothstein's presentation and discussion from the floor, the revised by-laws were adopted. (See pp. 199-206). Horace Bier, past president of the Northern New Jersey Region, presided at the Monday afternoon session, at which time Mr. Rapaport served as parliamentarian. The following business was transacted:

1. Judah Gribetz of Temple Beth El, Rockaway Park, New York, chairman of the Committee on Congregational Standards, presented a revised draft for the Guide to Congregational Standards. Discussion followed. The revised draft was adopted. (See pp. 207-209).

2. A resolution of the Board of Directors on Bingo was presented by Victor Zager, president of the New York Metropolitan Region. Discussion followed. The resolution was adopted. (See p. 216).

3. Philip Greene of the Jamaica Jewish Center of Jamaica, New York, chairman of the United Synagogue's Budget and Finance Committee, presented a progress report of negotiations with The Jewish Theological Seminary, regarding the United Synagogue's allocation from the Joint Campaign. Harold B. Pressman of Temple Sinai, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, secretary of the United Synagogue, presided at the session on Tuesday morning and Francis Mintz of Beth Am, Los Angeles, California, past president of the Pacific Southwest Region, served as parliamentarian. Mr. Pressman called upon

5 Jerry Wagner of Beth Hillel, Bloomfield, Connecticut, chairman of the Com- mittee on Resolutions, to present the report of his committee. The Convention then proceeded to discuss each proposed resolution separately. The approved resolutions, as adopted by the convention, appear on pages 217-229. George Maislen, past president of the United Synagogue, presided at the Thursday morning session which featured a symposium on "Jewish Law In Our Times." Presentations were made by Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg of Temple Emanuel, Englewood, New Jersey; Rabbi Benjamin Kreitman, Congregation Shaare Torah, Brooklyn, New York; and Rabbi Isaac Klein, Temple Shaarey Zedek, Buffalo, New York. Discussion from the floor followed. Excerpts from the addresses appear on pages 193-194.

6 PRESIDENT'S BIENNIAL REPORT

JACOB STEIN President, United Synagogue of America

For myself and for all those whom you have just elected to positions of leadership, I extend a thank you and a pledge to discharge our responsibilities to the best of our abilities. This is an appropriate time for me to share with you some of the developments during the past two years, the period that I have been privileged to serve as president. I do so knowing that from the moment I took office and made my first decision that some of my supporters would question the wisdom of their judgement. In making decisions these two years, I have been guided by the standard "Is it good for Jewry and for the United Synagogue" and have, to the best of my ability, acted accordingly. We recognize that our membership includes congregations in Canada, Mexico and Israel as well as the United States and that henceforth we shall use the term "Central" office instead of "National" office. We welcome and urge approval of the amendment to the By-Laws providing for a Vice Presi- dent from Canada. Our Canadian affiliates are dynamic synagogue communities which function within the context of the social and legal norms of their country and which might on occasion adopt positions and approaches which differ from those of our United States members. I expressed the hope in my installation response two years ago that we would be able to expand rapidly regional programs, add additional regional staff and strengthen our youth activities as priority projects. We were not able to do as much as we would have liked to do in these fields because of serious financial limitations. There was the matter of a rather large deficit created by a short fall in dues during several previous years which was not matched by cutbacks in expenditures. It was our opinion that in the very first instance the fiscal stability of the United Synagogue must be maitained and so we addressed ourselves to the task of increasing income through intensified collection of dues and carefully moni- toring the expenditures of our departments. We still have a deficit but I believe we are making progress towards eliminating it and hopefully by our next Con- vention our financial condition will be improved. But despite financial limitations we had a very active two years. The United Synagogue experienced great growth over the past twenty years but did not possess executive personnel sufficient to deal with our rapid growth. Accordingly we have strengthened our central administration by naming Rabbi Bernard Segal to the post of Executive Vice President and Dr. Morton Siegel to the post of Executive Director.

7 Rabbi Bernard Segal, drawing on his wealth of 20 years of experience with the United Synagogue, will plan and coordinate our activities, strengthen relationships with our rabbinic leadership and assume direct responsibility for the many important special projects now under way. Dr. Morton Siegel brings to his task proven expertise in the field of programmatic development, fiscal management and personnel supervision and he is responsible for the day to day operation of the United Synagogue. Under his direction we have put our operations on a computer, suffering the normal— .in problems when one changes to computerization־I hope normal—breaking In connection with this we have modified our fiscal relations with the regions in order that bills may be more promptly paid and in order that the regional leadership can be fully knowledgeable at all times as to the financial situation in their region.

In terms of youth, we have expanded ALL our programs. Our United Synagogue Youth Pilgrimage to Israel this summer had over 650 participants and we are setting 1,000 as our goal for this coming summer. Everyone who has participated in the USY Israel Pilgrimage recognizes its great value in achieving identification with and commitment to Judaism. We will continue our program of taking a selected group of youngsters to visit Russia and other Iron Curtain countries, subject, of course, to political conditions.

We will also expand our United Synagogue on Wheels Program which carries youngsters across our country and, in addition to visiting all of the points of scenic interest, the youngsters enjoy the opportunity of meeting with their peer group in Jewish communities.

We have undertaken a program of expansion of our Kadimah Program which is pre-USY and deals with youngsters between the ages of 10 and 12. We believe there is a potential of 40,000 pre-teens which should be involved in programs with Jewish content. On the college level, our aim is not to compete with Hillel and existing college organizations but to supplement their programs. We feel that in the ATID Bookmobile we have a significant tool to introduce college students to Jewish literature, history and thought through the medium of our travelling library. I am pleased to advise that our first Bookmobile venture, a rather small and limited vehicle, will very shortly be replaced by a new, modern, especially designed Bookmobile. This new vehicle will be capable of carrying 6,000 books, representing every field of Judaica and capable of visiting every college campus in this country. I hope that when it is in your community you will utilize it for your congregation as a basis for programs and book fairs and provide it with such support as it may require.

Also at the college age level we have strengthened our ATID subscription program to the point where we now reach 10,000 college age people through 6 or 8 mailings a year in which we present topics of current interest, peace and war, ecology, Vietnam, abortion and all those items which make up the

8 talk in dormitories and on campuses. We believe that this program has a poten- rial of reaching 40,000, but to attain this goal will require the support of congregational presidents and rabbis in submitting the names of their college age students to our Youth Commission.

We have some concerns over the fact that membership in our United Syna- gogue Youth has plateaued out at 25,000 and while we will continue to exert efforts to strengthen USY without sacrificing its high standards—we will also explore possibilities of reaching out to the mass of our youth who are unaffiliated with USY and to construct organizations and programs to attract them and to involve them in some form of Jewish expression.

In a final word about college age, I want to report on a program providing for college age students to visit Israel during the mid-winter vacation, there, first hand to meet with Arabs, to study social conditions and to discuss with personalities all aspects of Israeli life. Fortified by this visit these students can then return to their campus and combat the spread of virulent anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda being sponsored by Arab students. Our first such group visited Israel this past December and as a result several students have already set up Israeli clubs on their campuses and built programs designed to educate and inform young people about the real facts in Israel. We are sched- uling this trip again for this winter and I would urge you to make it possible for many of your college students to participate.

In the area of education, I am sure that I reflect the concerns of many that our educational system these last 20 years has not produced the level of Jewish knowledge or commitment that we would have desired. In recognition of the fact that it is not wise to continue along paths which have not produced positive results, our United Synagogue Commission on Jewish Education has developed new curricula for the elementary afternoon congregational school, for the congregational high school and for our Solomon Schechter Day schools. We hope that the new methods and the new material developed will produce more satisfactory results. We take very real pleasure in reporting on the growth of our Solomon Schechter Day schools. In the last two years we have added 8 new schools for a total of 42. At present our day schools involve close to 8,000 students. It appears that we can anticipate 5 or 6 new schools this year and a like amount next year.

Our first Solomon Schechter High School in Israel is NOW in operation with 20 students and hopefully will be expanded so that many more students can participate in a year of study in Israel on a high school level, fully meeting all the requirements for accreditation by their local high school.

Our Commission on Education has developed an experimental program in which parents are involved in the learning processes with their children and it holds promise of developing a better relationship between home and school. We are also developing a better relationship between home and school. We are also developing a continent-wide association of a United Synagogue of

9 Schools tied into a central office to make for standardization of programming and for improved efficiency by member schools.

I am also pleased to report on the first of what I hope will be many joint undertakings with the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, wherein together we developed a special Sabbath project which is on display in our Book Service booth in the lobby and is being well received by members of the Conservative and the Reform communities. I have opened a dialogue with Rabbi Maurice Eisendrath, the distinguished leader of Reform Judaism, to delineate areas of possible cooperation and am exploring areas of similar cooperation with the Orthodox synagogue movement.

As one item of interest, we created, in cooperation with Ramah, Camp Tikvah, a summer camping program for intellectually disadvantaged children.

Another item, along with Red China, the United Synagogue has been admitted to the United Nations as a non governmental organization, and our Honorary President, Henry N. Rapaport, is our ambassador. a major problem in the United Synagogue was the ־I early realized that problem of communication, communication between United Synagogue personnel, between elected leadership and regions and congregations and accordingly we undertook 4 specific programs designed to improve the sharing of ideas and the exchange of experiences.

The first was that all staff members were directed to travel more frequently and to spend more time away from their desks and in synagogue communities. Dr. Morton Siegel, our new executive director, has visited with many of you. Dr. Max Rothschild has travelled with increasing frequency and I myself have attempted to visit every region during these past two years. Our officers and directors have increased the frequency of visits to congregations.

In addition, at least one meeting a year of our Board of Directors takes place out of New York City and this practice will be continued. Secondly, our various committees have increased their communication with our membership—Social Action Committee, Israel Affairs Committee, Adult Education Committee—all have newsletters and the newly appointed Soviet Jewry Committee will soon start publishing its newsletter.

In a third area the United Synagogue Review has been improved—not enough. It still doesn't reach the desired quality level of editorial content nor the quantity of advertising necessary but through its pages several hundred thousand members of the United Synagogue are kept aware of United Syna- gogue doings and are informed about United Synagogue programs, and a new editorial approach will heighten interest in this publication.

and fourth, I have instituted a bi-monthly President's Letter addressed to presidents and rabbis of all member congregations reflecting the activities of the United Synagogue and reporting on other matters of general interest.

10 During the past two years the United Synagogue has played an increasingly active role in reflecting the concerns of its membership in matters dealing with Israel, Soviet Jewry and the problems of Jewish life throughout the world. As a member of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organiza- tions I have on occasion been privileged to meet with ranking members of our government and the Israeli government to discuss crises in the Middle East. I have met with representatives of Germany and Greece to express the feeling of our constituency on programs that they were contemplating affecting Jews.

During the course of the past two years I have had the opportunity to serve as the Acting Chairman of the Conference of Presidents and I have recently mailed to the president of each congregation a full report on the activities of the Conference of Presidents. In my efforts on the Presidents Conference I have been ably assisted by our distiguished Past President, George Maislen. It is appropriate to state at this point our wholehearted support of Israel. We welcome the sentiment expressed by 78 members of the U.S. Senate and 249 members of the House who called on the administration, in a resolution, to provide Israel with the air strength necessary for the preservation of the balance of power in the Middle East. Israel seeks arms to maintain the peace—Egypt acquires weapons to mount a war.

We urge our State Department to renew immediately the shipment of Phantom aircraft so desperately needed by Israel for her defense. We believe that only a strong Israel—and an Israel whose strength is maintained—can serve as a deterrent to war and provide the basis for the urgently needed direct ne go- tiations between the parties. For this we believe is the only road to a lasting peace in the Middle East. Our Departments of Synagogue Administration, Social Action, Adult Edu- cation, Placement have all expanded their operations and their contacts and communications with congregations. During these past two years we have strengthened our relationships with the Jewish Theological Seminary and with the Rabbinical Assembly. I think we have reached a better understanding with the Seminary. Our participation in the selection of Chancellor and President—and we congratulate Rabbi Cohen and Rabbi Mandelbaum—made us a highly visible member of the Conservative family. The Seminary, during these past two years, suffered a serious financial crisis which forced them to curtail dramatically many programs and to make substantial changes in the Jewish Museum and in the Eternal Light. However, Dr. Finkelstein recognized that the essential functions of the Rabbinical School and the School of Judaica must have the highest priority and so he took the necessary but unpleasant steps of releasing personnel and cutting back many areas of activity. It was in this environment that we started, as directed by the previous Convention, to negotiate with the Seminary for a revised formula

11 for United Synagogue participation in funds raised through the Joint Campaign And while the formula that was arrived at falls short of ideal, I think that for the present it is realistic. The full details of our negotiation and the formula arrived at will be reported this afternoon by Mr. Philip Greene, the chairman of our Negotiating Committee.

The National Enrollment Plan, an integral part of the formula, offers hope of providing a substantial increase in the gross collections of the Joint Cam- paign through the participation of our members and it is from this program that we will be enabled, through a revised sharing, to derive greater sums of money to finance our activities.

We have increased our dialogue with the Rabbinical Assembly and have developed new working relationships relative to our participation in the Joint Prayer Book Commission and the Law Committee. I want to express my personal appreciation to Rabbi Gershon Levi, president of the Rabbinical Assembly, for his friendship and for his support of our efforts in working towards our common goals.

We are still not satisfied with the functioning of the Joint Placement Com- mission for Rabbis and we are giving very serious consideration as to how we might more effectively represent our synagogues in the placement of rabbis. This is a continuing source of concern and we will be devoting much effort to it in the very near future. We have had discussions with the Ramah family relative to tensions created by the Ramah Israel Community Program, which was in direct competition with our Israel Pilgrimage, and I am happy to report, by virtue of an agreement arrived at by Dr. Finkelstein, Dr. Mandelbaum, Mrs. Ettenberg and myself, that the Ramah Community Program in Israel has been integrated with our United Synagogue Youth Israel Program and that the Ramah Israel Seminar will accept as eligible participants those who had spent at least one summer at Camp Ramah. I am hopeful that a very unpleasant period of competition and internal tension has been resolved.

We have raised the profile of our visibility in Israel in several ways. An increasing number of clearly identifiable United Synagogue members are visiting Israel on programs arranged by our United Synagogue Tour Service and out Israel Affairs Committee is developing, quite successfully, the United Synagogue Forest on a lovely hilltop just outside Jerusalem.

This summer I had the pleasure of accompanying a distinguished group of 80 synagogue leaders on a study and travel tour through Israel. The visit served to encourage our 5 member congregations in Israel and contacts were made which will result in the formation of several new congregations in the near future. The Israeli press widely reported our activities as well as presenting —perhaps for many readers—their first information about synagogue lay leadership in the United States and Canada. The Israel Affairs Committee is also keeping the chairmen of every congregational Israel Affairs Committee apprised of political developments and is

12 furnishing them with programs for Independence Day, providing speakers, helping arrange trade fairs, Israel fashion shows and art shows.

I am pleased to announce that we are activating a new United Synagogue ,consisting initially of 5 congregations in Ashkelon—׳region—an Israel region Haifa, Rehovot, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem, and in a short time we shall be dispatching a staff member to Israel to organize the region and assist them in programming. We have acquired a permanent office in Jerusalem and will coordinate our activities there with the new Jewish Theological Seminary in Jerusalem and the Rabbinical Assembly. Together we will develop a publication, provide study courses in our congregations, in kibbutzim and to any groups expressing an interest in our programs. Hopefully we will soon see the day when Israeli students will prepare for the rabbinate in our seminaries.

In the further development of our new Israel region we will have a full- time director in Israel as of this coming summer to service the region and coordinate United Synagogue activities in Israel.

As a part of our continuing involvement in the problems of the Soviet Jews, we have participated in the Conference in Brussels, been members of delegations making representations to governments, have created a United Synagogue Committee on Soviet Jewry and are active participants in the um- brella organizations dealing with this problem.

In connection with Israel and Soviet Jewry, we developed a stamp project to provide funds for the intensification of our programs in these areas. For Soviet Jewry these funds will be used to permit us to participate more actively in the on-going programs—a freedom bus, rallies and newspaper advertisements and sponsoring Russian emigres in touring the continent.

For Israel we plan to use a portion of such funds as may be realized for a special United Synagogue project in Israel representing our participation in the celebration of the 25 th anniversary of the founding of the State. Very shortly we will be appointing a special committe to develop programs for United Synagogue participation, programs which will involve every department and every congregation in celebrating this event. And I have the pleasure of appointing a distinguished past president to chair this Committee, Mr. George Maislen.

Our Insurance Program is increasing our service to our members and is being well received.

Our United Synagogue Tour Service is developing into a highly successful program—measured not so much in terms of dollars but in providing a service to our congregations. They offer advice on how, when and where and are prepared, when requested, to make the travel arrangements. There are special features available only to persons travelling through our United Synagogue Tour Service.

13 And now let me share some general thoughts with you.

The State of Israel cannot exist without the strong support of American Jewry, nor do I believe there is much hope for American Jewry without an Israel and while we recognize the sovereignty of the State of Israel, Israel must recognize that in religious dimensions there is only one sovereignty and that is the sovereignty of Judaism—and this calls for the full recognition of the status of American Jews. We cannot continue to tolerate our non-recognition as Jews and permit our rabbis, our spiritual leaders, to be humiliated and forbidden to perform as spiritual leaders. We do not accept the concept we in the mainstream of historical Judaism cannot enjoy complete and first class membership in the religious community of Israel.

Our rabbis cannot marry us in Israel, nor can they officiate at a funeral. Conversions by our spiritual leaders are invalid and the latent free and uniquely Israeli development of our faith is repressed. As sincere friends of Israel we will be encouraging, sympathetic and supporting but we must now call for the State of Israel to recognize us and our spiritual leaders as authentic Jews.

We face another problem—the tremendous shortage of personnel in every field of Jewish leadership—rabbis, cantors, teachers, executive directors and youth workers are in short supply and with particular reference to rabbis an increasing number of universities are opening chairs of Judaic studies which are attracting some of our top people. We call on the Seminary and the Rabbini- cal Assembly to require that every graduate be obligated to serve a minimum period of two years in a congregation which, for reasons of size or location, could not otherwise obtain the services of a rabbi. We think that as supporting members of the Seminary we have a right to request this term of service and we think that such a pulpit term would further educate recent graduates of the Seminary, particularly with regard to relationships with congregational members giving them a firsthand realization of the problems of congregational life.

As an immediate step we will develop a corps of rabbis, retired or on sabbatical, who will visit our smaller and more distant congregations. They will bring with them the wealth of their experience and as we benefit from their know how, they will find the challenge of channeling their energies into different congregations stimulating and rewarding.

Additionally we must recruit youngsters who possess the necessary intellectual and emotional characteristics for careers in Jewish life and must motivate those selected by every possible means, including scholarships, to pursue these careers.

We must examine seriously the problem of the golden curtain, which is rapidly separating our synagogue from unaffiliated members of the Jewish community, a golden curtain woven of high membership dues, varied assessments and building fund costs and a multiplicity of fund raising events. We

14 want the best for our congregations. We want to pay the best salaries to attract the highest calibre people but we must also devise ways and means to part this golden curtain so that we can attract new and younger people into an active synagogue life insuring continued vitality for our synagogues.

The problem of intermarriage and its alarming increase is most serious. Intermarriage is the internal hemorrhaging of the very lifeblood of Judaism and yet as we opt to live in an open society in free relationships wtih all people we must be prepared for a continuing rise in the rate of intermarriage until we find a way of communicating Judaism in a fashion so that meaningful commitment will be developed and intermarriage would be emotionally unacceptable to the young people involved. But having said this we must study how to deal with the fact of intermarriage before, during and after its occurrence. Our rabbis do not know how to counsel the parents involved; the parents are unable to communicate with their children; and the children drift unguided, rejected or at best—tolerated. A special session at the Convention will deal with this critical issue as a first step in an ongoing program.

I have stressed these two years and I continue to stress the need for a formal program of religious education through all pre-college years. When we consider thtat 95 % of our young people leave their home, their synagogue and their community and enter the critical and questioning environment of a university, and that in most cases they have a 13 year old knowledge of Judaism— a knowledge of hero stories and hora dancing—then we realize that we must take drastic steps to extend Jewish education beyond age 13. I hope every synagogue leader present will commit himself to press vigorously for required participation in a 5 year post Bar and Bat Mitzvah educational program.

The problem of financing an educational system is a serious one and since we are carrying out the obligation of the Jewish community to educate its children we must begin to educate our federations to the need for them to assist in funding these programs. Some—just a little—progress has been made in this direction. We are encouraged that the leaders of the Jewish Welfare Funds at their Convention in Pittsburgh last week established a 2 J/2 million dollar fund to strengthen various aspects of Jewish education and stated new guidelines which will encourage greater allocation of funds to day schools. I urge you to press for this kind of financial assistance . . . and if it is not available to carry the obligation on our own shoulders. We can do no less.

In another area, the rapid pace of technology is providing our membership and our society as a whole with an increasing amount of leisure time. The use of this leisure time must be constructive in order to prevent boredom and mental maladjustment. We can draw on our tradition to help others to learn how to enjoy their leisure time, to rediscover the beauty of family life, the pursuit of knowledge and the helping of one's fellow man. Our synagogues must create programs of spiritual, cultural and emotional enrichment to meet this challenge.

15 What we strive for, what it is all about was so beautifully stated by Rabbi Israel Friendlander: "a future not as it will be, but as it ought to be . . . full liberty . . . real happiness actively participating in the life of our country yet deeply rooted in the soil of Judaism, clinging to its past, working for its future ... a sharply marked community, trusted for its loyalty, respected for its dignity, esteemed for its traditions, valued for its virtues, a community as the Prophet in Exile saw in his wisdom . . . and marked will be their seed among the nations, and their offspring among the peoples. Everyone that will see them will point to them as being a community blessed by the Lord."

16 JEWISH EDUCATION, THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY

BERNARD SEGAL Executive Vice-President, United Synagogue of America

A great many of our congregations are still woefully inadequate in the Jewish education which they offer their children and adults alike. To be sure, the United Synagogue, through its various departments does create and does make available to its congregations progressive curricular materials, superb textbooks and excellent pedagogic guidance. But too many of our congregations are still in the "horse and buggy" age when it comes to Jewish education. These are congregations which get away with pittances in their educational budgets. These are congregations which are hardly more than Bar and Bat Mitzvah factories. The worst offense of many of our congregations is in the area of adult Jewish education which is receiving the shabbiest kind of treatment. It's bad enough that some congregations make no provision whatever in their budgets for adult Jewish education, but Heaven forgive us for what passes under the name of adult Jewish education in congregations even where funds are alio- cated for this purpose! Take a good look at some of the so-called adult Jewish courses in many synagogues and you have to stretch your imagination to recognize any quality of Jewish learning in them. Professor Ben Halpern of Brandeis University recently described American Jews as being in a state of limbo, in the sense that they are neither Gentiles nor self-respecting Jews simply because they know next to nothing about their own past and culture. Professor Halpern's comment was just another way of warning us that am ho'a'ratzus, or Jewish illiteracy, is running rampant in out Jewish community, and you and I must now awaken to the fact that it is "later than we think" and that our only hope of combatting our enemy #1 is through nothing less than a crash program of authentic and effective adult Jewish education.

And it is not as though our adults are not receptive to Jewish education. On the contrary, I see evidence on all sides that there is a real hunger for classes which offer Jewish studies under competent instructors. This is a responsibility which our congregations can no longer afford to delay. All of us are justly proud of the phenomenal progress we have made in our Movement in developing our Solomon Schechter day schools. It is by far our greatest achievement in recent years, and many of our lay and rabbinic leaders are truly immortalizing themselves through this "work of heaven." Many of us in the United States also feel strongly that the maintenance of Jewish day schools must remain the responsibility of the Jewish community, and that to accept government funds for our day schools would amount to an abdication of our responsibility and would pose a threat not only to freedom

17 of religion but also to the very foundations of democracy. (This, of course, applies only to the United States and not to Canada which has an altogether different government structure.) To be sure, a new wind is blowing in a growing number of our local federations and welfare funds in the United States in the direction of greater allocations for day schools. The Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds has recently announced that it is now developing guidelines for "effective support of Jewish day schools" by various federations. Max M. Fisher, president of the Council, was quoted as saying: "There is a growing feeling in many quarters—and not just orthodox quarters—that the day school holds one of the very best answers to further Jewish continuity." But these are by far still the exceptions. And what is especially painful is that the leaders of our own congregations across the continent have thus far not as yet awakened to the tremendous power which is in their hands to influence their local federations and to revolutionize their communities. The time has come for all of us to mobilize all of our strength under the banner of talmud torah kneged kulam and to restore Jewish learning to its historic position of preeminence in the hierarchy of Jewish values.

18 GREETINGS AND INTRODUCTION OF RABBI ROBERT GORDIS

S. GERSHON LEVI President, The Rabbinical Assembly

I need hardly tell you how honored I am to have this opportunity to bring you the greetings of your Rabbis—the members of The Rabbinical Assembly throughout the length and breadth of this land. I asked when I sat down at the table: "Are all these people in the adjoining rooms all part of the United Synagogue Convention." I am used to attending conventions of a rather smaller body, The Rabbinical Assembly. And when I heard your actual numbers I felt even more pleased and honored that I could, to this distinguished and great gathering, bring the good wishes of the rabbis, some of whom are here to be with you at your convention, others of whom may arrive later during the course of the week.

It is in the very nature of things that the United Synagogue and The Rabbinical Assembly should conduct their affairs in close understanding and harmony. I became president of The Rabbinical Assembly shortly after Mr. Jack Stein became your President. I have just heard tonight that he will continue to be so. In The Rabbinical Assembly the maximum term of a President is 2 years. So I shall soon be yielding the office to my successor.

But Jack will remember, I am sure, as I do, that when he knew I was going to become president, he invited me to meet with him, and he and I had quite a number of discussions about our mutual plans. I am sure both of us well remember that we came to those discussions determined to cooperate in all things; to deal with problems outstanding between the United Synagogue and The Rabbinical Assembly in a spirit of common cause, and without any hint of what the lawyers call "adversary proceedings". I am sure he will agree that our good intentions have not been realized to the full. But I trust that you and he and I and all of us can agree that we have made strides, made progress toward mutual harmony, and I want to assure your President that I will do everything within my power to see to it that what we have begun is carried on by my successor.

I have also been granted what is to me a very deeply personal pleasure, the privilege of introducing to you the speaker of this evening. I say deeply personal pleasure, because Dr. Robert Gordis and Mrs. Gordis and their children have been close family friends of Shonie and me and our children for many years, he and I at least since we were students together at the Seminary. As a matter of fact, if he will allow me, I would like to tell him and you an episode of which he will recognize the background immediately, but the details of which he probably never heard.

19 I was a freshman at the time, he was not. He never was a freshman. He entered the Seminary after my freshman year had begun, and he was already a sophomore, because he came to the Seminary endowed with his doctorate and was given advanced standing. Anyhow, one day the Professor of Bible, Pro- fessor Jacob Hoschander came up to me after a Bible class and said, "I would like you to take dinner with me this Shabbos" I was very flattered, I was single at the time, and it was a pleasure to be able to go to a professor's home for Shabbos.

He said, "I will meet you at the Seminary synagogue." I came to services, but he was not there. The weather was bad, and he was not a well man. Mrs. Hoschander. whom many of you may remember, took me home. I came in, he said, "Good Shabbos, Who preached today?" I said, Professor, there was no sermon, the preacher took ill." He said (and he was a kind and genial man), "Just my luck, no sermon when I don't attend!"

Now what Professor Hoschander did not know, and probably could not have realized then, was that the new student of the Seminary who had been scheduled to preach would turn out to be one of the peerless preachers of our generation. He had indeed been taken very seriously ill, because I remember how much we worried about him at that time. That student, that outstanding preacher-to-be, was none other than your speaker this evening.

The fact is that in introducing him, I have to inhibit myself, because Robert Gordis is one of those rare men who has up to this date, at any rate, lived fully and outstandingly and brilliantly several careers. A great preacher, a great pastor, a great Rabbi; at the same time, a nationally and internationally renowned scholar; an editor of Judaism; an author; and with all that, a notice- able force in the actions and passions of his time.

Now usually people specialize. They take one field of study. They become thinkers, or they become doers. Rarely do you find an individual who combines these faculties. The Greeks had a word for the widely learned man: "polyhistor". Webster says: "A man of encyclopedic knowledge." But that does not cover all the fronts. For example, I am sure many of you realize that in most of our congregations the Sabbath and Festival Prayerbook that we use was edited by our speaker of this evening.

He is a man who is currently Seminary Professor of Bible at The Jewish Theological Seminary, and at the same time Professor of Religion at Temple University. He is also my predecessor by some years in the Presidency of The Rabbinical Assembly, one for whom Jewish public purposes and goals are not beyond his very busy time.

One of the things that strikes me about you today, Rabbi Gordis, is the fact that your three sons, yours and Fannie's, are each of them in his own way

20 so notable, two of them in the upper reaches of medical science, and of the third, I might say that when people telephone the Seminary and ask for Rabbi Gordis, the switchboard has to say, "Which Rabbi Gordis?" because your son David is Dean of Students in the Teachers Institute.

I call to mind the fact that it was a Jewish custom that held sway until fairly recent times, that an author was frequently known by the title of his book, rather than by his own name. Almost all of us have heard about the Hofetz Hayyim, the title of his book, but how many of us know his personal name? Or how many recognize the Noda Bi-yehuda as Rabbi Ezekiel Landau?

But Dr. Gordis presents me with a problem if I am to follow this custom. Not only because of the great number of books that he has authored, but also because their titles don't lend themselves for attachment as pen-names.

However, my problem is not without a solution. Recently a new edition came out of love of his outstanding works, the one on the Biblical Book of Kohelet. I find my solution, not in the title, but in the subtitle. The book is called Kohelet, The Man and his Word. Ladies and gentlemen, with great honor and great pleasure I present to you Robert Gordis—the man, and his word.

21 THE AMATEUR SPIRIT — THE SECRET OF VITALITY IN JUDAISM ROBERT GORDIS Professor of Bible, The Jewish Theological Seminary of America; Professor of Religion, Temple University

The origin of great movements in history can rarely be pinpointed with specific dates and this is true of Conservative Judaism as well. However, this year marks the seventieth anniversary of the arrival of Solomon Schechter on these shores and his inauguration as president of The Jewish Theological Semi- nary. Though the Seminary had been founded a decade and a half earlier, Schechter's assumption of the presidency may properly be described as the beginning of Conservative Judaism as a dynamic, self-conscious movement dedicated to the perpetuation of traditional Judaism within the context of the modern world. The 70 years that have elapsed are probably the most eventful in the long epic of Jewish history, only the period of the destruction of the Temple rivaling it in its tragic and revolutionary import. The twentieth century has witnessed the brutal destruction of the greatest center of Jewish life in the last five hundred years, in Eastern and Central Europe, which served as the mighty heart of world Jewry for centuries. On the plus side of the ledger has been the miraculous emergence and extraordinary progress of the state of Israel, perhaps the only authentic miracle in our age, without which the Jewish present and future would be bleak indeed. The third great event, the dimensions of which Schechter clearly foresaw, was the growth and development of American Jewry.

Beginning in the eighteen eighties American Jewry had begun to grow astronomically through the mass immigration of East European Jews fleeing Czarist oppression and the grinding poverty which characterized their lives. By the turn of the century, American Jews were divided into two widely dis- parate and basically hostile groups. On the one hand, was the community of German Jews who had come to these shores a few decades earlier. In relatively short order, they succeeded in establishing themselves economically in the land of liberty and in achieving a high measure of integration into American cultural and public life. Though there were many exceptions, the German Jews who came to America brought with them limited Jewish cultural resources and religious loyalties. Here they encountered both the opportunities and the temptations of a free and open society. The individualism and pluralism of American life were particularly evident in the field of religion, where hundreds of sects and denominations proliferated on the American scene. Lacking strong roots in their Jewish heritage, German Jews in America became the seed-bed of a type of Judaism which proudly called itself "American Judaism" and which had relatively few links with the tradition.

Ranged on the other side—and the phrase is not casually chosen—were the masses of East European Jews huddling in the great ghettos of our country;

22 living in squalor and poverty, exploited in sweat-shops or eking out a meager existence as petty tradesmen. Coming from lands of intense Jewish life, these East European Jews brought with them the memories of the "shtetel", which they tended to idealize with the passing of time. They were imbued with a powerful desire to reproduce on these shores what seemed to them the only authentic version of Judaism.

But as their children came into the world, it soon became painfully apparent that the poverty-stricken synagogues and the antiquated teaching methods of the melamdim would prove powerless to withstand the blandishments of assimilation and the temptations of the bright new world beckoning outside. In his classic Autobiography, the famous American reporter, Lincoln Steffens, who possessed a deep interest in the lower East Side of New York, describes Yom Kippur in the first decade of the twentieth century: "Outside the synagogues, the young man stood laughing and telling jokes, while inside, the old men sat, reading their prayers, gnashing their teeth and weeping bitter tears. Two, three thousand years of sacrifice, devotion and loyalty to a principle lost in a single generation." Virtually all observers of the American scene, Jewish and Christian, sympathetic or otherwise, saw no prospect for Judaism save extinction or emasculation.

However, the fundamental truth of Jewish history was expressed long ago by the Psalmist: "The Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps." The pessimistic appraisal which seemed the only realistic outcome to be expected has proved mistaken. A variety of factors led to the forging of the instruments of salvation. Among these, the emergence of Conservative Judaism under the dynamic inspiration of Solomon Schechter was surely not of the least importance.

The new movement showed American Jews that the genuine tensions between Americanism and Judaism, between the modern world and religious tradition, between devotion to Torah and responsiveness to life, between loyalty to Israel and concern for humanity, far from being destructive, could prove richly creative of Jewish and humane values. As a result, Conservative Judaism experienced an efflorescence without parallel.

Reform and Orthodoxy, the two other great movements in American Judaism, were greatly influenced by Conservatism. During the past seven decades, Reform Judaism has all but been transformed and the progress that has been registered goes beyond the differences between the Pittsburgh Platform of 1885 and the Columbus Program of 1915. While isolated pockets of "classical reform" still remain, contemporary forms of Reform Judaism exhibit a new recognition of the significance of tradition, the importance of religious parctice, the basic role of the Hebrew language and a warm attachment to the land of Israel as indispensable to the Jewish future.

As for Orthodox Judaism, it has made great progress since its early poverty-stricken days in developing self-confidence, organizational strength and cohesion. It has mastered successfully the techniques of American mass-culture, is energetic in propagating its cause and is militant in defending its interests.

23 It boasts many institutions of higher learning and takes legitimate pride in its greatest contribution to Jewish survival, the establishment of the day school as a basic feature of Jewish education. It is not unfair to say that during the twentieth century, Reform has become more traditional and Orthodoxy more modern, both because of the impact of world events and the example of Conservative Judaism.

These religious movements are not the only weapons in the arsenal of Jewish survival in America. There were other significant factors—the rise and progress of Zionism, the earlier development of the Yiddish press, drama and literature, the all-too-brief flowering of American Hebrew literature, and the growth of Jewish scholarship, both in older traditional and in modern critical forms. Above all, the harsh lessons of history in the twentieth century, spelled "Hitler," conspired to deepen Jewish consciousness and impelled millions of Jews to seek a religious affiliation for themselves and their families. We may humbly offer thanks that the forecasts of virtually all honest observers at the turn of the century, that a meaningful and recognizable Judaism was impossible on this continent, have not been fulfilled.

It would, therefore, be easy for us to indulge in self-congratulation. We can call attention to the millions of Jews associated with synagogues and other basic Jewish organizations and institutions. We may point to the magnificent buildings in which our synagogues, Jewish centers, philanthropic and communal agencies are housed. We may point to the many millions of dollars in the budgets of federations and welfare funds and to the imposing structure of philanthropic agencies created by American Jewry, which has no parallel in the past annals of our people or in the life of our fellow Americans today. We may observe the elaborate facade of Jewish education on this continent, for pre-school children as well as on the elementary and secondary levels. It is undeniable that Judaism has made far more progress than anyone dared dream when Schechter first came to America seventy years ago.

These are unquestionably valid achievements. Those who are tempted to dismiss them are invited to try to create an alternative pattern. Yet there is far less comfort and reassurance than we like to believe in structures of bricks, chrome and stainless steel, in conventions, conferences and million dollar budgets. At no time within living memory has there been a deeper sense of unease with regard to the future of Judaism than today. To put it clearly, though illiterately, "If you've got it so good, why is it so bad?"

To be sure, this sense of concern and foreboding is not limited to Judaism. On the contrary, it is all pervasive today. Recently Professor Peter Berger, addressing representatives of eleven leading Protestant denominations of the United States, decried the loss of confidence and the erosion of faith in the future of the church characterizing contemporary Christianity. The decline in Sunday school enrollments, the lack of growth in church memberships, the reduced seminary enrollments, the virtual disappearance of inner-city churches and above all, the empty pews need no documentation.

24 As for the Roman Catholic Church, perhaps because it formerly presented to the outside world a picture of impregnability and immobility that no other group could emulate, the changes here are even more sensational. To cite a few cases in point, a recent survey by Newsweek Magazine disclosed that more than a third of American Catholics do not attend Sunday Mass regularly. Two out of three Catholics acknowledge they have not gone to confession in the past two months. Even more significant than these infractions of time-honored ritual practices is the shift on fundamentals in the field of faith and morals. A majority of American Catholics believe that a "good Catholic" can ignore the Pope's stand against contraception. According to one study, the church is currently losing five priests for every two seminarians it enrolls.

It is, therefore, clear that the contemporary challenge to religion is not directed against one tradition alone, be it Judaism or Christianity, or against a single denomination within that tradition. What is more, the attack against all established religion is many-faceted, in fact, even self-contradictory. On the one hand, organized religion is charged with being indifferent to the burning problems of the real world, having immersed itself in ritualistic and theological concerns. On the other, the church and the synagogue are attacked on the ground that they have surrendered to activism and "secularism" and, therefore, offer the genuinely troubled spirit of man no refuge from the turmoil and materialism unwillingness of religion to ־of the world. Many critics decry the inability 01 reckon with the insights and attitudes emerging from contemporary science, technology and philosophy. Yet there are probably louder and more articulate voices today blaming religion for trying to reckon with doubt and denial. Authentic religion, they declare, means a firm, immovable faith in Divine reve- lation, free from equivocation and doubt, insulated from the challenge of reason and the conclusions of critical scholarship. The massive frustrations and terrors of life in the twentieth century have engendered a profound disenchant- ment with man's reason and character, a loss of confidence in his capacity to understand his own nature and his place in the universe, or to grapple with the problems of life that press on our generation. Such phenomena as existentialism and mysticism, the preoccupation with sex and drugs, the interest in Zen and Yoga, the worship of Satan, the interest in astrology, the search for new forms of religious expression—these contemporary phenomena are radically different from one another, but they are at one in having surrendered the heart of the Biblical faith that man is created in the Divine image, little lower than God.

Finally, there is a far-flung socio-political challenge from many quarters directed against the religious "establishment." They see in organized religion a self-serving defender of the status quo in a world in which war, oppression, corruption, cruelty and group hatred are the dominant motifs of society.

It is no wonder that religion is reeling under this bewildering barrage of criticism. It is clear that no single body of doctrine can retrieve the position of religion in the modern world or win back those who have left the fold. Since every genuine religious faith is a personal faith, and as our sages reminded us, all men are divinely endowed with different temperaments and

25 backgrounds, no single answer, be it rationalist, existentialist, activist or mystic, will succeed in restoring or creating the loyalty to religion among our youth and their elders.

Is there, then, no underlying approach capable of dealing with all these varied responses? I believe that there is. We may seek for it in the history of the greatest creative periods of Judaism, notably the Biblical and the Talmudic eras.

There is one basic fact which helps explain the survival and creative capacity of the Jewish religion, while all other ancient religions were overtaken by decay and death. Modern archeological research has revealed the existence of lofty religious ideas in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. The Mari excavations have disclosed the existence of prophets who, in their techniques, bear more than a little resemblance to the Biblical prophets. The ancient law codes of the Middle East reveal the presence of humanitarian ideals even in pagan cultures. We now know that an institution as remarkable in its social idealism as the Sabbatical year in the Bible has its analogue in Akkadian society. Why have all these resplendent civilizations and colorful religions been relegated to the dustbin of history? Why, on the other hand, has an unimportant people clinging precariously to the Eastern shore of the Mediterranean survived two thousand years of exile, persecution and mass murder? How was it possible for this faith of a weak and harried people to engender two of the mightiest religions of all times, Christianity and Islam, while retaining its own individuality and potential for creativity and growth? If I may propound a naive riddle, what have Abraham Lincoln, Josef Stalin and Moise Tshombe in common? Not to keep you in suspense—their first names, Abraham, Joseph and Moses, are all Biblical. Their Biblical names testify to the world-wide influence of the spirit of Israel and its Holy Writ, cutting across continents, races, cultures and social systems. After all the explanations of scholars, legitimate as they are, have been heard, the eternal life of the Jewish people remains a mystery for the non-believer and a miracle for the man of faith.

Yet even Divine miracles have their basis in human realities. What set Biblical religion apart from all others was the fact that its classical spokesmen were not priests, the custodians of religion everywhere else in the ancient world, but prophets and sages. Judaism is not the legacy bequeathed to us by the kohanim, but our heirtage from the neviim and hakhamim, both Biblical and rabbinic. The Torah, the foundation stone of Judaism, comes to us from Moses, who was not a priest but a prophet.

Now the dichotomy of prophet and priest has, of course, long been remarked upon, but it has not been properly understood. It is not that the priest was preoccupied with ritual and the prophet was concerned with morality. The Torah, which was the province of the priests, contains many of the most exalted ethical imperatives in the world. Thus, the Holiness Code in Leviticus enshrines not only the justly famous Golden Rule, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Lev. 19:31), but the tragically relevant injunction,

26 "Thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of thy neighbor" (Lev. 19:16). Equally significant is the provision (19:34), "Thou shalt love him, i.e. the stranger, as thyself, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt". The priests, who served as the judges of the people, were not impervious to ethical considerations.

Conversely, it is now generally recognized—indeed often in exaggerated form—that the prophets were by no means hostile to ritual. Actually, the Biblical prophets reflect a full spectrum of possible attitudes. On the left stands Amos, who, in his relatively few speeches, does not betray any favorable attitude toward ritual. At the center is Isaiah, whose inaugural vision of God came to him in the Temple of Jerusalem. The "right" is represented by Ezekiel, whose book contains a Law Code that includes ritual enactments for the New Jeru- salem that he envisioned for the future. Fundamentally, all the prophets evaluated ritual in terms of its relationship to the moral law—if it became a substitute for righteousness, it was evil; if a stimulus, it was good.

The essential distinction between the Biblical prophet and the Hebrew priest was not in the confrontation between ethics and ritual. The priests in Israel were official spokesmen for religion, respected, recognized and compensated, a position analogous to the one they occupied in all ancient religions. The shrines and temples in ancient Israel also had prophets, soothsayers and fore- tellers associated with the sanctuaries. These two groups represented the professional religious leadership, who derived their material support from the king and the people. Opposed to these professionals were a group of passionate dissidents, who made no claim to the chain of Aaronide legitimacy but spoke out of the immediate consciousness of God's presence, "Thus saith the Lord". Far from being well compensated—or even respected—these proclaimers of God's will were scorned as madmen, reviled as trouble-makers, and persecuted as subversives and traitors. They were imprisoned, exiled or assassinated by the defenders of the status quo. But out of their total commitment to God and their wholehearted love for their people, they could not remain silent in the face of the inequities they saw all about them and the inevitable disaster they saw before them. They had no choice but to attack all aspects of the national life, its politics and international affairs, its social and economic structure, its religious observance and its cultural pretensions. They weighed everything in the one scale of God's law of righteousness, and found it wanting.

What makes the Bible unique is that it is the repository not of "main- line establishment religion" but of these rebels and nay-sayers. These "enemies of the people," to use Ibsen's phrase, when they attacked the optimism of those crying "peace, peace" when there was no peace, were penetrating beneath the superficial prosperity and well-being of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel to the rot of moral decay and national destruction beneath.

What characterized the Biblical prophets and set them apart from their professional counterparts? Jeremiah described the word of God as "a burning fire pent up in my bones, that I cannot contain" (Jer. 20:9). In the Song of Songs, love is compared to "sparks of fire, a mighty flame of God" (8:6).

27 Love in its deepest sense is concern, and passionate love was the driving force behind the prophets' heroic and tragic activity. They were, in the basic sense of the term, amateurs, lovers of their God and His people.

We use the word "amateur" today to describe non-professional activity. Twenty-seven hundred years ago Amos indignantly proclaimed, "I am neither a professional prophet nor a member of the prophetic guild" (7:14). Many centuries later, the medieval work, Sepher Hasidim, declared that the most perfect prayer was that of an illiterate shepherd: "O God, if You had sheep, I would guard them for You for nothing". What the Hebrew prophets introduced into the fiber of Judaism was the spirit of the amateur in its etymological sense, "one who serves a cause or an ideal out of love rather than for gain". Undoubt- edly, great-souled and sensitive spirits existed among other peoples and religions, but their influence was minimal. They were at best isolated voices, crying in the wilderness. In no other ancient society did a comparable group of men arise sufficiently influential in confrontation with the status quo, and become the architects of the accepted, normative tradition.

The stamp of the amateur, the non-professional, remained a distinguishing mark of Judaism in its second great creative era, the period of the Talmud, as it had been with the prophets, in the Biblical epoch. During the days of the Second Temple, only the priesthood, the descendants of Aaron, could legiti- mately officiate at the Temple ritual in Jerusalem. They, therefore, remained the official representatives of Judaism, as is clear from Hellenistic and Roman sources. Yet the vital spiritual leadership was exercised not by the priests, but by the Scribes and their successors, the Rabbis, whose activity was centered in the bet hamidrash, the House of Study, which served as the bet hakeneset and the bet hatefillah, the House of Assembly and Prayer. The vast majority of the sages occupied no official position and received no emolument for their labors. The destruction of the Temple and the cessation of the sacrificial system all but eliminated the role of the priesthood as officiants. Yet the Rabbis of the Mishnah did not become professionals on that account. They remained amateurs, supporting themselves by various callings and occupations. They carried on the study and the teaching of the Torah in the spirit of the rabbinic aggadah, according to which God said to Moses, "As I have taught you freely, so teach you freely" (Nedarim 37a; Bekhorot 29a).

In fact, not until the later Middle Ages did the rabbinate become a profession, when there was a growing need for a functionary to supervise the life of the community, be available for religious guidance and exercise a judicial role when required. Even then rabbinical authorities had great difficulty in justifying the payment of salaries to rabbis. Maimonides, who was personally situated rather fortunately, as long as his brother's business operations supported him, expressed himself very vigorously in opposition to compensating rabbis from public funds. (Commentary on the Mishnah Abot 4:5).

The march of events and the pressure of circumstances made it inevitable that a group of men should dedicate themselves completely to communal needs,

28 religious and cultural, thus being precluded from earning a livelihood elsewhere. Yet the non-professional spirit in the rabbinate continued to survive virtually until our own day in traditional Jewish communities. In fact, the emoluments received by most East European rabbis were so miniscule in character that they could well qualify as amateurs—in both senses!

The great yeshivot in Eastern Europe, Volozhin, Slobodka, Vilna, Mir, were not institutions for the training of rabbis, but rather for the education of scholars. Most of their students remained laymen, bringing their learning to bear upon the life of their communities. These unique academies eminently deserved Bialik's epithet, "the potter's house where the soul of the people was fashioned". From these yeshivot came the communal rabbis, to be sure, but also most of the great Jewish scholars, both traditional and modern, the creators of modern Hebrew and Yiddish literature and the leaders of such varied movements as Zionism, Diaspora nationalism, and socialism.

It is fair to say that all that has proved most creative in modern Jewish life bears the stamp of the amateur, who, whether or not he earns his livelihood from his activity, is basically motivated by a love and dedication to the cause. The line of descent from the Biblical prophets and the Rabbinic sages is clear and unbroken.

It is, of course, entirely possible, and indeed frequently the case, that the professional is, in this higher sense, an amateur. This held true of the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel who were priests by descent. Similarly, the descendants of Hillel became the patriarchs in the Roman period, serving as the official heads of the academy and as the recognized representatives of the Jewish community vis-a-vis the government. Occupying officially recognized positions, the patriarchs undoubtedly received the emoluments of office, yet the whole-hearted dedication of men like Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, Rabban Gamaliel of Yavneh, and Rabbi Judah Hanasi is beyond question.

It is, however, in the very nature of things that when men are charged with the care and administration of institutions, they are likely to develop a preoccupation with its short-term, immediate interests. They tend to identify the material well-being of the institution with the advancement of the ideal which the institution was originally designed to maintain and develop. In this connection, we may recall the homely fact that the English verb "preserve" has two meanings—it means "to safeguard" and also "to pickle". The history of religion demonstrates how often institutions have preserved the ideal in both senses of the term!

As we have noted early in our discussion, there is a widespread and varied attack upon religion today. These divergent and even contradictory manifesta- tions of hostility are united in one basic respect—it is religion as an institution that is under fire, not religion as a body of ideals. Men today are disenchanted with religion because they see it as a visible and central element of the Establish- ment. The term is used loosely and inexactly today to refer to the dominant

29 forces m society, government, industry, commerce, education and culture. (It is generally overlooked that the term was originally applied to the Church which was established and maintained in certain European countries, like Great Britain and Scandinavia. Many of us remember that in the days of our youth the longest word in the English language was "Antidisestablishmentarianism", a term applied to those who opposed "disestablishing" the Church, that is to say, removing its position of influence, power and support from the government).

The United Synagogue has demonstrated its awareness of the crisis confronting Judaism by setting as the theme of this convention the great utterance of the sainted Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, Hayashan yithadesh, hehadash yitkadesh, "The old must become new and the new must become holy". These words, incidentally, are cited in the conclusion to the Introduction to the Sabbath and Festival Prayer Book of The Rabbinical Assembly and the United Synagogue which appeared in 1946, the first official Conservative prayer book in our movement.

There is more than an accidental relationship between the two elements of Rabbi Kook's injunction. The old can be renewed only if there is an openness of spirit, a willingness and a capacity to welcome the new and make it holy. Conversely, the new can be brought into the orbit of the holy, only if we retain our link with the old, but in no mechanical and external way—rather by imbu- ing it with new vitality and spirit.

How is this dual process of revival to be achieved? The entire history of the Jewish tradition points to the answer—it lies in accentuating the positive role of the amateur spirit which is to be found in those laymen, rabbis and scholars who love their people and their faith and are prepared to labor and sacrifice on their behalf. I said, "laymen and rabbis", but let us remember that in Judaism the rabbi is a layman. He cannot function successfully without the support and understanding of knowledgeable aud dedicated laymen who will be bnei Torah, "Men of Torah" and hovevei Torah, "lovers of Torah".

One of the basic tragedies of modern Jewish life has been the increasing growth of ecclesiasticism, the patterning of Jewish life after Christian hierarchical models. All too often the rabbi becomes a clergyman, an administrator of sacra- ments, an intermediary between the individual and his God, or what is surely no better, a fund-raiser, a coordinator of activities, a public relations expert.

Jews are like other people, only more so. We can, therefore, understand why official Jewish leadership, weighted down by the cares and burdens of the institutions they were administering, all too often were averse or at best indifferent to creative and vital innovations in Jewish life. The last great folk movement in the Jewish religion, Hasidism, was bitterly opposed by the official leadership of East European Jewry. It was the achievement of inspired lay leaders, far removed from the seats of power and influence who were able to quicken the spirit of religious vitality among the down-trodden and depressed masses of the poor.

30 When Herzl was about to convene the first Zionist Congress, a group of German rabbis, who have gone down in Jewish history as the Protestrabbiner, issued a statement opposing the holding of the Congress in Munich on the ground that it would impugn the wholehearted loyalty of German Jews to the Fatherland. They prevented the Zionists from meeting in Munich; they were not equally successful with the Nazis four decades later.

The long record of opposition to Zionism by large sections of the Orthodox rabbinate and most of the official agencies of Reform Judaism is happily a thing of the past. But the impetus for Zionism, the most dynamic Jewish movement in modern times, did not come from the religious Establishment. Today, the central role of Zionism and Israel in the revitalization of contemporary Jewish religion and culture for all Jews needs no demonstration.

In his study, The Politics of Rescue, The Roosevelt Administration and the Holocaust, Professor Henry N. Feingold discusses the tragic period when the Nazi extermination program was going on full-blast. He writes: "The vacuum left by the bickering of the major Jewish organizations suggested that perhaps not even for them did rescue have the highest priorities. Hence, a ground grass-roots organization, The Emergency Conference to Save the Jewish People of Europe, began agitating in 1943 to call attention to the tragic murder of millions, which attracted little attention or response." In our day the Jewish Defense League has been characterized by errors in judgement and lapses in moral sensitivity. It has made perhaps more than its share of blunders. Its stance cannot be the official policy of the American Jewish community. Yet one cannot help being astonished at the vigor with which it has been denounced by the official Jewish leadership, far out of proportion to its actual proven misdeeds. On the other hand, the widespread support that the J.D.L. has received is an indication that laymen from every walk of life and representing almost every position believe that it was the activity of the Jewish Defense League, often flamboyant and sensational, that made the tragic condition of Soviet Jewry front-page news throughout the world, while the Establishment agencies were continuing on their decorous and ineffective way.

The greatest contribution of American Orthodox Judaism toward Jewish survival is without question the creation of the yeshivah ketannah or day school. But the first yeshivah, the Rabbi Jacob Joseph School, and its early successors were created by Orthodox laymen who enjoyed—if that be the word—only lukewarm support from most of the rabbinate.

To the slight extent that order and dignity have been introduced into the supervision of kashruth in the United States, it is to be attributed to the lay Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations rather than to the professional leaders in the movement, individually or collectively.

For decades, American Jewry has been neglecting our college youth and its religious, cultural and social concerns, spending pennies on their Jewish and

31 human needs, and allocating dollars in public relations and civic defense activities. Then one day, the discovery was made that the college campus was a "disaster area" for Judaism. The problems are still massive and in part intractable, but some rays of light are penetrating the darkness. The creation of havurot or student communes, Jewish student coffee houses, the establishment of hundreds of chairs in Judaic studies on college campuses, the setting up of free Jewish universities where students voluntarily come to study Judaism with no college credit, the burgeoning Jewish student press—these developments all over America are the work of amateurs who love Judaism or are trying to love it and striving to live by it.

The record makes it clear that the same principle holds true in Conserva- tive Judaism as well. Many of the most significant and creative achievements in our movement go back to far-sighted laymen and a few courageous and creative rabbis. The Camp Ramah movement, which has helped create a youth for Conservatism, began at the initiative of lay leaders.

The first official prayer book in our movement, The Sabbath and Festival Prayer Book, became a reality only when the United Synagogue and The Rab- binical Assembly joined forces. The work was produced by a Joint Commission consisting of ten rabbis, five chosen by each agency. Whatever its imperfections, this pioneering prayer book strove to give honest expression to the genuine attitudes of Conservative Judaism toward the role of women, both in life and the synagogue, toward the sacrificial system and toward the vital role of the land of Israel for modern Judaism.

The Seminary Center in Jerusalem was, at first, only a dream in the hearts of a tiny handful of rabbis and lay leaders. The oldest existing day school in the Conservative Movement is now over twenty years old. At its inception, it received no encouragement or recognition from the official leadership of our movement. The entire network that has developed since owes much of its progress to dedicated laymen, working hand in hand with rabbis in our congre- gâtions.

These instances, drawn from many diverse areas in modern Jewish history, are not intended to impugn the bona fides of Jewish leadership or their sincere devotion to Jewish interests. Our purpose is only to indicate what has been insufficiently recognized, how often it was the unofficial amateur, the layman, who represented the cutting edge of progress, the stimulus to creativity, and by that token, the hope for the future.

On the other hand, the professional and official leadership has all too often construed its task by telescoping Rabbi Kook's utterance, combining the first and last words, and reading hayashan yidkadesh, "the old shall be regarded as sacrosanct." Undoubtedly the preservation of the traditions, rites and sancta of the past and the maintenance and support of our institutions are important tasks, for which the official custodians of religion deserve our gratitude and support. But these activities may be a necessary condition; they are not sufficient for the survival of Judaism.

32 NEWLY ELECTED OFFICERS OF UNITED SYNAGOGUE

Left to Right. Boltom Row: Arthur J. Levine, Vice-Pres.; Harold Pressman, Secretary; Harold Groh, Vice-Pres.; Francis Mintz, Vice-Pres,; Jacob Stein, President; Henry N. Rapaport, Honorary President; Edward D. Wyner, Vice-Pres.; Harry B. Aron, Vice-Pres.;

;Vice-Pres.; Harold Stubenhaus, Treasurer ׳Joseph Berlin, Vice-Pres. Top Row: Horace Bier Jerry Wagner, Vice-Pres.; Ben Magdovitz, Vice-Pres.; Philip Selber, Vice-Pres.; Abram Piwosky, Vice-Pres. Nof Present: Victor Horwitz, Vice-Pres.; Morris Rothstein, Vice-Pres. CONVENTION

ו י, •

,- V * ״x ' 9 f :1 f - 11• •1' ^׳ ו י 1

Rabbi Louis Finkelstein Rabbi Gerson D. Cohen

Rabbi Bernard Mandelbaum President The Jewish Theological Seminary of America

Rabbi S. Gershon Levi President Rabbinical Assembly

Rabbi Bernard Segal Executive Vice-President United Synagogue of America Mr. Harold Stubenhaus Chairman Convention Committee Mr. Elie Wîesel Noted Author and Lecturer

Rabbi Herman Kieval Spiritual Leader Temp.e Israel Albany, New York Torah Institute Instructor

Ambassador Josef Tekoah Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations

Mr. Gideon Hausner Member Israel Knesset

Rabbi Robert Gordis Professor of Bible The Jewish Theological Seminary of America

Mr. Jack Mittleman Convention Director Dr. Morton Siegel Executive Director United Synagogue of America

If more is to be preserved than the empty shell, we need to recapture the excitement, the novelty, the sense of urgency which characterized religion in its greatest hours. In the words of the Sages, the Torah must become for us diatagma hadasha, "a royal edict newly proclaimed." The wisdom of vital, relevant scholarship, the guidance of our rabbis, the idealism of our youth, the dedication of our laity—all are needed if the institutions of Jewish life, the home, the synagogue and the school, are to become instruments of survival, not for their sake alone, but for the cause of God and man.

It is not enough to honor the extraordinary achievements of the synagogue in the past. We must create for it a potential role in the future by having it take on new forms. The synagogue must reverse the trend toward automatism, depersonalization and all the ills to which Louis D. Brandeis referred as "the curse of bigness." Its activities and its worship must be forged out of the cru- cible of our experiences, our trials, our triumphs, our fears, hopes and ideals.

A few steps in this direction may be indicated. Large congregations are unavoidable if large budgets are required for massive plants, elaborate educational programs and large-scale services. Whether these are necessary is a moot question. But there is no reason for one mass service in a congregation. Five services on Friday evening of 100 worshippers each, perhaps different in spirit and tone, traditional and modern, conventional and creative, can involve scores or hundreds actively in planning and conducting the service. A rabbi is only one human being; lay preaching and expounding of the sidrah can make it possible to "staff" a half dozen worship groups. We need to utilize our more learned laymen for leadership in prayer and study groups, particularly our more knowledgeable and committed young people for work with their peers. This is particularly essential in the face of the growing need and the lessened supply of leaders and teachers.

Undoubtedly small schools cannot function well, since they do not permit adequate classification of students, sufficient variety in the curriculum and specialty instruction. The solution lies in sharing the resources of several congre- gâtions to create large, better staffed, more efficient schools, and in the process, breaking down petty, meaningless loyalties. This is already being done increasingly in adult Jewish education.

I often feel that there is too much unselfishness among us, especially in the higher echelons of Jewish life. We honor, as we should, the donor, the leader, the active worker, who give of their means, their energies and their talents to keep Judaism working—for the other fellow. All too often our active workers are much like stage-hands—so busy taking care of the curtains and the props, they have no time or energy to enjoy the production.

I would like to see the United Synagogue initiate a program to give public recognition, both at regional and national conventions and locally in our congregations, to laymen who are Jewish scholars or are active in advancing Jewish education, including those young people who enrich the spiritual life of their peers by their dedication to Torah in both senses as Jewish study and

33 as the practice of the Jewish ideals of justice, freedom and peace. We honor men of wealth and power who use their gifts for the common good. I would suggest, in addition, conferring such titles as ben Torah, rabh po'olim and other designations on scholarly, dedicated laymen. Our most precious resource lies in the laymen, men, women and young people, who are not only our greatest hope for the future, but our only reason for being. We cannot eliminate professionalism in twentieth century Jewish life, but we must be perpetually on guard against its seductions and corruptions. Eternal vigilance is the price of vitality. In order that the old may be renewed and the new become holy, the amateur, the lover of God and Torah, of Israel and mankind, must reassert his active role in Jewish life, whether he be a rabbi or a layman, a scholar or a lover of learning, a business man or a professional, a man or a woman, a youth or an adult. It is not easy to fulfill Rabbi Kook's great injunction, but if we pool our human resources of heart and mind, we shall not fail. For as the Talmud reminds us, if we are not prophets, we are at least the descendants of prophets.

34 NOT IDENTITY, BUT IDENTIFICATION IS THE PROBLEM

GERSON COHEN Jacob H. Schiff Professor of Jewish History, The Jewish Theological Seminary of America

An ancient Jewish sage counseled his disciples to keep before them three yardsticks of a healthy way of life. Know whence you have come, where you are going, and before Whom you will one day have to give an account. Translated into terms appropriate to our people as a whole, we are enjoined to keep our eyes fixed on our history, on our sense of direction and on the judgment of later generations to which we will inevitably be subjected.

From where have we come? The last two hundred years of Jewish history have been characterized by a collective effort on the part of the Jews to gain freedom—political, social, economic and religious. While that battle is by no means yet over, for millions of our brethren are still not free to move, worship and even work as they choose and deserve—we have achieved in the last two centuries new heights of freedom and opportunity previously unknown in the three thousand year history of the Jews. A great Jewish State flourishes whose very name, Israel, spells antiquity and youth and whose existence is now acknowledged with respect, even by its enemies. In the Western world, millions of Jews have within the last century found not only a new home, but new avenues of expression and new forms of identification.

If freedom has been the over-riding aim of Jews everywhere, the corollary drive has been the search for a new Judaism, for new ideologies of Jewishness that would speak the language of today and that would preserve the cohesiveness and purpose of our existence.

All these efforts and achievements have not been without their price. Physi- cal decimation of a third of our people, the apathy of countless others and even the aggressive desire to forget or to renounce the legacy are searing memories, painful experiences, but above all, challenges that we cannot overlook.

Where then are we going? Put simply and bluntly: what will we do with our freedom, with our wealth, with our resources, with the opportunities at our disposal. It is this that will constitute the central issue of Jewish history in the next century.

We are often told that what faces us today is a crisis of identity. This is a gross error fraught with the danger of mis-directing our energies toward chimerical problems. Identity is not our problem or the problem of most Jews. The problem is not one of identity but of identification. We are faced with a crisis of faith, of purpose and of commitment. Most Jews know they are Jews but are puzzled and confused over the implications of the name.

35 If our parents and grandparents, therefore, were in quest of freedom and of a new Judaism, the task facing us will be to mold the new Jew—a Jew who understands where he has come from, where he must go and how he will be judged. For this task, Conservative Judaism is singularly well equipped. We are committed to tradition, to the people of Israel, to the land of Israel, to the State of Israel and to the Torah of Israel, to renewing the best of the old. We are no less committed to looking at our past with reverence, but critically; with love, but also with frankness. This in the final analysis, is the acid test of the worth of the scholarship of which our Conservative Movement can so justly be proud. Does it avoid the pitfalls of antiquarianism on the one hand and of sentimental nostalgia on the other? Does the scholarship enable us better to understand our past and therefore to evaluate it judiciously and culti- vate it intelligently? Such a posture, to be sure, is difficult to achieve. The task of translating scientific scholarship into living Torah and into a commitment of faith has scarcely begun. We are in need of a new spirit, a new art, new forms that will weld our beliefs to our practices, our past to our present, our children to our people.

How will we be judged? One criterion speaks to us from Jewish history. No Jewish community in history has ever been great except by producing its own scholars and also its own native model Jew. The courtier of Spain, the pietist of Germany, the hasid of eastern Europe, the talmid hakam of the yeshiva, the halutz and the soldier of Israel must now be joined by a new link—a free Jew of America whose identification with his Jewishness is a response to the present and a directional signal for the future. History will judge us by the American Jew, we have produced. I pledge my support and the support of my colleagues in our common march ahead to building a greater Jewish people and a new Jewish type of which future ages will be proud to say, "only a wise and intelligent nation can have produced so noble and inspiring a type." I pledge our support to the goal of extending the impact of the United Synagogue to the whole house of Israel wherever it may be—in North America, in South America, in Israel, behind the Iron Curtain. In the Temple of ancient days, at the changing of the priestly guard, the outgoing group of kohanim recited the following prayer on behalf of the newcomers: "May He who has caused His name to dwell in this house cause to dwell among you the spirit of love, brotherhood and comradeship." As we enter a new age, may we work together with those who have preceded us to build a world predicated on Torah and inspired by the ideals of Conservative Judaism for love, for progress, for brotherhood.

36 ON THE ALIENATION OF OUR YOUTH

ELIE WIESEL * Lecturer and Author

The Jewish youth in America is not alienated, and I can say that from personal experience. Wherever I go, I meet young people and they are the best, they are like strings exposed to the wind, vibrating to every word you tell them. They hear, they listen, they respond, and they become pioneers. When it comes to demonstrating in behalf of any important cause you can always count on the young people, not on the parents.

The ones who are alienated are you and I, the older generation. Our good young children are passionately Jewish, even in their anti-Jewishness. If they try to get away from us, they do it for very good reasons, at least good reasons in their vocabulary.

Why should young Jews in America today be enthused with the kind of Judaism that we are trying to give them? Jewish life in America today is "boring." I have been to many synagogues, and I know what is going on. Everywhere I see ice. The best Judaism I have found is not even in Jerusalem. It is to be found in Russia. If the young people think that they are alienated and they say so you should be pleased because that means that they are trying to be alienated from the Judaism which is ours—now, today. The youth want something true, something genuine, something honest. And we should be grateful for their wanting it.

Why should not the young boy who was born after the Holocaust, the most traumatic event of our times, not resent his parents who were alive when that event took place, and yet did not even speak about it? How many day schools taught the history of the literature of the Holocaust without parents coming to protest to the teachers: "Please, don't be morbid with my child. Let him grow up first." How many of you have spoken about it? Worse. How many children come to you with questions to which you have no answers? Whenever I go to small cities, I try to visit the local Jewish paper and to get all of the bulletins of the local congregation from 1939 to 1945. I just came back from one of these places, a huge congregation, which just published a golden anniversary journal describing what went on there during the last 50 years. Judging from these publications you would never have thought there was a Jewish problem between 1939 and 1945. If your children get hold of these bulletins and such albums, which they can get, what should they think of you? Why shouldn't they say: Nfo, this is not our Judaism. Our Judaism is a religion. Nothing that happens to any community should happen there without affecting me. That to me is Judaism. Whatever happens to one Jew anywhere, and especially to one Jewish community I don't say it should happen to us, but we should at least be affected by it. Let it penetrate our consciousness and con-

37 science. The Holocaust did not. Why shouldn't your kids say, "No, we want another kind of Judaism, a pure one." I think, furthermore, that because they want it, we must give it.

The break came in 1967 because of the total identification felt by Jews everywhere with the State of Israel. When the entire Jewish community, young and old, rich and poor, learned and unlearned, became one with the fighter, with the bereaved mother, and with the orphaned child, that oneness was both a menace and the greatest hour of world Jewry and of Jewish destiny. At that moment we were brought together, to be indissoluble forevermore. However, the leaders of the American Jewish community seem somehow to lack the feeling that young people need beauty and that there is beauty in Judaism. There is so much ugliness in every newspaper; there is so much ugliness in our own memory; and there is so much ugliness in the moral tenor of human behavior. Youth needs beauty, and we know where it can be found.

We know that Judaism is not only a religion, a philosophy, a set of ethical values, or even historic consciousness. Judaism is also aesthetics, beauty. There is an abundance of beauty in halacha, Jewish law. For example, we know that a court to try capital cases requires twenty-three judges. However, if they reach unanimity, the verdict is automatically nullified. Why? In any other jurisdiction it is the opposite. Unanimity is the goal, But in Jewish tradition, it could not be imagined that 23 Jewish scholars would sit together to speak of a man without at least one of them finding one good word ot say about him. Now isn't this an example of our humanistic approach to life, to people and to juris- prudence? I believe that if we could give our young people this sense of beauty and aesthetics, we could have a renaissance of American Judaism of unprecedented magnitude. This should appeal to youth's imagination.

Don't try to shelter the young people. They want to give, and the more you ask from them the better Jews they will become. Who goes to Russia every year? The USY. They go there to visit and to do a job. They want to go. They want to sacrifice. They want to participate. I think we should use them more.

The six million Jews of America have a responsibility to the six million who perished at the hands of the Nazis. To fulfill this responsibility I would suggest a union of families on the highest level. The idea is based on a plan of the Hon. Gideon Hausner that each school class in Israel should adopt a Euro- pean Jewish community that no longer exists. Under this plan, the youngsters learn everything about that city, and the connection is made. Everything comes into focus. I would do the same here. I would say that every Jewish family in Israel should adopt a family in America, and every Jewish family in America should adopt a family in Israel. A letter would be exchanged once a month. It might simply say, "We are here; tell us about your children, your past. We want to know all." This plan requires tremendous planning, but it is worth it. And I would trust it to the children. Let the students take up this plan and work it out. What family has not suffered from the Holocaust? Through this program

38 our children will learn the entire story of the adopted family, often learning what happened to this or that relative who died in the gas chambers and what his last words were. We should take this dimension into consideration. It is not morbid; on the contrary, it will become an act of beauty, some times even an act of consolation. Another worthwhile project is to send our young people to deserted and destroyed Jewish communities and synagogues to bring back books and other precious remains. In doing this, our youth will learn about these places, these books, about Jewishness in general. Our youth are waiting for these imaginative approaches and imaginative solutions. If you offer them, they will kiss you, if not they will give you their anger. And if we disappoint them now, their anger will be justified. I am an optimist. I have faith not only in every Jew, I believe in every Jew. I have faith in every young Jew even more. If the young Jewish generation in Russia after 50 years of revolution and of forced assimilation could come back, and how they have come back, do you want me to give up on our young Jews in America? Never, I think they are good. They are not alienated!

39 WATERSHED FOR CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM

MORDECAI WAXMAN Rabbi, Temple Israel, Great Neck, New York

There is nothing, Oscar Wilde said, which fails like success. The present sense of frustration in the Conservative Movement is at least partly due to success. But, of course, it is due to the larger failure, too—and that is that we have not been successful enough in creating a community which can live with grace and dignity in the contemporary world as knowledgeable observant Jews in the great tradition. To make a further attempt at this subtle and distant goal, we have to undertake the painful process of reexamining the organization and ideology by which we have operated for the past sixty years.

There is clearly a need to rethink the character of our organizational and institutional structure.

The pattern which we set in the Conservative Movement over sixty years ago, made the Seminary the heart and head of the movement and defined The Rabbinical Assembly and the United Synagogue, as they were created, as the implementing arms. It was a pattern which fitted the time and the situation and it has served us well for over six decades.

At the time, the Conservative Movement was an animating idea without a constituency. Today, it is a constituency without an animating idea. The Rabbinical Assembly has a thousand members; the United Synagogue numbers more than 830 congregations; the membership of the Conservative Movement includes close to a million and a half men, women and children. The constituency is today too large and varied and its needs are too diverse for it to continue to be a mirror of the Seminary. Moreover, an increase in size and diversity calls for a specialization of function. Because of our history we have tended to look to the Seminary for new directions and for the proclamation of new goals and methods. But the Semi- nary today is a great institution of learning and scholarship and a school for the training of rabbis and academicians whose activity and growth lie elsewhere. The real battlefield lies in the far-flung communities in which they function. The scholarly underpinning of the historical approach which was necessary to give validity to the view that Judaism was a growing and developing or- ganism has long since been established. What we need now is the interaction between men and situations, between institutions and communities, between rabbis, educators and laymen which will generate excitement and new programs and the sense of a movement. What is lacking today both for our synagogues and our members is the sense that they are part of a movement. Our members are related to their individual synagogues and not to the movement as a whole. That is a weakness. Circumstances and sheer numbers make some synagogues

40 strong and dynamic, and others weak. A relationship to a movement which should be stronger than any single institution might give a sense of purpose and over-all direction to our individual members. It seems to me, therefore, that the time is ripe for seeing the operation of the Conservative Movement as essentially the joint responsibility of the United Synagogue and The Rab- binical Assembly. It is this constituency which is today facing the problems and it is this constituency which must solve them. Anyone can list the needs which we encounter a hundred times a day in our local communities and which are beyond the powers of individual synagogues to solve.

This is particularly true of our mobile young people. We continue to treat them as though they were part of a local synagogue family, even though at 17 or 18 they leave the community, usually never to return to their original home. Not only does a community have no effect upon them from the age of 17 to 30, but we have no input from them and no mechanism for getting it. One answer would be to seek to enroll them before they leave home as individual members of the Conservative Movement for a most nominal fee, and continue to reach them and to provide means for them to make their voices heard—not as exhibits or guests—but as factors in the movement.

That is only the prototype of a wide variety of things which require national rather than local action. The problem of intermarriage and the problem of keeping in touch with intermarried couples who live elsewhere extend beyond the local synagogue. So does the problem of a popular literature for adult instruction and of textbooks which reflect the Conservative outlook. So does the problem of having thousands of able and talented men and women to be teachers and paraprofessionals in our schools.

We have great resources which we have not begun to tap. The laity of our congregations are perhaps the most intellectually sophisticated and—in secular terms—the most highly trained laymen in Jewish history. They can bring dimensions and perspective to our enterprises if only they are mustered to the task. Do we have a need for long-range planning, for evaluation trends? Our congregations are full of people who are experts in economics, politics, sociology, social work, education, psychology, law and government. Everyone uses "think tanks." Where are ours? Do we want to reach college youth? Our greatest unused resource is the tens of thousands of Jewish academicians on large and small campuses throughout the country. Thousands of them are committed Jews. They could be foci for Jewish life and examples to scores of thousands of students—if they were conscripted for the purpose.

Our problem is to raise our sights to the level of a movement and to recognize that if we strengthen the whole we strengthen the individual institutions. Twenty-five years ago, Rabbi Solomon Goldman summoned the United Syna- gogue to become something more than a union of synagogues. It was perhaps too early. The Conservative Movement was just beginning its period of flowering. But clearly the time is now at hand. Nothing need impede us save lack of will and resolution. And if the cry becomes—but we don't have the money—

41 the proven truth is that money follows programs in Jewish life. Where there is a program, we can secure the money. The second major area of organization which demands new thinking is the individual synagogue itself. The synagogue we have today is the creation of our generation, not only physically, but conceptually. It is designed to meet our specific needs. Whether it will do for a new generation still remains to be determined. But it is clear that it at once represents a natural unit of organization on the American scene and that its main strength is that it can engender a sense of community.

The question of challenge is the bridge to the question of ideology with which we operate. Without challenges there is no response, and our challenges have gotten tired. In my lifetime Jews were summoned to several great causes. One was to save Jews. Another was to create Israel. A third was to save Judaism, by creating harmony between us and the modern Western world. A fourth was to create the American synagogue and the American Jewish community. A fifth was to battle anti-Semitism and discrimination against Jews. Our generation has expended itself in these causes. We still respond like retired chargers to the sound of the trumpet—and we can still charge forth for these causes. But the truth is that we have worn out the causes since in large measure we have achieved our ends. We ourselves are jaded. Our children do not hear the trumpet blast at all because they were born into a society where the Holocaust was over; anti-Semitism and discrimination were lessened; Israel exists; Jews are proud; the synagogues proliferate on the landscapes; and Judaism has been modernized. We can still tell them the story but they are in the position of Mark Twain's wife to whom the author said: "My dear, you know the words, but you don't know the tune."

The causes which knock at their door are the great uncompleted causes— world peace, social justice, individual fulfillment. Many of them (and many adults too) see no reason to give up individual preferences to foreswear intermarriage, or to observe rituals in the name of dedication to saving Judaism. They, and we, need to see a great purpose in preserving Judaism for preferring it and a living dedication to it require an unfulfilled cause. There is a cause for our time and for the days ahead which can command loyalty. It is unique to the Jewish people and it goes back to Sinai. It is the injunction to be "a society of priests and a holy people." In this aspiration we have no competitors. Other people seek empires, affluence, revolution, sophistication. But we are a people who take seriously the aspiration to seek to be a society dedicated to creating morally sensitive individuals acting as a force and a leaven in a world which marches to the music of a different drummer.

Obviously, we cannot create a "holy nation" by resolution. But we can resolve to do the things that will lead in that direction. First, we must acquire a real belief in the authenticity of our approach to Jewish life and the courage

42 to act on it. Does Jewish authenticity begin with the streimel and end with payosP Does it begin with Hillel and end with the casual, though felicitous statement of Rabbi Kook, which is the theme of this convention? Are not the thinking of Dr. Schechter, of Rabbi Finkelstein, of Rabbi Heschel and of Rabbi Kaplan in the great tradition of authentic Judaism? Are the thinking of 1,000 Conservative rabbis who love the Jewish people not authentic Judaism? Are the gropings and the needs of l]/2 million Conservative Jews not authentic Judaism? What else does the basic term "Catholic Israel" mean?

Secondly, we must recognize that we have been trapped into dealing with Jewish law as though the only thing to do with it is to change it—instead of to renew and create it. Are there not mitzvot which need to be created for our time? We have already made bat mitzvah an accepted mitzvah in our communities. We are making pilgrimage to Israel an accepted mitzvah. Can we not create mitzvot as well which will enter into personal, professional, and business life? Halacha represents the medium which Jewish life has employed to make ab- stract principles into concrete modes of behavior. It represents parameters within which we operate. It is not a noose around us but rather a rope by which we climb. For the Jew just any dream won't do. Any dream is not the essential Jewish dream. That dream remains to fashion "a holy nation."

43 "IF I FORGET SOVIET JEWRY, LET MY RIGHT HAND WITHER AWAY

GIDEON HAUSNER Member, Israeli Knesset

Over a year has now passed since the Leningrad Trial wherein eleven Jews were made to account for their desire to live as Jews. Edward Kuznetsov, one of the accused, said in court on that occasion: "I have always wanted to live in Israel." Anatole Altman, before hearing his sentence of twelve years' imprisonment, said: "I was born in the Soviet era and have spent all my life in the land of the Soviets. Today, on the day when my fate is being decided, I feel wonderful although very sad; it is my hope that peace will come to Israel. I send my greetings to you, my land. Shalom aleichem, peace unto you, land of Israel! " Silva Zalmanshon before hearing the sentence of death passed on her husband Kuznetsov, said: "Israel is the country with which we are bound spiritually and historically. We shall never abandon the dream of being united with our people in our ancient homeland. Our dream of living in Israel is comparably stronger than fear of the suffering we may be made to endure. Even now I do not doubt for a minute that sometime I shall go and that I will live in Israel. This dream illuminated by 2,000 years of hope, will never leave me. Next year in Jeru- salem! "

These statements are the highest expression of Jewish rebirth in the Soviet Union. After over half a century of crushing propaganda and forced assimilation, of using every device to make the Jews drift away from their past, young Jews are now speaking out in a language comparable only to the speeches bequeathed to us by our martyrs of earlier days. Unprecedented is the fact that these young men have actually had no contact with Jewish culture or values. Their fathers never took them to a synagogue, and in their homes there was neither Bible nor prayer book. Their cultural heritage was predicated on Soviet communist propaganda. Still, they somehow discovered within themselves their Jewishness. It will certainly require profound research on the part of sociologists and historians to establish how this became possible.

The severe sentences passed by the Leningrad judges did not deter the Soviet Jews. The obvious tactics of the Russian Government to let a trickle of the trouble-makers go and frighten all the others by inflicting exemplary penalties have misfired. The stiff-necked Jewish nation reacted in a manner which has perplexed the Soviet authorities, for now the national movement has assumed larger proportions than ever. Presently mass petitions have been sent out to the entire world. Soviet Jewry's answer to the calamities which their government is pouring on Israel has been an even stronger urge to go and live there. This is what they said in one of the latest petitions signed by close to 1,000 Jews, all from the Soviet Union:

44 "Here in exile, we are permitted only to sit in a synagogue or to lie in a cemetery under a Star of David. But we want and we will live under the Star of David which personifies our proud Jewishness and our unbreak- able ties with the past, the present and the future of the Jewish people."

This cry from the depths of captivity was taken up by Jews and non-Jews. The problem of Soviet Jewry has become an item on the international agenda of contacts with the Soviet Government, as well as a constant demand which Jews of the free world are voicing at present. There can be no doubt whatsoever that even the modest achievements which we have so far witnessed when a trickle of Soviet Jews is being let out, is thanks only to this incessant pressure maintained by world public opinion. It was much more difficult to get the quota of about 800 per month now permitted to go than it will be to increase this quota to thousands and tens of thousands as is bound to happen if our struggle continues undaunted. Of course, we have to find the proper ways and means for this momentous struggle with a superpower. We have to avoid such measures as will unnecessarily antagonize our friends in the non-Jewish world who could exert effective pressure on Soviet rulers. We have to stay away from provocative and senseless deeds. But we have to concentrate all our efforts on maintaining and furthering the struggle for the survival of Soviet Jewry.

We are facing a prolonged struggle which can be successful only if carefully planned and adequately conducted. We must bring the Soviet ruling quarters to realize that they are pursuing a self-defeating policy. Stepping up anti- Semitism brings about an increased demand on the part of the Soviet masses to get rid of the Jews. When, simultaneously, the gates are being locked up for any mass emigration, the result is an internal clash with which the Soviet Union will not be able to live for very long.

Above all, we must fight now for the right of the Soviet Jews to petition their authorities. At present, this well-established freedom of a citizen to submit a petition to his government, is denied in the Soviet Union. A legitimate request for exit is being visited with dismissal from work, dismissal of one's children from school, and often with imprisonment. This is a barbarian denial of a basic human right. The world must never acquiesce in a situation where a citizen of any country does not have the right to ask his government for a permit to leave that country, a right which is firmly rooted in international law and usage.

We have recently heard that the Soviet Union wishes to keep back the Jews as hostages for the policies of Israel. It has been officially proclaimed that as long as the tensions in the Middle East continue, Russia will not let Jews out lest they join the armed forces of Israel. This cynical allegation penalizing Soviet Jews for the present day policy of Israel is without precedent, even in this century of contempt for basic human values. The world will not accept this vicious attitude and will continue fighting for the right of the Soviet Jews to leave according to their desire and according to the demands of Jewish

45 history. We have already witnessed the first cracks in Soviet intransigence. It will be up to us now, to our efforts, to our will, to our appropriate choice of means to insure that the barrier, which has already been slightly removed, should fall down altogether and that all Jews wishing to leave the Soviet Union should be able to do so without delay.

We have been through this in our generation when Jews in another country were doomed because of their Jewishness. In Hitler's Europe the only freedom allowed to Jews was to die as such. But now there is a difference. First of all, there is a place to which persecuted Jews can go, for the State of Israel is now on the map. Secondly, Jewish consciousness throughout the world is alerted and determined to foil and to frustrate the present day spiritual genocide perpetrated on our brethren in the Soviet Union.

We must succeed in this struggle of ours. We have taken a vow and must live up to it, for "If I forget Soviet Jewry let my right hand wither away."

46 SCHECHTER, THE MAN . . . AND ANOTHER MAN

BERNARD MANDELBAUM President, The Jewish Theological Seminary of America

Before Solomon Schechter came to these shores in 1902, Conservative Judaism and the state of American Jewish life were somewhat like the soldier receiving a medal of honor for bravery in volunteering for a dangerous mission. After the ceremony he was congratulated by a little old lady, who said: "It was so brave of you to step forward when they asked for volunteers." To which the soldier responded, "You got me wrong, ma'am, I didn't step forward, but while I was thinking about what to do, everyone else took a step backward." A declining Judaism, a vacillating, irresolute Conservative Movement faced the new head of the Seminary. But Schechter—in his profound wisdom, deep compassion, and boundless courage—confronted the challenge with boldness. In a letter to Richard Gottheil, dated August 16, 1894, he wrote:

"The question is what we have to teach. Are there not such things as truth and untruth and is not the duty of the teacher to expound the former and to warn against the latter even at the risk of hurting the fools?"

Schechter, the man, comes through to us in his writings as possessing one of the most precious attributes of the tzadik, the saintly man whom he describes in one of his essays. Of him it can be said that tocho k'voro, his outward behavior and expressed teaching mirror the most personal features of his inner being. In a letter as early as 1880, at the age of 31, Schechter writes: "My mission in the world is the Torah and wisdom of Israel which my soul loves .. . there is happiness in the performance of mitzvot, the delight of scholarship." His tocho, inner being, is k'voro, his expressed aspirations for Judaism and the Jewish people:

"A community forming a kingdom of priests," he writes about the Jewish people, "must have the whole world for its parish. . . . They convert the world, but do not allow the world to convert them. Abraham, the 'Friend of God,' had to stand alone contra-mundum, against the evils and idolatries of the world and in this his real greatness is said to have consisted."

As I read this I hear echoes, don't you, of another man who took over the helm of the Seminary in 1940. To this day he still is often chided—but in a loving way—as "the man with the messianic complex." Indeed, it has been his passion to see the Jewish people fulfill its role as a "kingdom of priests ... to convert the world and not let the world convert them ... to stand alone (is necessary) contra mundum, against the materialism and immortality of the world."

47 Schechter's love for Zion, devotion to authentic scholarship, popularization of Judaism in his essays, were all directed to creating a vibrant, informed, committed community of Jews in America. "I always persuaded myself," he wrote with remarkable prescience in 1894, "that the future of Judaism is to be sought in America ... we can live (here) to carry out those ideals for which our ancestors had to die."

The strengthening of American Jewish life depended for him on one of his consuming passions—peace and understanding. The constant carping of Orthodox and Reform on Conservative Judaism, and even on him as a person, was met with the patience of a saint. "If the Seminary should become a real blessing," he writes to Dr. Adler in 1901, "it must not be degraded into a battle ground of various parties. It must be above them all and give directions to both orthodox and reform," And he had the same aspiration for the United Synagogue of America:

". . . Let me promise that this United Synagogue has not been called into life with any purpose of creating a new division . . . Life is too short for feuds and the task before us is so great and so manifold that we must spare all our faculties and save all our strength for work of a positive nature."

Echoes and more echoes of the man in our time who has continuously avoided strife with other groups (even when personally attacked, as was Schech- ter before him). He seeks to see the Seminary as a unifying force, a world center of Jewish scholarship, a powerful influence for ethical commitment that will serve as a leaven to raise the level of human behavior in man's genuine concern for his fellow man.

Schechter condemned and battled what he call the "higher antisemitism" of Christian and Jewish scholars. In words, singing with his fiercest language, Schechter attacked the scholarly world which failed to recognize the historic continuity and contemporary relevance of the entire gamut of Jewish literature:

"If the Talmud was burnt and disfigured in the flesh by the medieval cen- sor, it is tortured and mutilated in the spirit by the modern writer."

In revitalizing Rabbinic literature, Schechter made one of his greatest contributions to 19th century yiddische wissenschaft, Jewish Science, which gave new birth to Judaism for modern times.

In our day too, there are many scientific works which have strengthened the scholar's respect for Rabbinic Judaism—the Sifra, the Sifre, Mabo (Introduc- tion) to the tractates Aboi and Abot of Rabbi Nathan, the Perns him and Ans he Knesset Hagdolah. This has been paralleled by a Schechterian concern for addressing all the people with the popularization of Jewish thought that inevitably helps make Judaism fashionable: Akiba, The Beliefs and Practices of Judaism, The Jews. The Pharisees.

48 Rabbi Louis Finkelstein is serving his generation as Schechter served his— with creativity, originality, and inventiveness. In a world, which is gradually becoming one small neighborhood, the Conservative Movement, since 1940, recognized its responsibility to create communication and mutual respect between the various religious, cultural and intellectual groups that are part of one world. Long before the word "ecumenical" could be pronounced, let alone spelled, new standards of forthright, non-apologetic inter-group dialogue were fashioned at the Seminary—facing up honestly to the real differences between groups, as well as the values which unite them. In a world which saw the destruction of the great centers of learning, in Vilna, Volozin, Pressburg, Frankfurt am-Main, our Seminary became a center of the greatest gathering of Jewish scholars, producing the living works of its faculty—students who serve as rabbis, professors and teachers—as well as an endless stream of literary creativity.

Despite our recognition of the progress still to be made by our Movement in Israel, the first Diaspora institution to set real roots in Israel was the Ameri- can Student Center of The Jewish Theological Seminary, the precursor of one thousand of our young people in Israel this summer under the auspices of U.S.Y. and Camp Ramah; a Schocken Institute; and an increasing (although as yet not sufficient) number of Conservative synagogues. As a final illustration, the principal emphasis for Rabbi Finkelstein since 1940 has admittedly been the inspiration of Schechter in the pivotal concern of placing the highest priority upon learning (talmud torah k'neged kulam ). Study is the way of righteousness which fashions good people. In an unpublished manuscript, On the Ethics of Pharisaism, Rabbi Finkelstein writes:

"The student may acquire skill in ethical decision making through study under experts in the field of the saints of his time. . . . He will gradually become familiar not only with their opinions and habits, but also with their approach to human problems. He will discover in himself ability to apply their methods to his own moral perplexities. . . . (The student) becomes a Boswell, not gathering material for a literary classic but discovering the science of the good life."

In 1902 Schechter came to these shores and revitalized a declining Con- servative Movement. He could do so because he himself was one of the "sprinkling of saints," which he said is indispensable in each generation to raise the level of life for all mankind. In 1940, the Almighty saw fit to bless our Move- ment with the prototype of the "sprinkling of saints" for our generation. In praying for his continued vigor and wisdom ad meah v'esrim shana we give thanks to God by updating the words of the Rabbis: "A generation is not an orphan (but on the contrary is fruitful in its creativity) in which Rabbi Louis Finkelstein lives."

49 REVOLUTION IN MAN'S HEART

Louis FINKELSTEIN Chancellor, The Jewish Theological Seminary

It is a commonplace that we are living in a revolutionary time. We are obviously living in a time of great, rapid, and accelerating change. Our young people often feel lost in a new world, and sometimes we ourselves feel lost in the world. A world of change is one in which Jews have a special role to play. I think the nature of our world makes it very important that Judaism should survive, should thrive and should be particularly active. Why? Let us look for a moment at the situation of the Jews in Russia. Jews are certainly having some trouble with the Russians. But the Russians also find us a problem. They find us a problem just as the Romans found us a problem. Every other people in Russia has a land, a language and an area of residence. But the Jews are not in one place. It is hard for the Russians, as it was for the Romans, to understand a people that remains a people, and wants to be a people, yet does not dwell in one locality but dwells all over. The Russians talk to a person who appears to be one of them, only to talk a little more, and discover he is a Jew.

This kind of problem is unique in the world because our ancestors made it unique. For many centuries we lived in our land. But then we were exiled and deported. Any other people would have perished; indeed, many peoples perished in just this way. Have you ever come across a Moabite, or an Ammo- nite? No! There are no such people. But there are Jews. Most people, when they are taken away from their families, lose their moral values. That would have happened to us too. It didn't happen to us because our religion was adjusted to the fact of change. And this knowledge of how to survive is what we have to contribute to the world today.

We would like our children to understand what it is in our tradition that has helped us resist destruction and assimilation. We would like them to know for their own sakes, and also so they could contribute this knowledge to our world, and to contemporary civilization. Unfortunately, it is difficult for us to pass this secret along, because we have not been able as yet to formulate it, even for ourselves. When one thinks of the long background out of which the human race comes, it is not so strange that we have not progressed further toward this formulation. All of us, everyone of us, had, billions of years ago, an "ancestor" who was a unicellular animal. There were no human beings, there were no complex animals, or even trees or vegetables. There were just simply unicellular drops of protoplasm. And through life energy which God implanted in them the animals developed, as the vegetables developed, and became more and more

50 complex. And the unicellular animal developed ultimately to a worm and to a reptile and to a fish and to a primate and ultimately say, half a million years ago, to the human being. And here we are. The difference between a worm and an elephant is the difference between a simple animal and a more complex animal. It is a difference in degree, not a difference in quality. But the whole process acquired new meaning with the arrival of the human being who is different in quality; who has imagination; who can think of God. Every other advanced animal is simply more complex than some other animal. But the human animal is different in its very character and nature. He can look out at the world and appreciate what all this means. And he alone can ask himself where it all leads. He has moral values, and a conscience, and, unlike other animals, feels badly when he does the wrong thing.

The rabbis explained our behavior by saying that we had a good impulse and a bad impulse. The rabbis explained that the yezer hara was much older than the yezer tov. So the struggle was between a good impulse, which is a mere 500,000 years old, and an evil impulse, which goes back billions of years. It is like an infant trying to struggle with a huge giant.

Our business is to help the good impulse to win more often; even to try to get him to win all the time. We seek something in man which will enable the yezer tov to take over.

Some of you may have read Kenneth Clark's article in The New York Times in which he had an answer to all human problems. He said in effect that psychologists now have a medicine which can be injected into the blood of a person who feels very belligerent, and he will become passive and good. And all we need to do when a nation is about to declare war is give everybody a little medicine and the nation will become docile.

Well, as I was saying, the article I thought this new science of psycho- technology might be wonderful, but who is going to do the injecting? And how do you persuade world leaders to let themselves be injected? Suppose Hitler had known about that medicine? Presumably he would have injected people with its opposite, and made them more belligerent than they were before. If there is a medicine that can make a person peaceful, surely there is a medicine to make him angry too!

So I must say with all due respect to Kenneth Clark, I do not see a solution there. It is an idea, but not a very good one, unless supplemeted by more traditional methods.

Is it a dream, that we can have a world without war? Is it a mere illusion that we can have a world in which people will be at peace with one !another, and in which people will find joy in one another's !success? Is it possible for the world to have what Schechter used to call a sprinkling of saints? We believe that this can happen. But we believe it can happen only if we try hard enough.

51 If I tried to become a saint I could not do it. But I can open the door a crack, says the Talmud, even as much as the point of a needle, and God will open it wide. This understanding of man's character—that God has grace for us, and if we can open the door just a little bit, He will help us a great deal—suggests that mankind can become a world of saints. Indeed, we know this is no idle dream because we know our own ancestors lived that way. If you had gone to a small town in Lithuania or in Galicia, you would have found something that would be incredible in America: half the town, when finished with work, would go to the synagogue to study Talmud. In Eastern Europe, it was a common phenomenon that people should study—not for degrees, but simply for the sake of study. We are beginning to find this in our own synagogues, in classes in Mishna or Talmud. But not to anything like the degree that prevailed among Eastern European Jewry. Such study is hard work, but it could result in a new social order. Our children have to learn that real social change is not an easy business. The revolutions of which they think, and which are easy, are superficial revolutions. Did the French Revolution improve human nature? What did the Russian Revolution do for people? Nothing. Of course, some privileges were redistributed. Before the revolution the nobility had summer villas and winter palaces, and the other people were serfs. Now, the former peasants have the palaces and the former masters are in concentration camps. I don't see that as a real difference. The question of who is in the concentration camp and in enforced labor and who sits in the villa or the palace is unimportant.

But the revolution that we are seeking is the revolution in man's heart, lev hadash, a new heart, a victory of the yezer tov over the yezer hara. And that revolution is a basic revolution as deep and as different from any other kind of revolution as was the first atomic explosion from earlier physical or chemical changes. Even a chemical change leaves the atoms as they were—the change can be reversed. But once you change the atom itself you cannot go back. You have changed the substance. This is the kind of change that the prophets and the talmudic sages seek for us. Such change comes primarily through study and secondarily through contagion. Even the striving for this kind of change makes a person a little bit more saintly.

This is what our children have to learn from us. But first we have to learn it for ourselves. Perhaps when laymen, rabbis and professors sit down together to struggle with the problems of human life, we shall begin to learn how to keep the good impulse in control, how to bring about a revolutionary change in men's hearts; how, indeed, to achieve peace on earth.

52 CALLING A HALT TO HOPELESSNESS

JACOB STEIN President, United Synagogue of America

One of the major concerns of the 1971 United Synagogue Biennial Con- vention is brutality—in its physical sense, in its social sense and in the spiritual sense reflecting human selfishness, isolation, alienation and an inability to communicate with each other and with God. If brutalization and the dehumanization of cen continue unchecked, the next step will be the onset of hopelessness and with hopelessness comes social and spiritual anarchy. It would be so easy for us to despair. Our children make our hearts heavy by their rejection of our touch- stone of faith and the historical association with all who have preceded them, and so they float as motes of dust driven directionless by passing winds of fad and fashion, following any banner be it atheistic, anarchistic or of self-debasement. In their rejection they have lost the refuge of home, the standards by which they can judge their actions and the energizing contact of a heritage. A people not tempered as we on the anvil of 3,000 years of survival, would indeed despair and become hopeless.

But we are a goy kadosh and we must call a halt to this march towards hopelessness. The whole thrust of our tradition, the whole weight of our historical experience demands that we, individually and collectively, exert every influence at our command in our family and in our community—to reverse society's head- long dash into oblivion.

Abraham bargained with the Lord over the destruction of Sodom, and the number sufficient for saving the city was finally reduced to ten. But ten were not to be found and the city was destroyed. A Midrash tells us that, of course, there were ten good men in Sodom; however, since they lived only for themselves, exerting no beneficial influence upon their society, their friends and their neighbors, they were not judged righteous men, worthy of saving the city. Each of us, and we are a mighty parade, must bring the teaching of Torah, our tradition and historical experience to ten, to one hundred, to all if we are to be ancestors who hope and pray for descendants who can live in peace as Jews in the 21st century.

Edmond Burke remarked that all that is necessary for the forces of evil to triumph in this world is for enough good people to sit back and do nothing.

Dr. Louis Finkelstein said the question is not so much as to whether civilization will be saved, but whether there will be a civilization worth saving.

The 1971 Biennial has articulated many questions, projected wonderful plans, and expressed hope for the future. But plans unimplemented remain but empty dreams, and hope unrealized but a vision.

53 As an affirmative act for the implementation of plans and the realization of hope the United Synagogue of America is convening a Conference on Jewish Living to be held on February 20, 1972 to explore in depth the full dimensions of our unanswered questions. We will utilize the talents of our lay leadership, of sociologists, psychologists, motivational experts, and creative and innovative spiritual leaders. This conference, moreover, will be but a first step in an ongoing study searching for answers to the question asked again and again: "What does Judaism have to say to me that is meaningful in my time and with my problems?" I hope for and I invite the full support and cooperation of Rabbi Gershon Levi, president of The Rabbinical Assembly, and his organization in this undertaking. This Conference arises out of the deliberations of the 1971 Biennial Convention, and the expressed desire of the delegates for a continuing discussion of the crucial questions of our day. We are immersed in very serious challenges, and out of the very depths of our being we hope that our forward- moving efforts to address ourselves to the moment will find eventual validation in the prophecy of Jeremiah who, speaking to his people when the first Jewish commonwealth was disintegrating, when exile into Babylonia foreshadowed hopelessness and the extinction of Judaism, said: "Refrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from shedding tears for there is hope in your future and your children will return to their borders."

54 Divrei Torah MEMORIAL TRIBUTE TO CHARLES ROSENGARTEN

A. JOSEPH HECKELMAN Rabbi, Beth El Synagogue, Waterbury, Conn.

This morning's Torah reading began with the words, "v'ayleh toledot Yitz- hak"—"these are the generations of Isaac." Abraham we know was a towering figure, Jacob was a towering figure, Isaac often is lost somewhere in between. And so we look in the text to discover what it is that Isaac did with his life. And we read, "vayachpor et b'eerot hamayim asher chafru biymay Aw ah am• aviv." Isaac followed the tradition of his father Abraham. He dug wells. Dug, physically dug the wells of water which his father had dug before him. The midrash points out, "ayn mayim ella Torah" not meaning really that Isaac spent his time in that famous school of Shem, but that those following Isaac generations behind, the children of Isaac, have as their task the spreading of Torah, as Isaac spread the availability of water.

It is my privilege this morning to spend a few moments reviewing some highlights in the life of Yehezkel ben Yitzhak, a modern child of Isaac, Charles Rosengarten.

It is particularly fitting that this should take place this morning. This is just a few days after shloshim, after 30 days from the date of Charlie Rosen- garten's passing, and it is the first morning of the first full day of this Conven- tion—a Convention of an organization which he headed for a number of years, which he worked in actively for a great many years both before and after holding the title and responsibility of president.

Charlie Rosengarten was an unusual man in many ways. He was self- educated. In this room I don't think there is a man whose formal education was as limited as of that of Charles Rosengarten. He left school after the sixlth grade. Perhaps because of this, much of the focus of his life was devoted to education, Jewishly and secularly. The extent of his involvement with local secular education was such that a local community college immediately after his passing wrote to his widow, Flo, and said that the first permanent building which they put up will be named after Charles Rosengarten.

Charles Rosengarten was a man who said "do as I do" and who antagonized some people by saying so, but who didn't simply say "do that which should be done"—he did it. He led in the giving of money; he was not a wealthy man. Many men who start poor, end by running major enterprises. Charlie Rosen- garten did not. His was a one man real estate business. Yet he gave on a scale

צצ which in absolute terms far outdistanced people who were millionaires several times over. He said, and meant, "I want the pleasure of giving while I'm alive; after I'm dead I won't have that pleasure." And so, he gave. He gave money and he gave of himself. He gave of himself in our Movement, as some of us know very well, and others know perhaps somewhat less well. He was a man who was called on for those jobs that other people found were too difficult; they were too busy; they didn't quite have the time.

When our Movement slowly moved itself and began its first enterprise in Israel, the Student Center in Neve Schechter, it was floundering, it had begun and was slowly rumbling to a halt. Charlie Rosengarten was tapped to pick up the reins and to get to work, and he did; and the Student Center, more 01 less on schedule, was opened. Following this we are moving ahead, perhaps slowly, but moving ahead with other enterprises in Israel. The same is true with the AZF; the same is true with the Klal Yisrael Fund, with which our experience has been rather mixed. It is this fund which is supposed to fund our enterprises in Israel. During this last year when his powers were not what they had been in earlier years, Charlie Rosengarten again assumed this responsibility of trying to push ahead the Klal Yisrael Fund. So his was a life of the giving of his funds and the giving of himself.

When there were synagogue problems he would be called on: Go to Seattle, go somewhere else to try to work out that which needed an outsider to work out. With all of this, he was in many ways a humble man. In our synagogue his place was not up front. His place was in the back, at the door. He was the man who would greet whatever strangers came to the synagogue, and this is another aspect of the measure of a man. He was our chief gabbai. The humble synagogue tasks were the tasks that he did, in addition to the grandilo- quent kinds of things.

He was a man thoroughly self-educated and well-educated. He left a large library, none of whose books were in new condition. The books were read. He had insomnia. Many men with insomnia toss all night. He didn't; he got up. He would get up at three in the morning, at four in the morning, whatever it was, and he would use those hours and use them very very constructively. So this was a man who lived the triple Jewish obligation that is spelled out for us at the beginning of Pirke Avot: Torah—study; avodah—prayer; g'milut hassadim—the doing of good deeds.

Torah—study—both personally to the extent that he was able to, and in terms of promoting the study of Torah through the Seminary, through our Movement, locally and on the national and international scale.

Avodah—prayer. He was a man who, with all of his activities, both with the responsibility of earning a living and the portfolios he carried, nevertheless made it his business always to be in shul Shabbas morning, always to be in shul

56 Yontif morning, both days. This is the kind of commitment that he had to prayer.

Gmilut Hassadim, the doing of good deeds, I have already mentioned! The sharing on a very generous scale while he was alive of whatever funds he was fortunate enough to possess.

He had no children. And so, our Movement, our Synagogue, young people generally, in a sense became his surrogate children. And he was this kind of man and could do this kind of thing in the world because he placed himself thoroughly within the Jewish framework. It was not standing on the outside, 1What does Judaism say, and maybe I'll pick this item from the smorgasbord today and this item next week! ' Rather it was, 'What are the demands of Juda- ism, what is the total Jewish life that I will try to lead within the realities of the place and time in which I live.'

And so, it was Jewish tradition which truly made him the man that he was. And this, somehow, makes it particularly fitting that this morning when we read the first words of parshat Toledot, "Ayleh toledot Yitzhak," that we pay tribute to this contemporary ben Yitzhak, this contemporary son of Isaac, Ye- hezkel ben Yitzhak, Charles Rosengarten.

I suggest that now, whether we have recited kaddish previously or not, that all of us rise together and recite kaddish in memory of Charles Rosengarten.

57 TWO IMPULSES OF MAN

MORDECAI KIEFFER Rabbi, Brith Sholom Congregation, Erie, Pa.

Most of us, I'm sure, are familiar with the twin terms of the yetzer hatov, and the Good Urge or the Good Passion or the Good Impulse and the yetzer hara, the Bad or Evil Urge, Passion or Impulse. Whichever translation we prefer, we at least agree that yetzer hatov represents some positive value and that yetzer hara represents some negative value. We would, therefore, be perfectly within the bounds of logic and sensibility if we concluded that yetzer hatov processes are to be pursued and that yetzer hara processes are to be avoided. That appears to be an acceptable position, doesn't it? Of course. But our Rabbis didn't look at it this way. On the contrary, our Rabbis have taught that the yetzer hara may not be so bad after all. Were it not for the yetzer hara, they say, no man would build a house, have children, engage in business—or go to conventions! So how could they say such nice things about the yetzer hara, the Evil Impulse? How? Simple. The basis of their view of man, which we share, is that man, being a creation in the image of God, is created good. To account for the evil man does, they assert that there may be evil in man—but that evil is only temporary. And not only is evil temporary, but it is also conquerable. And not only is evil conquerable, but it can even be made to serve the good. To paraphrase: the basest elements of human existence can be channeled to serve the highest purposes. Can be channeled—but there is no guarantee that these elements will be channeled. Sometimes our lowest motivations become dominant. Sometimes our meanest attributes become revealed. Sometimes our crudest passions burst out into action. And yet we persist in our thinking, as did Anne Frank, that man is basically good. But we know, too, that the frailties of human existence are such that we are in a constant struggle to assert that which is good over that which is evil. And no man is freed from this struggle. It rages within us all.

Because this contest is played out in the arena of each person's existence, we should be able to learn from each other how to cope with this tension. And in our learning from each other, we should feel free to call on any resource at our disposal: including the experience of the past. For us, as Jews, one of the great repositories of past experience is the Bible. There, in the Bible, is the story of Rebecca. I see in Rebecca's life certain important parallels to our own. She is barren. She then conceives. Her pregnancy is painful because she is carrying twins, and it feels to her as if they are fighting with each other. She doesn't know what to do. She knows she is expected to have children, but nobody told her about the pain. She wasn't expecting such pain. So she seeks advice: she turns to God. It is God who gives significance to her pain by telling her, in essence, that what she feels as struggle within her is in actuality part

58 of His plan. There is a struggle, but the outcome is foreseen: the strong shall serve the weak, the elder shall serve the younger.

And even in the moment of birth itself, the struggle continues. One brother emerges from the womb—followed by the second. But a strange thing is noticed: the second child is holding the first child by his ankle. It appears that the second child has been attempting to hold back the first. Rebecca's children are from birth, from before birth, antagonists. The Rabbis teach us the meaning of antagonism when they explain the verse "and the children contended with each other in her," as referring to the characters and personalities of her children, Jacob and Esau. Whenever Rebecca passed before a bayt mee-drahasb—a House of Study—Jacob attempted to leave the womb, so that he could enter the bayt mee-drahash, but Esau stopped him. And whenever Rebecca passed before a place of ah-voe-daht gee-loo-leem—the service of idols—Esau attempted to leave the womb so that he could enter that place, but Jacob stopped him. From a Jewish point of view, the bayt mee-drahash and the place of ah-voe-daht gee-loo-leem represent antithetical tendencies. We would color these tendencies with our own language and refer to Jacob's desire to be in a House of Study as a result of his yetzer hatov and Esau's desire to be in a place of idolatry as a result of his yetzer hara. And the site of this struggle between this Good Impulse and this Bad Impulse? The Bible says:

"and the children contended within her." The Bible doesn't say that the children contended with each other in her womb; rather, the Bible says that the struggle took place within her. The struggle between Good and Evil took place in her, in Rebecca, as it takes place within each person. And who won the war within Rebecca? Was it not Esau who was the first to be born? No, it was Jacob who was the victor, because he did not van- quish his brother—he controlled—him. He did not let his brother exit freely. Perhaps the story of Jacob and Esau is what the Rabbis had in mind when they spoke of the benefits of the Evil Impulse. And from their statements about the Biblical narrative, I feel safe in concluding that what is condemned as the yetzer hara is not the Evil Impulse itself—but rather lack of control of it. And, therefore, it is not the use of the Evil Impulse which is of concern—but the abuse of that impulse.

Take sexual activity. As a Jew, one would be a fool to take the position that we regard sexual behavior as dirty or debasing. We don't. We regard it as healthy; necessary for the propagation of man, necessary for the survival of the Jewish people, and necessary for the preservation of the institution of marriage as the highest means of interpersonal fulfillment. Why, then, attribute the source of sexual activity to the Evil Impulse? Because of the tragedies which occur as a result of abusing this drive.

Take gossip. Why is gossip called lashon hara—"Evil Tongue?" If it is really gossip, let's call it dibur hara—"Evil Speech." Why is gossip called, in Hebrew, Evil Tongue? Why is it attributed to one's Evil Impulse? Because

9צ gossip is considered to be an abuse of the tongue. The tongue was given man as a tool with which to communicate—not debilitate.

Take gambling. Why is gambling treated in pejorative terms as to associate it with one's Evil Impulse? Why? Because of the abuse which may even- tuate from gambling: the abuse of funds. The possibility exists that one's family, or business, or synagogue, may suffer because necessary funds have been si- phoned off from them. So, this is an abuse of the means of livelihood.

Take war. As we have come to fear war, we have become more and more aware of the impact of science and technology on the mechanics of war. Why do we consign the producers of war through science and technology to the realm of those guided solely by the Evil Impulse? Because we feel that war is an abuse of science and technology. Science means knowledge. And if knowledge is a concomitant of growth and improvement, then any use of knowledge to defeat and destroy man is an abuse of that knowledge.

Finally, take the word, Jew. Why do we say that he who eats pork or lobster, who plays golf on Shabbat, or who neglects his parents, but who says he is a Jew where it counts—in the heart—is being held under the sway of his Evil Impulse? Because he is abusing the word, Jew, which he carries.

At this point in my life, as you can see, I know what has to be done: we have to confront the impulse for evil and learn to control it for our benefit. So—I know the "What." Maybe by the next convention I will have come up with at least a beginning of the "How."

60 Conferences in Convention The Brutalization of Society

WHY IS HEALTH A LUXURY?

EDMUND O. ROTHSCHILD Member, Board of Directors of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation

I would like to share with you some of my observations and thoughts, and hopefully involve you in some discussion around the general subject that I would like to, for the sake of a better title, call: Why is health a luxury? I had the opportunity to see the movie "Fiddler on the Roof" the other night. In it the story is told of Jacob and Laban, which sort of provides a subtitle to my talk here. Jacob makes a deal with Laban to work for seven years in order to get Rachel. At the end of seven years he is given Leah. He says: "but that wasn't the deal." But, he has to work another seven years to get Rachel. So the subtitle can be in the words of Tevya: "You can't trust the bosses."

Let's attempt to examine some of the facts about health care in the United States. I would like to say at the beginning we don't have a system of health care in this country. We have have a system of disease care. We will talk about that more later. Anthony Lewis in the New York Times of this past October looked at Great Britain and the United States comparatively with regard to some parameters of health. Infant mortality in Great Britain in 1969 was 18 per 1,000; in the United States almost 21 per 1,000. Maternal mortality was 19 per 100,000 in Great Britain, in the United States over 27. Not only are these British figures significantly better today, but they were achieved over one generation from a starting point much worse than America's. In 1945, for example, infant mortality was 46 per 1,000 in Great Britain, and 38 in the United States. If we look further at the seven leading causes of death in these two countries on the basis of the early '50's, we find that, as we go down the list: tuberculosis, diabetes, arteriosclerosis, hypertension, pneumonia, flu, bronchitis, the figures are shockingly unfavorable to the United States. In every one of these categories, the British figure is lower, the death rate from these causes has risen less since 50-52 than the American rate, or fallen further. These figures are for men, similar figures can be derived for women and they show an even worse comparison. To broaden the perspective, consider the fact that United Nations reports showed, for example, 22 countries in this world with a lower infant mortality rate than the United States

In the United States we currently spend close to 7% of our GNP for "health and medical services." Great Britain only spends 5%. They clearly get more for less. What needs to be changed then, says Lewis, is the system of delivery of medical care to the individual American. It is, as a British medical writer describes our system, "a desperately inefficient as well as a heartless way

61 of bringing the benefits of modern medicine to the population. Despite its wealth, the health of America is poor." I think when all the figures are examined the conclusion is inescapable that the overall health care in this country is not very good as compared to almost all the other developed countries in the world.

Thomas Watson (no radical he), the chairman of the board of I.B.M., has done a similar analysis, again published in the N. Y. Times and talks about health care in this country. He says, "I have been increasingly appalled to read of the country which during the past two decades has dropped from seventh in the world to sixteenth in the world in the prevention of infant mortality. In female life expectancy, from 6th to 8th, in male from 10th to 24th, which has brought itself to this unenviable trend by spending more of its gross national product for medical care, 1 out of every 14 dollars, than any other country on the face of the earth. The country I am talking about is our own U.S.A., the home of the free, the home of the brave, and the home of the decrepit, inefficient, high price system of medical care. I know the experts disagree over our precise international standings and I realize that medical problems here and abroad are not identical. I know American medicine has scored many brilliant triumphs, but on the evidence we are clearly moving in the wrong direction, failing to fulfill adequately for all our people the first right set down in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life." That is not one of your bomb throwing radicals speaking. I think he is telling it like it really is.

The Department of Health, Education and Welfare, which is run currently by President Nixon, published a white paper in May 1971 called "To- wards a Comprehensive Health Policy for the 70s." I would like to present to you some of this data. First, there is a direct clearcut correlation between income and life expectancy. Furthermore, non-white males have a 6 years less life expectancy than white males. Similar figures are given for females. Maternal death rates, white versus non-white, are approximately 100 as compared to 20, five times as high a death rate of black mothers! When we examine this situation we find, however, that it can be analyzed not by racial group necessarily, but by income; for example, tables of activity limiting conditions in people with incomes under $2,000 compared to those above this level, show 5 to 1 ratios in various health conditions; mental and nervous conditions 26 to 4; arthritis and rheumatism 60 to 10; high blood pressure, a disease rampant among poor black males, 25 to 5; etc. The number of children seeing doctors is also related to race and income; in New York City 72% white to 52% non- white children were found in one study. Farm people get much worse health care than the already bad care in the urban areas but the major correlative factor is neither race nor area. The determining factor is income. In other words, if you are poor, you not only tend to stay poor in our society, you die younger and suffer more. These are established facts. No one can challenge them. The simple fact of the matter is, in the urban areas of this country today, there are ghettoes, not unlike the ghettoes of Eastern Europe with which we are all familiar. These ghettoes kill, and these ghettoes are part of an unconscious and

62 unrelenting form of genocide that exists in this country today, for which we must all bear responsibility! Let's try and analyze why this happens instead of beating our chests and saying it's there. When we begin to look for the reasons we find that everywhere, including in the President's own paper, one of the main reasons is the organization of services, or better yet the disorganization of services. I quote: "In part the mismanagement of resources is a function of the manner in which the resources are organized for the delivery of services, and, therefore, the organization of services can be pinpointed as a causal factor in the health care crisis.

"The system by which services are provided in this country has been described pejoratively as a non-system, as a cottage industry of small entrepreneurs (physicians), as a push cart vending system in the age of supermarkets. Those are some of the kinder things that have been said.

"While increasing the size of the units in industry is not the solution to all of its problems, we must look at the scale and interrelationship among the components. Until a certain scale is reached, it is difficult if not impossible, to use scarce skills on tasks for which they are best suited, or to make tradeoffs between say hospital and home health services. Organization of services is so intimately tied to the financing of services that a further discussion of this point must be interwoven with this. "In 1971 approximately 80 billion dollars will be spent in this country for health care, 15 billion for operations, 2 billion for prescriptions, etc. By 1980, the conservative estimate is that we will be spending 156 to 160 billion dollars." That figure is 5 times the annual cost of the Viet Nam war.

When we try and see why this expense we begin to find such things as rising hospital rates; these are about $100 a day now, a decade from now they may be $1,000 a day. We find there is overspecialization of physicians. There are more surgeons than we can use and fewer so-called general practitioners. In New York City you can't get into a hospital sometimes; in San Francisco, half the beds in some hospitals are empty and they are still building more hospitals. And then there are vast management inefficiencies, duplications of drugs, payments for health insurance with as high as 8% overhead, and duplication of services provided by underutilized hospitals and doctors. Ted Kennedy com- mented that there are more neurosurgeons in Massachusetts than there are in the British Isles which have ten times the population.

When you want to know where the money spent for health care goes, you find it goes many, many places. Forty percent goes for hospital care, 20% for doctors, 10% for drugs, 6% for dental services, etc. And yet when you analyze these costs a little bit more closely you can find some very interesting things. For example, the drug industry is a very profitable industry for those of you who have portfolios in the drug companies. None of this profit gets poured back into health care, except indirectly through small amounts in re-

63 search. Most of our drug companies are involved in large conglomerates, some of which incidentally are involved in the business of killing through production of war industry related products.

When we look at doctors costs we see that the median income of physicians in this country is over $40,000 a year after expenses but before taxes. That's the median; that means that half the doctors make more than that. Only 1% of Americans earn this much money. Doctors' fees have risen 70% in the past decade. There is no way of controlling what your doctor costs you today. Health insurance overrides have run up tremendously, particularly the cost of administering them; even the head of Blue Cross admits this.

How then can one go about decreasing costs? Philadelphia State Hospital has successfully reduced costs from $15 to $6.00 a day by developing community mental health clinics. Prepaid group practices such as the Kaiser group, not only save money but provide preventive care, which is a long term way to cut down health expenses. Group health cooperatives may help. In Seattle, a program started in 1947 with 140,000 subscribers costs $37 a year for hos- pitalization as compared to the average American's cost of $112. These are only some directions that have been taken in an attempt to try to control health care costs. But in a larger sense, in order to decide what costs are to be for a truly effective health care system for all, we must all have access to and understanding of what we are now paying for. Much of this vital information is not available because we cannot get this kind of information in detail from our insurance carriers, hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical houses, druggists, medical schools, etc. So the first responsibility we all have is to insist upon accountability in all these areas—only then can we make rational decisions.

Thus far we are talking guardedly about how badly this nation's health is, how health is correlated with ability to pay, and how much it costs to buy all of this. There is a more sordid side to this whole picture which relates to the fact that as bad as the numbers are, we of the middle and upper economic class, might respond if we at least were exposed to the extreme deprivations of the poor. But we are dealing in this country not only with an expensive inefficient non-system of health care, we are dealing with a dual system—a two class system! One of the reasons that you people are not sensitized to what goes on for poor people is because you are not exposed to it. None of you go to the municipal hospitals or the county hospital for health care. None of you wait in clinics. We are all privileged to be involved in the private voluntary sector of health care, an expensive, wasteful, duplicated, and terribly inefficient operation, but we are getting the better part of medical care in this country. The poor people in this country, of which there are millions, are getting such tragically bad care that as I pointed out earlier they literally die six years younger than you or I do. This is not by accident, I think. I think it is characteristic of the economic and political system within which we live. The majority of people are in the middle economic class, a small few control most of the re-

64 sources and power, and a significant but largely impotent number live in the lower economic classes and suffer consistently. It is, therefore, my belief that there will be no way of changing the health delivery system until we begin to change the delivery system for all the resources in this country. If it begins to sound like I am talking about redistribution of wealth, that is exactly what I am talking about. Only at such time as poor people are no longer poor, will they begin to make the demands on the health system that will break the back of the current inefficient, terribly expensive, disorganized, and fragmented system. For most poor people health care is inaccessible, insumane and murderous. Poor people lack at the moment political power to change this system but they will not lack it much longer. We are beginning to see health issues used efficiently as a political weapon, by such groups as the Black Panthers and the Young Lords. This is only the beginning of a revolution among poor people that will make some of us ask the question, which side are you on? The time is not too late, it seems to me, to begin to make the major changes of which health care is only a symptom and not the disease. It is the symptom of an inadequate society. The major disease is the existence of a class structured system, both economic and social. Medicine is the tip of the iceberg. The super- structure of medical care demonstrates that those who have, control the lives of those who have not.

I think that it is worth remembering historically as Jews, that at one time there were ghettoes in other parts of the world where there were deprived and powerless oppressed people, many of whom are no longer with us. In part this happened because the other people as well meaning as they may have been, did not bother to learn or care to learn of what was going on in the ghetto (and if they knew, felt it was not their problem). I suggest to you that if we are not to be ultimately accused of being participants in the ongoing genocide in our nation's ghettoes, that we begin seriously to ask ourselves which side are we on; begin to find out exactly how people suffer in the ghettoes of our country; and begin to work with them, to gain credibility as serious, constructive, hard working and understanding leaders and followers. In summary, as it has been said before with regard to health care, indeed with regard to the many dehumanizing, brutalizing aspects of the American social and economic system: "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem."

65 THE ROLE OF THE SYNAGOGUE IN MENTAL HEALTH

SIDNEY R. KATZ Executive Dkector, Karen Homey Clinic

I do want to start by telling you about a very fascinating conference of psychiatrists that took place in Topeka, Kansas, last summer. It was the 25th anniversary of the Menninger Foundation, a reunion of some kind. It was chaired by one of the officials of the Foundation, who said at one point in the discussion, of Dr. Karl Menninger, the leader of the Foundation, one of the world's greatest psychiatrists, that this Dr. Menninger was up to the same old tricks he's been up to; he is always upsetting people. "I came here," says this man, "for a little tranquility, and Dr. Menninger blew it all, blew the whole thing." And what did Dr. Menninger say? He said to the audience, and this was before what happened at Attica happened: "Do you know what awful things are going on in your jails?" The audience said: "No, they didn't." He says, "I warn you. When you find out, you may not sleep a few nights." He said that our prisons actually increase crime.

In any group of ten eminent psychiatrists everybody would include Dr. Menninger, I am certain, and he is one of the prime critics of our prison system. The events since this article that I am talking about have raised that question, it seems to me, to the level where religious organizations, considering the health and the mental health of our community, have an added problem to add to their series of problems.

I am intrigued by the fact that we did select the term "brutalization," I am intrigued partly by my own loyalty to the memory of Rabbi Milton Steinberg who had brought such distinction to the rabbinate and to Park Avenue Synagogue, who inveighed against brutalization time and time again in what he characterized as aspects of our society which brutalize our citizens.

It may be of some value to present some overall statistical picture of the mental retardation problem. I can put it in terms of the fact that recent figures indicate that 20 million people in the United States are suffering from some form of mental or emotional illness, from mild to severe, that needs psychiatric treatment. That's an awful lot of people. There are additional statistics to indicate the wide range of untreated mental health needs. For example, in the budgets of various state hospitals and other establishments for the treatment of the mentally ill there were for the most recent year available, some year and a half or two ago, 23,800 unfilled positions where there was a clearly demonstrated need for jobs to be filled but which had never been filled because of shortages in budget. On the average in 1966, the last time for which there are full, complete statistics available, there was one full time staff member for every

66 ro and 2/3 patients in a state hospital; one physician for every 103 patients; one graduate nurse for every 44 patients; one social worker for every 130 patients. And the picture continues that way with a vast array of a great number of people needing medical attention and a great number of unmet needs.

Sometimes it's very hard to grasp these figures of 20 million people who need mental health care in our country. But there are good ways of reducing that to the size of a congregation. For an average congregation of 500 families there should be on the average 50 families that have one form or another of serious, and sometimes not so serious, and sometimes a lot more serious, mental health problems. There should be, in addition, 15 families, 3 out of every 100, that have serious or mildly serious mental retardation problems within your own congregation. This produces a total of about 65 families who have serious problems which for the most part are not met by the mental health and mental retardation facilities that we now have in our country.

We who serve in the Social Action Commission or we who sometimes attempt to encourage congregations to participate in roles where they had not in the past, sometimes are beset by questions, from congregants, who say how can we ever begin to deal with additional problems; we already have so many other problems today? I don't think that the introduction of the health problems into the life of congregations as a social responsibility for the congregation brings controversy into a congregation. There is controversy there now. It just changes the nature of the controversy. You may now have a controversy as to who is loved more or who is loved less, or you may now have a controversy as to whether or not bingo is a serious question, or in a congregation there was a big debate as to whether the rabbi's wife should be permitted to wear short shorts. These are "big" questions that rock some synagogues. As long as we are going to be rocked we should be rocked by serious questions.

Somebody I know took a trip abroad recently. He is writing a book on the way mental retardation is handled by other countries. He also went to Israel. The book will be published later this coming spring, but he lent me a part of the chapter because I told him I am interested in knowing his reaction to what is happening in Israel in the field of mental retardation. So I want to quote two sentences from that book. It's a fascinating indication of how Israel is reacting to this problem. He says: "I thought the comments of Mr. Ganiga, principal of a school in Haifa, whom I had interviewed were especially revealing. I asked him: ,How can Israel, a new nation, with so many overwhelming problems (this was shortly after the Six-Day War), find time, energy and resources to concern itself with the mentally retarded?' Mr. Ganiga laughed; he said: 'Problems, what problems? Israel has nothing but problems, so mental retardation is one more,' and continued Mr. Ganiga, 'but you know how it is. It's part of Jewish tradition to be concerned with one's fellow human being. Those who are basically not equal must have more opportunities and it is our responsibility to provide for them.' "

67 Somehow it strikes me as very moving that in Israel where their problems are many times that of any of our congregations, they find it an important part of their responsibility to their citizens, and believe you me, they have major problems of mental health and mental retardation. Tremendous populations are settled there which have moved from one world to another; for all the factors that we understand are elements in the development of this kind of problem.

I do want to say one other thing, and that is, sometimes we wonder if we move into this area in congregations, where are we going to find the leadership for it. Our leadership is so concerned: we have this committee, this convention, more responsibilities. I maintain that there is ample congregational leadership available in every synagogue, though much of it is untapped. Sometimes there is an unwillingness to find new leadership, there is a fear of new leadership, or people don't know how to find new leadership. But the leadership is there, and the leadership that would respond to the needs of the mentally ill, or the mentally retarded, might provide the congregation with entirely new forces and new strength and give it added vigor in terms of all of its other responsibilities, beyond that of the mental health question.

I do want to quote something from the Talmud, not because I am a student of the Talmud, but because it was suggested to me that I might find some clue there as to some new thinking which might be useful to us in our ideas, inner thinking ideas of what we might do in the months and the years to come in regard to the mental health and mental retardation problem. One of these has to do with a quotation from the Talmud which says: "Who is a man of piety that at the same time is a fool?" The Talmud replies: "He who sees a woman drowning but because it's unseemly to look turns away and doesn't take any responsibility and effort to rescue her." It also adds: "Who else is a pious fool?" and answers: "He who sees a child struggling in the water and says, ,when I have finished with my phylacteries I will then rescue him,* and while he does that the child breathes his last."

I don't think that we here, at least those of us who have come to this session, and those of us who are concerned with social action, are these kinds of wise fools. We take our responsibility jointly, our religious responsibility and our social action responsibility as part and parcel of the same thing. Here and there you do find congregations which have taken interest in the health problem. I know of congregations in the State of Maryland who jointly undertook an effort in the struggle against Tay-Sachs disease, a disease that has peculiarly affected some of the Jewish population who came from certain sections of Eastern Europe, but a serious disease. The congregations worked together as a group and did some wonderful pioneering work, which was scientifically useful in trying to struggle against this dread genetic disease. Also I know of a congregation in downtown Manhattan that concerns itself with the drug and alcoholic as a part of its congregational problem. I say this to you because I am convinced that we all are afraid sometimes to pioneer. Who else would do anything so absurd as to direct a congregation towards mental health and mental

68 retardation problems? Well, there are any number of others that have, I am certain, beyond my knowledge. I do think that the action of the United Syna- gogue in acting favorably on a health resolution is fine. I do hope, however, that out of this session, out of this panel, out of the work that will follow it, the instrumentality can come into being which would seriously consider some of the major health problems of our country with a view towards throwing the weight of the United Synagogue in favor of bringing us into a more sane and a less brutal kind of society, and would help indicate directives for congregations and regions who themselves want to participate constructively in the struggle for better health, better mental health and for more mental retardation services.

69 DRUGS AND DRUG ABUSE

SIMON SLAVIN Dean, Temple University School of Social Work

The problems associated with drug abuse have recently been escalated to a position of national alarm and concern. Dr. Gunner Myrdal, the world renowned social philosopher, was recently quoted as referring to the epidemic proportion of drug addiction and listed it along with air and sea pollution, the population explosion and the proliferation of modern weapons in his catalog of social and national ills mankind must control if it wanted to survive. This extraordinary statement from a great scholar, suggests the context in which we should be discussing drug addiction. In America this public health hazard and menace has assumed major dimensions in the past few years and has been placed high on the agenda of social problems when it began to strike large segments of the white urban and suburban middle class. This past June the Gallup poll revealed that drug addiction was judged third on a list of national problems in the nation. Only Vietnam and the state of the economy were ranked higher. However, while the percentages of persons citing the war and the economy as the most important national issues remained about the same as in the previous survey in March, the percentage of those naming drug addiction doubled. In the same month the President's message to Congress declared that "the problem has assumed the dimensions of a national emergency." How large is the problem of drug abuse? No one really knows since there is no really good data base for establishing the number of addicts in the country. The U.S. Justice Department Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, our major federal agency for dealing with this problem, recently estimated that heroin addicts who consume some 6 tons of heroin צ,there were about 31 000 a year. The street cost of that is about $2.3 billion. This estimate is echoed by Miles J. Ambrose, Commissioner of the United States Bureau of Customs, who recently was reported as saying that in spite of "substantial progress in the drive to curb the international traffic in illegal narcotics there remained 300,000 addicts in the United States compared to some 53,000 in I960." (N. Y. Times, 10/28/71). This extraordinary growth only hints at the true dimensions of the problems associated with drug abuse. It leaves out other forms of drug abuse, which together loom much larger than heroin abuse, and surely ignores the vast social and economic costs that accompany the epidemic in the forms of criminal activity and social and family breakdown. One more fact is worth mentioning. Something over 1,000 deaths per year from heroin use has been reported in New York City alone, and this ignores death from drug use related causes resulting from the personal neglect that is so closely associated with the addictive culture.

70 Few people realize that there is little new in the phenomenon of high drug vulnerability. There were probably between 250,000 and 1,000,000 addicts, largely women, at the turn of the century. This at a time when morphine use was legal and widely incorporated in a variety of patent medicines. Eugene O'Neill immortalized this form of addiction in the portrait of his mother, in the play "Long Day's Journey into Night."

With the passing of the Harrison Act in 1914, morphine and its dériva- tives—heroin is a derivative of morphine—were proscribed and the modern era of narcotic addiction began. Widespread use of heroin became apparent after World War II. Through the 50's addiction mainly afflicted people living in disadvantaged areas and to a substantial degree involved Blacks and Puerto Ricans. Relatively little attention was paid to the problem then. The past decade saw the induction at a fairly rapid rate of white populations to the cultures of drug abuse, of all kinds—opiates (including heroin), hallucinogens, barbiturates, and amphetamines.

To this social trend, seemingly associated with various aspects of the counter culture of social alienation and of Consciousness III, the Jewish youth population seeems to have exhibited a marked vulnerability. While little is known or reported about the extent of Jewish drug use and abuse, there are scattered data that point to the special attraction that drugs have for Jewish young men and to a lesser degree for Jewish young women. In general the ratio of drug use is about 5 or 6 to 1 favoring men in the country as a whole.

A recent study done at the Haverford State Hospital, located in one of the affluent suburbs of Philadelphia, reported admitting increasing numbers of teenagers in the past five years. Dr. Aaron Smith examined the detailed records of 421 teenagers admitted between 1965 and 1969. His data denied the popular stereotype of drug abusing youth as "the irresponsible offspring of disinterested parents whose homes have beeen shattered by separation, divorce, alcoholism, brutality, indulgence, mental illness or plain absenteeism . . . , or as sexually deviating dropouts whose lack of meaningful involvement with others allows for, in fact precipitates, refugee-seeking in the rebellion of the illegal drug user." {The Evening Bulletin, 11/1/71)

Of major interest is his finding that on the basis of their relattive proportions in the general population, hospitalized drug abusers included an over- representation of Catholics and Jews. There were no Jewish alcoholic users in the group studied, and Catholics were substantially over-represented in that part of the group that had a history of both drug and alcohol abuse. Apparently our culture has prepared us to avoid problems of alcoholism but not problems of drug abuse. A recent survey of dormitory students at a suburban campus of Temple University showed that Jewish males had the highest percentage of drug use, though their percentage representation in that population is small. Jewish females showed substantially less use.

71 ״These are not definitive studies but they do suggest that the Jewish com munity needs to be concerned about the drug threat to young people. Indeed, in many quarters this is beginning to be the case. In one Jewish family service agency, the following four problems, for which help was sought, were listed, in the following order of significance: 1. Parent-child problems with an increasing number of parents and adolescents applying because of great concern about the use of drugs. 2. Marital problems. 3. Problems of the aged, and 4. Social adjustment problems of youth and adults. In a confidential report on the drug situation, at a well known YM-YWHA, one reads the following:

"Since September 1969 the youth services staff has noticed an increase in drug activity taking place at the Y. It was reported that more youth were coming to the Y high on drugs, more youth were smoking in the Y, or on the property, and finally that drugs were being sold on the property."

So alarming is the situation in the Jewish community centers and Y's that the National Jewish Welfare Board was moved in January of this year to adopt a special position statement on the subject. It say s in part that "the N.J.W.B. is concerned with the fact that drug abuse is increasingly prevalent among middle class Jewish youth and young adults in all segments of the Jewish community. Staff, lay leaders and members of the JCC's and YMHA's report a progressive rise in the incidence of drug involvement by people known to them. . . . We urge that the full range of the Jewish communal resources of local agency boards and federations be engaged to provide the direction, commitment, and the financial support necessary to render relevant social services in all Centers, Y's, and related communal services." There is too little time here to deal with so complex a phenomenon as the impact of drug use on our culture. I hope only to engage your active interest in exploring the issues involved and in lending your human and professional skill to the task of containing and ultimately reducing the dangers that they represent to productive community life. For I wish in part to suggest that if you are not now aware of the problems posed here in your local communities you are living with communal blinders, and if perceiving the threat you are not actively engaged in the community's efforts to counterattack, you are failing of nerve and defaulting on the social commitment that is associated with the institutions you represent.

Phenomenon־ Drug Abuse—A Complex It is tantalizingly easy to speak of drug addiction as though it was a specific, unitary, identifiable, social, pathological syndrome. The truth is that it is a highly

72 complex phenomenon, covering a variety of entities, each with its own characteristics, consequences and difficulty of management Before one can make useful generalizations it is necessary to disaggregate its attributes, to separate them one from the other and to make distinctions that lie at the base of any attempt to deal with it effectively.

Marijuana, for example, represents a very special case. Marijuana is not a narcotic, yet it is so classified both nationally and in most state statutes. In some states the mere possession of marijuana can bring a 20 year or longer sentence. Marijuana is not addictive and in point of fact frequently exhibits negative tolerance. People who are long time users of marijuana frequently find that it takes less marijuana to bring about the same results. It should never be classified with heroin or other hard drugs. Dr. Lester Gtinspoon recently published a book on the subject, Marijuana Reconsideredthat puts to rest many of the myths that have arisen concerning its effects. In sufficient dosage it is an intoxicant that impairs judgment and psychomotor performance. In modest or occasional use its effects are largely benign. My prediction is that in 10 years it will be legalized. There is no evidence that marijuana by itself leads inevitably to other drugs. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, "there is nothing in the -The World Health Organi ״.nature of marijuana, that predisposes to heroin use zation, in appraising cannabis-type dependence, of which marijuana is one form, stated that it facilitates the association with social groups and subcultures involved in more dangerous drugs such as opiates and barbiturates. Transition to the use of such drugs is a consequence of this association rather than an inherent effect of cannabis. All those who use drugs are not addicts. The range and intensity of use is very wide, from occasional experimentation to full abuse and ultimately to addiction. True addiction represents a total way of life, a life style, a sub- culture, a compulsive preoccupation with the hustle and the ritual of drug intake, a complete devotion to the drug and to obtaining it to the exclusion of all other characteristic human experiences, including sex, and often food and sleep. It is characterized by tolerance, dependence and psychological craving and tends to a painful abstinence syndrome when suddenly terminated, the so- called cold turkey. In my view, true addiction represents a chronic social, medical, psychological condition that requires a comprehensive attack on each of these dimensions simultaneously. To the community, of course, it represents a legal problem because it involves illegal behavior, both in its central activity, that is dealing in proscribed products, and in its inevitable drive towards other forms of anti- social behavior, theft of property, prostitution (almost invariably women addicts become prostitutes), family disruption, attacks on persons, associated health hazards and the like. Treatment programs for the addicts have notably failed in their effort to correct or prevent this affliction. This is perhaps a consequence both of the

73 intractable nature of the disease and of the poverty of knowledge about it. We have never put anything like enough resources to the task of researching the nature of drug addiction and its treatment, and what we know about it is abysmally small. The absence of good theories that explain its genesis and the human vulnerability it exposes are real difficulties. It seems to me clear, however, that the drug trauma is a response to the culture, to its institutions and its follies. It is an illness of the society. It has been called by some a disease of affluence, on the one hand, and of the illegitimate response to the shutting off of opportunity to vast segments of the population, on the other. The combina- tion of affiuence and poverty and discrimination is deadly, and we suffer for it. But put together with an immoral and cynical war, it is catastrophic, and this, in my opinion, explains this sudden explosion. The moral vacuum that covers the nation creates conditions of individual vulnerability and establishes social norms that are conducive to peer influence. It is the failings of the culture and not of family life, or maternal ineptitude that lies at the heart of this malady. Else, how explain its recent and precipitate rise? The longer the war continues, the longer social policy ignores the conditions of life, the longer poverty and racism survive, the longer will drug addiction and the other social pathologies continue to pollute social life.

Drug Use as Social Criticism Seen in broad perspective, drug use and abuse is a form of social criticism. Its very denial of conventional values and culturally implanted traits is both mute and vocal testimony that something in the social order and arrangements is woefully wrong. It is a cry of agony, often by the most talented among us. It enjoins us to do something, and not just about the addicted. The very attempt to mount a campaign of action involves profound questions concerning the community's welfare and the reallocation of national and local priorities and resources. Precisely because it is so resistant to individual action (with its implication, as Dr. Ryan recently suggested, of blaming the victim), one is compelled to look to the social and psychological context in which it flourishes. Perhaps the most striking form of social criticism lies in the way in which the incidence and prevalence of drug use presents data for social diagnosis. It serves the function of a barometer on how well the culture is doing. It is essentially an early warning system that indicates the spread of social infection that ultimately, in Myrdal's phrase, will help determine man's capacity to survive.

Widespread drug addiction may turn out to be the true bellwether of the society since it affects every aspect of life and leaves no segment of the community free of its contagion. In an era of law and order it corrupts even those who are assigned to its destruction. Police and narcotic agent corruption is endemic (we read about in the newspapers almost every day), because so much wealth is generated that is readily available for disposal to them. Much of the

74 fear that grips citizens in parks and streets of the cities is born of addiction. It is estimated that fifty percent of all crimes can be attributed to it. More and more institutions of the culture are deeply affected. The schools and colleges, hospitals, housing developments, synagogues and camps bear its scars. And perhaps of equally great significance is its role in the nation's international affairs and posture. There can be no really effective control of narcotics without its destruction at the source—the growing of poppies in countries to which we look for support and influence in the most sensitive aspects of foreign policy. Let me point to some evidence on this score.

For years we knew that Turkey was a major source of supply, but we were constrained to press its government to limit its cultivation because it was a sensitive part of the NATO Alliance, bordering on the Soviet Union. The approval in June of last year of a $40 million development loan to Turkey dismayed narcotics officials, according to a report in The New York Times. Listen to this interpretation of Times reporter Felix Valera Jr. in his news story of June 13, 1970:

"The State Department placed great importance on Turkey's role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It considers as no less important that country's strategic position on the Eastern end of the Mediterranean where the Soviet Union has been expanding its naval presence. Turkey's proximity to the explosive Middle East has magnified its importance even more in this view. These considerations argue against trying to get tough with the Turkish government of Premier Suleyman Demirel, whose grip on his Justice party is not as firm as it once was. . . . More than the Turkish opium output is involved in that government's commitment. Iran last year lifted its 13 year ban on opium production, largely because Turkey and Afghanistan had failed to follower her example."

Masri, is the־In Lebanon, a deputy in parliament by the name of Mayif Al owner of hashish fields that include a landing field heavily guarded by machine guns. He continues to serve as a member of the parliament, according to Representative Seymour Halpern from New York who recently completed a world-wide survey of traffic in narcotics. Postmaster General Winton M. Blount recently called for a boycott of French products because France still "exports" an estimated 80% of all the heroin that comes to this country. In another part of the world, Burma, Thailand and Laos now produce an estimated one-half of the world's illegal opium supply. Our need for friends in the light of our adventures nearby keeps us from pressing these governments to suppress this traffic. John W. Parker, Director of Strategic Intelligence in the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, recently indicated that almost all of the heroin refineries along the Mekong River in these three countries had been identified. In answer to a reporter's question, "Why doesn't the United States make sure that the heroin factories are destroyed?" (We have poured bil-

75 lions into Laos and Thailand), he, finally, pointed out (to quote Flora Lewis in The Evening Bulletin, 7/21/71), that "it was a matter of political decision in Washington. There is a choice to make. It would be easy to blow up the refineries, defoliate most of the poppy fields, push the governments involved into cracking down on their own high level military and civilian profiteers, and blocking the supply of heroin to GI's in Vietnam and, increasingly, to the United States. But it would be a severe embarrassment to Allies in Southeast Asia, it would hinder the prosecution of the war in Indochina, perhaps so severely that basic U.S. policy would have to be changed." That is an indictment, it seems to me, that speaks for itself. Other headlines during these past few months tell a similar story. "The C.I.A. identifies 21 Asian opium refineries" (N.Y. Times, 6/6/11)—nothing done about it; "Javits says that drugs may spur our pullout of Vietnam," (N.Y. Times, 6/8/71); "Thais persist in growing opium," (N.Y. Times and finally, "The Army's drive on heroin is hurt by Asian attitudes ,׳(6/17/11 and perhaps by official involvement" (N.Y. Times, 5/18/71). I said a moment ago that drug addiction may be the true bellwether of our society. I call to witness that great sage and human spirit, Dr. Abraham Joshua Heschel. At a recent meeting when he was honored by the B'nai Brith, he asserted that the young drug addict might well turn out to be, "the tragic witness who will awaken society to the ills of our technological civilization. Blessings, he said, often come in the disguise of a curse." Indeed, the addict is making all of us ponder great questions about where the society is going. He has added fuel to the struggle against the war because so many there have sought narcotic refuge from the intolerable and inhuman burden of human destruction. We are dealing in this meeting with a difficult and perplexing field. A variety of choices is open to us. We can ignore, deny or condemn those who move in the drug scene. The prevailing ethos in the nation is of this character. We can, however, determine to join the fray, to educate, to treat and to humanize those involved in drug abuse and those affected by them, peers, parents and citizens. The challenge is to all of us.

76 DRUG ABUSE IS A JEWISH PROBLEM

ELLIOT T. SPAR Rabbi, Temple Beth Sholom, Smithtown, New York

When I took this assignment from Morris Laub several persons warned me that I was headed for a rough reception. The Jewish community, they said, is not anxious to discuss the illnesses in its midst, and drugs are certainly a symptom of illness. When I was Hillel Director at Stony Brook, very often parents would slam the phone on me, and rabbis and teachers would shrug off any knowledge of drugs in their synagogues and classrooms. I don't know whether you are prepared to admit similar experiences; I am prepared to admit them. Our U.S.Y. meetings across the country have pot sessions. U.S.Y. kids are taking drugs, smoking pot, popping pills. Once Camp Ramah was almost closed because of drugs, and I think we have to stop burying this in the sand, and we have to start admitting the situation as it is. Some of our young people in the Conservative Movement live on the edges of alienation, trifling with dope; others are totally submerged in the drug culture, and more than a few have experienced too much and are struggling for re-entry into the "straight" society. The love thing has died, and the flower child has either escaped to the country communes, become politicized, or, in an effort to survive somehow, has turned to panhan- dling. What remains after the assassination, the Chicago Seven Trial, and the death of the hippies is drugs. Since Jews are really middle-class whites, the drug problem, as far as I am concerned, as far as we are concerned here in United Synagogue, is a Jewish problem. Over 50% of the 400,000 kids (and we had kids from our own community in Smithtown) who attended the Woodstock Festival were Jewish, and all four of the Festival organizers were Jewish as well. I have had a grant to travel as Hillel Director to some 27 universities in the past two years, and I have concluded (and I wouldn't say that the statistics are accurate but it seems to me this represents what I found and what I sensed) that 70 to 80% of Jewish college students are experimenting with drugs. Forty to 50% are experimenting with drugs or marijuana in U.S.-wide programs, and estimates include those who tried pot just once and those who go on to become drug regulars and addicts. My own study has also shown that students born into the Jewish faith, and I know this as a rabbi (and other rabbis who are here now I am sure feel the same way), disclaimed affiliation with their religion in greater proportions than non-Jews and that the disclaimers had a greater tendency to use drugs. I don't know how many of you are from New York but in one of the newspapers from New York a gentleman by the name of Ray Kestenbaum who has just concluded a series on the Jewish junkie, reports the following: "We have noted kids as young as 12 and 13 taking marijuana at Jewish communal camps, like Ramah and Cejwin." It was in the newspaper.

77 Counselors have been dismissed for being caught taking drugs. You can imagine what's taking place in the private camp scene. Many teachers and, I might add, students at the rabbinical school are also into the drug scene. They are under a lot of tension; our kids are smoking grass, popping pills, dropping acid; they snort and inject in their living rooms, in school yards, in synagogues—you name it.

We have to stop burying our heads. With a bit of drug savvy you will be able to recognize which kid is on pot or hashish (and let me tell you I have referred, because I am not trained to handle them myself many kids to therapy), you will be able to try to start coping with the problem individually, and I think we here in the United Synagogue have to start coping with it on a national Jewish level. See kids who are tripping on LSD or masculine or nodding on heroin; be aware of what is going on under the auspices of the Jewish Board of Guardians Residential Treatment Center in Hawthorne, New York, and in Lynden Hills and upstate New York. Keep telling yourselves that drugs are an exaggeration, a figment of the press, that nice Jewish boys and nice Jewish girls could never get that way. I have heard that story many times. It won't work. We are really in the midst of an epidemic as Dr. Slavin has indicated. We are just beginning to acknowledge that we are in the middle of a very serious drug problem. Parents must stop protecting their children; but often parents don't look for help until it is too late. When I was Hillel Director at Stony Brook and we had the pot raid there, a young lady from a very fine family in Nassau County was arrested. Her parents called and said, "Rabbi, we want you to do everything you can to get her off the hook. I mean, you know, we don't want her jailed; we don't want that business. Just get her off the hook; we'll handle the problem." I hear that time and again. Even many of our own rabbis cannot admit to what is happening.

There is a whole generation of freaks seeking through drugs what they feel the real world is denying them—an inner peace, a sense of unity with the environment. If the environment outside is messed up, you create your own space inside by taking a pill, a cube, a joint. You feel good, you feel high, strong, independent, unique, you fly, you sail, no more pressures. And, by golly, look into our Jewish homes: they are full of pressures that belong to another reality that is now an unreality. We have to change the adolescent out of space and create a situation he wouldn't really want to escape from, such as a good family life, a meaningful temple experience. Let's look at our synagogues: Are they meaningful? And you know you are tired of hearing the word relevant, right? But are our temple experiences relevant? Let's reverse the forces causing the deterioration in the world, or at least establish reasons for optimism in the face of them. With drugs, kids do not have to confront themselves, face up to their own feelings, their inadequacies. They avoid performance. Peer groups substitute communal drugs for loneliness, for a loveless environment. Today we are in the midst of a spread of heroin because of its sudden availability and Dean Slavin went into that in greater detail.

78 It was reported that a young boy from a prosperous New Jersey town where his father owns a pharmacy recalls that he went to a Hebrew school for four years, but he insists that he doesn't remember a word. I spoke to some of the people here at the Convention—they were doing such a fantastic job in religious school education but it's not what I see. I don't see it in my own synagogue. I see good educators, but I don't see that we have a good system, and I don't think we are honest about it, and I think that this has a direct relationship to the drug scene. This fellow says, and I quote: "My parents used to go to the Conservative Temple but Hebrew school didn't make any impressions on me." All of our kids are saying that. This young man made his debut into drugs at 16 by first drinking cough medicine, then smoking pot and finally taking LSD. He became a skilled burglar; twice he landed in jail. The same story can be told by many others.

I was invited by the New Jersey Region to come and speak there on the question of drugs. One woman stood up and she said to me: "Rabbi, we in New Jersey don't have a drug problem. You are from the Island, so you have a drug problem." The next day Cahill's son was arrested on drugs. Pressure by the family to succeed is often given as a main reason for alienation by some of the Jewish kids. Excessive competition at school and among peers is another reason, Some kids speak about tyrannical fathers and others report about overpermis- siveness in their homes. Kids speak a great deal about their parents' hypocricies regarding religion and temple. Father lectures about drugs and there he is downing his third martini. "My father prays three times a day and then cheats in his business." Have you heard that before? The kid who is a drug head delights in bringing the neophyte in his society. One kid who starts loves to grab another kid, get him involved. Part of the process of growing up is the need to define oneself as an individual apart from family and friends. Adoles- cents want and need to rebel. They need to oppose the order in which they are raised, to discover themselves as makers of values. While growing as an individual the adolescent tries to locate himself as part of a group, family, community, synagogue. He must have selfhood; he must also have grouphood and it's particularly true for our Jewish kids. To achieve selfhood a child must develop confidence in three areas. Emotionally he must feel loved and know that there are other persons to whom he can give love. He must feel competent and effective in what he does. And socially, he must feel he has the ability to influence others and bring about changes.

To achieve grouphood he must feel this group to be relevant to his own being and I suggest that we in our synagogue must start looking at the U.S.Y. programs, and then start to consider what key groups are encounter groups, and maybe start substituting these for some of the non-relevant programs that we have been pushing on our kids and on kids who are running away. I believe, and I guess that's why I am here, that the United Synagogue should participate and become involved in a comprehensive approach to the drug problem, and I suggest, and while I have no expertise (Dean Slavin has this expertise), I think that we should develop, we must develop programs of treatment, research,

79 and prevention. We have wasted too much time talking about bingo. What can United Synagogue do as a voluntary organization? And we are a voluntary organization. I think that our volunteers (and that means United Synagogue) can serve as a catalyst to develop a range of programs and these are what I want to propose: Create greater public understanding in the Conservative Movement. Let's mobilize the community for action and provide an atmosphere of acceptance for rational drug abuse programs. What do we do in the synagogues? (I do it in my own synagogue and it's crazy.) We call a drug addict from Phoenix House and then we think we are going to lick the drug problem; or we have sisterhood or men's club, or temple sponsor one lecture and we think we are going to resolve the question. That's a lot of nonsense. We are not going to move anywhere with that kind of an approach. Establish informal support settings where individuals can come for help, and provide forums for discussion groups under the guidance of people like Dean Slavin who will reduce anxiety and disseminate greater knowledge as to the effect of drugs. Let's force greater communication between young and old and develop programs wherein young people can develop interest in constructive life-styles. I think we have to function as pressure groups. As lay people we should not try to treat drug problems because you and I can't really treat them or run treatment programs, but we should engage professionals to do it for us within our synagogues. We have principals, we have executive directors, we have rabbis, we have cantors. As a first step I suggest that this convention develop a broadly based advisory group. I believe we should develop programmatic goals and approaches. I believe that the United Synagogue could establish a half-way house; when Jewish kids are in trouble they have to go to Good Samaritan House. We have to try to help (rehabilitate) under the auspices of Yiddishkeit and Judaism if we really believe in Yiddishkeit. Many times I have visited Odyssey House and Phoenix House. I want to have a place where Jewish kids can go and get turned on in a healthy way through Jewish living. I am going to have more to say about that in a few moments.

I believe we have to assess the resources in the communities even if we start small and we will have to start small. Let me assure you that confidence will prevail when something useful is accomplished and until now we haven't accomplished a thing. I think that the United Synagogue could be most effective in the area of prevention, dealing not so much with the hard-core addict as with pre-addicts and with the many young people who have not taken drugs yet, the thousands and thousands of kids in our religious schools and our congregations and our U.S.Y. programs. (Not enough kids are involved in them.) We can no longer have these one-shot lectures and think we are fulfilling our responsibilities in resolving this problem. We have to avoid sensationalism and punitive statements in an effort to frighten people about drugs since wrong facts and attitudes may discredit other recommendations. Stereotypes must be avoided here in the United Synagogue. We must focus on why people do take drugs, rather than on why they should not take drugs. It is more important for

80 us here in the United Synagogue to develop programs which would provide our young people with a sense of identity and purposefulness, to give further support to programs of Ramah, United Synagogue Youth and Atid. We must help our young people to develop self-reliance and a resilience to distresses of peer group pressure in the modern world. And we have to have trained personnel and a systematic approach with carefully ordered presentations of films, audio-visual aids and all presentations geared to the particular needs of a particular community under the auspices of the United Synagogue.

We in the United Synagogue must focus on ways of coping with the problems of youth and not just focus simply on the drugs. The deterrents of drug use are in fact not related to drugs but to alternative issues that concern youth. In our congregational schools we ought to have para-professional training programs in the area of drugs for our religious school teachers and U.S.Y. leaders.

I have recommendations I would like to make to United Synagogue regarding treatment programs. I suggest that United Synagogue, through its representatives, contact the Cornell program in social psychiatry under the auspices of Cornell University Medical College, speak with Dr. Ari Kiev and people like Dean Slavin, and see what we at the United Synagogue can do in terms of drug abuse plans for our voluntary organizations. I feel that each region of United Synagogue should establish a drug counseling center that can work in conjunction with the agencies and institutions of a particular geographical area and bring these programs into our congregations to our young people and to our parents.

I believe we should also establish the use of peer counselors—and I think that may well be the best thing we can do—peer counselors to get our kids active in this problem as an adjunct to the professional staff, because the peer group and drug culture are more accessible to a member than to any outsider. My own work in the field indicates that such programs of peer counselors may be of much greater value in reaching teenagers in synagogues than any of the educational programs currently in operation. That should be one of the focus points of LTF. Peer counseling can serve the following three purposes: It can identify individuals in need of counseling and help to utilize the services offered at the drug centers and within the temple structure. It can promote a positive image of that center within the temple, and it can participate in a therapeutic process under the auspices of our temples, rather than under the rabbi because rabbis, as a rule, don't know a thing about this question. We have to get in experts, and encourage congregations to join together to engage a professional social worker as part of this kind of outreach activity.

Once the participation of one of our young people is assured through self and staff screening procedures, others will then go through a series of group training sessions in which they will explore their own feelings as they relate to different problem areas which they will encounter, and they will learn techniques for carrying out their tasks. I suggest that upon completion of the

81 training sessions peer counselors begin their work in their respective synagogue communities, and that the final phase in promoting the training and identification of the counselors be a workshop to be held in a particular location about six months after the start of the program. The workshop will bring together all of the peer counselors to participate in intensive group experiences in which they can share the difficulties and the successes they had experienced as peer counselors within the structure of our temple communities. And I might say that Rabbi Shudrick in a Brookhaven Narcotics Center has been doing just this very successfully with peer counselors and a social worker by the name of Victor Goldman, and the whole idea as it applies to United Synagogue jelled in my mind as a result of watching the success of that particular program. And lastly I believe that United Synagogue in various geographical locations should create half-way houses. That's so very important; its crucial. That's our business—our kids are our business, our concern, our only guarantee to a future modeled after Odyssey House and Samaritan House—of course, the thrust being the Jewish point of view which will cope immediately with the serious problems of drug addiction that are facing our communities in various parts of the United States. Members of congregations involved in our congregational schools, members involved in our United Synagogue Youth programs, together with our principals and our rabbis, must turn to professional help to organize half-way houses, peer group centers under Jewish auspices. We must do everything we can to create peer groups and we must face this entire problem head on . . . today. I hope that somehow with you here, maybe at this convention, we can motivate great interest and move towards resolving our problem.

82 THE JEWISH POOR

ANN G. WOLFE Program Consultant, American Jewish Committee

It is 1971, and for some 25 years we have been comforted by the thought that we never had it so good. World War II ended, business boomed, our children in record numbers were in college, and the quiet fifties lulled most of us into a state of acceptance. Our eyes and hearts turned to Israel during those early years of great need, and our purses were opened, each year wider than the last. Suddenly, in 1971, we know that something happened to us here in Amer- ica, and we need to take a better look. Indeed, most of us never had it so good. For most of us and our children, education was the open door to the better life. We earned more money, we built institutions, we put up beautiful buildings to house our institutions and we continued to give, so that just this past week it could be reported at the General Assembly of the Council of Jewish Federa- tions and Welfare Funds that this year the record sum of $370 million had been raised by the Jewish community, exceeding the $318 million raised in 1967 when the Six-Day War created an emergency. During the past six months another item is being placed on the Jewish agenda—the issue of poverty in the Jewish community. The difficulty of addressing oneself to the subject has to do with its inevitable nature, on the one hand, and our belief, on the other, that Jews are in pretty good shape. Some seven years ago, America was startled to learn that there were among us, 30 million poor people living below a standard which the federal government considered the very minimum below which people could not maintain health and decency. It took a man of insight and vision, Michael Harrington, in his book, The Other America, to alert us to the fact that we were a country in which poverty, in its extreme, existed side by side with affluence. The Jewish community did not recognize the relevance of this phenomenon to its own people. We knew that there was a small number of Jews who wejre not rich, but these were isolated groups, and except for an occasional heart- rending story, did not arouse either passion or anxiety. And even now, after every Anglo-Jewish paper has had something to say on the subject, after speeches, radio and TV shows, and an increasing awareness of the problem, the fact of Jewish poverty is still greeted with disbelief—both within the Jewish community and in the wider general community.

What makes this situation even more perplexing is the fact that enough studies and surveys done during the 1960's gave us these facts. Studies done by local Jewish communities, national surveys done by sociologists under aca- demie auspices document poverty in the Jewish community to a greater degree than we have ever admitted to. It raises the old question about what we do

83 with information gained through a study, and whether we then need more studies to determine what to do with the facts we know. What did these studies show? Who are the Jewish poor? Who are those in the Jewish community who have not made it, who are not making it, and who live their lives in quiet desperation, out of the mainstream of the Jewish community? We have blind spots in our vision of ourselves and it is time to look at the facts. An interesting example of a blind spot relates to wealthy Miami B&ach. In a study done in 1968 in that community called South Beach, it was learned that 40,000 people were clustered in an area of some 30 square blocks. Of these, 80% are over 65, and 85% are Jews. The average annual income is $2,460; thousands are living on less than $28.00 a week for rent and food. A walk through South Beach in Miami which I took this past July made these statistics a living reality. A first look at South Beach on a clear, sunny day is deceptive. The small buildings, some small hotels, rooming houses, private homes glisten stark white. The shrubbery is lush and fresh, and here and there bright red hibicus make the landscape seem gay. One must stretch one's neck to look down the alleys between the houses to see the cluttered backyards, with old mattresses and chairs, lumber and trash piled high. It was not the tourist season—vacancy signs all over, and the permanent population were indoors because of the hot sun. Those who venture out are old—some very old, with canes and walkers. They are on their way to shop, or to the cafeteria. Lummis Park is quiet, with small groups of people clustered around the shady spots. What pierces one's consciousness is the pervasive quiet. Little noise, low talking on the streets. And as one looks at the old, with shoulders hunched, many dressed in all too-bright colors which do not fit their age but seem a call for attention and life, one senses the despair, desperation, loneliness, and searching, as if looking for an old friend who will miraculously turn up at the corner. We walk into the Thrifty Supermarket—a huge barn of a place, selling kosher and non-kosher food, prices less expensive than New York, with crowds at every counter. Every shopping wagon pushed by an aged woman or man (there are no young, and on this occasion even no middle-aged) has one or two large boxes of powdered milk which is on sale today. Milk of magnesia seems to be very popular. The shopping style is different. Each article is picked up, looked at intently, studied, and carefully considered before being put in the shopping cart.

Back on the street we look at restaurant signs. A whole meal—soup, boiled beef, vegetables and farfel—$1.95. We enter the cafeteria, filled with the old— many alone at a table, eating bread and butter, and coffee, or a piece of cake. And again, the overwhelming feeling of loneliness, of alienation, and quiet, quiet. Some of the old, sitting at the tables, seem to be lost in their own thoughts.

84 A few couples sit and eat, without talking to each other. They look at us, the middle-aged, with quiet curiosity.

We walked into a retirement hotel run by a union. The price here is about $300 a month. From what was once a lush hotel, it has become a slightly run- down but still handsome refuge for those with no other place to go. The lobbies are filled with old men and women. These are economically better fixed than the old on South Beach; their own resources or their children's funds make it possible for them to live in some better conditions. But, here too, they sit with idle hands and empty eyes. Some say they have companionship in these places. Perhaps.

At the registration desk, photos of men, important to the union, are on the walls. Dubinsky, Joe Curran, and other union people. And a large portrait of FDR, a smaller one of John Kennedy. But Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson and Nixon never got a break here. No pictures.

A low-cost housing project for which money is available is being protested in the courts by real estate interests who want this last piece of development- able land. Condominiums are already going up—even in South Beach they sell for $25,000 and up, way up. And the protestors are often the pillars of the community.

(P.S. Since delivering this paper, it has been reported that the housing project has been approved by the courts and construction is going forward. )

Where shall the old people go? What is it that the indigent old need? They ask for simple things: some said the best thing would be to get a hot lunch in a congenial setting where they could meet others and spend a few pleasant hours. Some of these people who were interviewed said they had inadequate cooking facilities. Others asked for drop-in centers where they could sit and talk to others, or where they might have some group activities that were not, as one man put it "children's games for old people." One man who was interviewed said rather matter-of-factly that he had come to Miami Beach for a "warm death bed" and now found himself on a picket line protesting the increasing rents in the area. Late in 1969, the Los Angeles Chapter of the American Jewish Committee expressed an interest in sponsoring an apartment project for indigent Jewish aged in Los Angeles county. A study was conducted to determine the possible demand for such housing and the number of locations needed for those who might want such housing.

The study used material from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services files of persons receiving old age assistance. It identified Jewish individuals and families throughout the Los Angeles region. The report surprised many people, because we learned that there were more elderly Jews who are poor than anybody had ever believed. There are about 8,000 elderly Jews receiving public assistance from the Los Angeles County Department of

85 Public Services. The study also found that a large number of elderly Jews who would be eligible for old age assistance didn't apply for it for a variety of reasons: pride, lack of knowledge of what is available, physical inability to get to the welfare office. These make up a figure of 18,306 indigent elderly living in households on incomes below $4,000 a year. If one were to reflect on the long lives of these old people—on the content of their active' days, their childhoods, youth, emigration from the old home, their work, their families, their associations—one cannot help but be stirred by the meaning of the past 80 years to the American Jewish community and the debt we owe these people. Where would we have been, without their courage and high hopes? Who kept alive the love of the language, the humor and the sense of destiny? And who fought the good fights through the unions so many of them helped build? And if we are proud of our present level of education, culture and affluence—did we not come by this through the work of their hands? We owe them more—much more than we are now giving. Their present plight rebukes us. Information on income is difficult to gather. Not until 1940 did the federal census include such a question. In earlier Jewish community surveys, the income material is so broad as to make it unclear. More recent surveys do include such figures. National surveys—notably those done by the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan and the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago—confirm what is generally associated with the economic level of Jews; namely, that it is above that of the general population. The median income for heads of Jewish households was $1,600 higher than for the general population. However, the use of median figures obscures some other facts, less pretty. It is from these studies—the Jewish community and the national surveys— that we can put together a more realistic picture. The National Opinion Re- search Center Survey on income related to religion reported in 1962 that a sizeable number of American households had incomes of $3,000 or less, and that this broke down by religious groups as follows. Jews - 15.3% Catholics 15.6% Protestants 22.7% A 1963-64 study by the Columbia University School of Public Health and Administrative Medicine showed that 10% of the Jewish population in New York City sustained itself on less than $3,000 a year. For foreign born Jews in New York City this figure rises to 15.7%, close to figures for the Puerto Rican community in New York City where 16.3% had income of less than $3,000 a year. To be sure, these figures are 7 to 10 years old, from the early 1960's, when America had 39 million people designated as poor. Since then the figure has

86 fluctuated, and today the government estimates that there are close to 26 million poor. Undoubtedly with the general improvement, there is reflected some improvement in the Jewish community, but I would venture that it is less dramatic than in the general community for two reasons: the anti-poverty programs of the federal government were targeted toward the black and Puerto Rican communities as areas of greatest need; and second, because the larger proportion of Jewish poor are old, and less likely to have significant changes of income. The aged make up about two-thirds of our poor. They are perhaps easier to see, and evoke sentiments that our younger poor—the other one-third—do not arouse. These are made up of single, unrelated people—or families, many with young children, some headed by a single parent. There are Jewish families receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children—another fact greeted with disbelief. They are the undereducated, those with employment problems, health and emotional problems—in other words, they reflect the problems common to most poor people. However, there are special Jewish problems: problems in inter-group relations, problems related to a Jewish identity which exist in a society whose image of the Jew is not altogether accurate, an image which the Jewish community persists in perpetuating. The problems include poor housing, inadequate medical care, neighborhoods that are undesirable in terms of emotional and physical security and outside the Jewish cultural mainstream.

There are special needs in the Orthodox community to which we must pay attention. There are demands which Jewish ritual makes—the need to buy kosher food, for example. The Chassidic community has a built-in resistance to secular education, particularly at the high school and college levels. Few Chassidim have a college degree—an impediment to benefiting from the economic advantages which higher education normally brings. Jewish education for this group drains the resources of the Chassidic family. On religious grounds, the Orthodox and Chassidic communities are opposed to birth control and tend to have large families. In Williamsburg, in New York City, the median family size is 6.3 children, as opposed to the average Jewish family size of 2 children. Within the past six months we have seen an encouraging sign of self- analysis in Jewish communities across the land: Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, New York, Hartford, Los Angeles, St. Louis, Dallas. And if there is any question of some of the current needs, let me quote from a letter dated November 2, 1971 from the chairman of a Jewish community organization to his membership: "Dear Member: "I am writing to you in an urgent appeal regarding the problems of hunger faced by an increasing number of Jewish families and individuals in (our) area. As you may know, the Jewish Family and Child Service has been providing food to many of these people, some of whom are aged, and all of whom are in need. "The Jewish Family and Child Service has exhausted its food supply and is appealing for assistance in replenishing its stocks. You can help by

87 donating food. Contributions should be brought directly to the Jewish Family and Child Service (address given) or to your Temple or Synagogue. "Food donated should be high protein and non-perishable." What is to be done, and who is to do it? The Jewish community has an organizational structure that is a model the world over. We must insure its flexibility to respond quickly and as adequately as possible. A community which has set itself a goal of raising $550 million in 1972 has the energy and resources to deal more adequately with this major problem. We need to re-evaluate our own priorities, and be prepared to place greater emphasis on other areas, where this is necessary. As we begin to think about where we are going, a word of caution is in order. For some of these thoughts I am grateful to Dr. Frank Riessman, writing in the September-October 1971 issue of Social Policy. Under the title: "When it Comes to the Poor—Suddenly Doctors Aren't the Answer," he writes: "In essence we are being told that cultural, psychological, environmental, and sociological factors are really the decisive ones in the improvement of the health of the people. Of course, all this is true; but, oddly enough, it is "discovered" only when masses of people demand health and medical services. (On the other hand, the danger of drug addiction was not really recognized when it was largely a problem of the poor and the Blacks: it became a real danger only when it obviously affected the middle class.) "It should be observed that the poor are an extremely good barometer of the weaknesses of professional practice: they call attention to the deficiencies of the agencies and the system, and they question traditional shibboleths. What the poor highlight most, however, are the distortions and rationalizations that screen them out directly as well as prevent the improvement of services. "Blaming the environment and society successfully avoids the problem by expanding it. It's a magnificent displacement. If it is a question of all of the environment, if all of society needs to be changed, then the problem becomes so big that it is impossible to deal with it in the specific arena in which the adequacy and quality of services are in question. "Interestingly enough, we in the middle class who have all of the services —medical care, higher education, psychotherapy—are not giving them up too rapidly." Dr. Riessman suggests some guidelines that I believe are useful to us as we think of the services needed by Jews living in poverty: ,"If a service is not being discarded by the middle class be careful about discarding it for the poor. "When a service is offered, it should be offered in the style of the poor and be easily accessible to them. "If a service, when offered, is not used by the poor, find out why it isn't used and consider modifying it, offering it differently and making access easier. "If a service like medical care needs to be combined with preventive approaches and other social, environmental changes, combine it; but don't substitute the larger approach for the smaller one. "Don't try to reorganize a service without expanding it quantitatively, that is, with more resources. Administrative reorganization in lieu of money won't work. "Keep in mind the health needs unique to the poor, those relating to housing conditions, such as lead poisoning, or to poverty in general, such as lack of heat, malnutrition, and so on. But remember that more typically middle-class health problems strike the poor too. Consequently, the poor need more help. "Above all, avoid inaction and know-nothingism. There is a prevailing view, reflected by Moynihan and others, that we don't know much about most social problems and services and that we should therefore gather considerable data before acting. This sounds good, but is based on faulty premises. We do know some things, and we can act on them in an action- research fashion and thus learn more that will enable us to improve the action." In talking to some of the poor in the Jewish community, and in discussion with workers who are close to the scene, one feeling that stands out above all others is the sense the poor have that nobody cares. The alienation from the mainstream of organized Jewish life finds expression in many ways. The old seem defeated—whatever successes they may have experienced in their younger years as breadwinners, workers, or parents, members of the community no longer sustain them. Their poverty is a demonstration of their failure, as viewed by an affluent Jewish society. Among the young, the sense that nobody cares is often expressed in anger, some of it thoughtful but much of it self-defeating. The so-called Jewish Establishment becomes the target for all the lacks in society. The young who are poor do not even have some past successes to give them strength. What would seem to be so necessary is a Jewish presence—a demonstration that the leadership in the Jewish community does care, wants to help, and will stay in the community, will find ways of reaching those who have not been reached. Some are saying as we become conscious of the fact of Jewish poverty that the problem can only be solved by the government. Essentially, of course, the economics of America are indivisible, and Jews, no more or less than others are affected by government programs and policies. Of course. But I would remind us all that by saying that all this must be a government responsibility, are we not guilty of the "magnificent displacement" Frank Riessman talks about? One might even ask how energetic, forceful, active we in the organized Jewish community have been on issues of welfare reform, health insurance, poverty programs and other social concerns? Not terribly, I'm afraid the answer would be. In conclusion, let me hope that we are at the beginning of a renewal of the spirit which motivated the formation of Jewish services during the early years— and the underlying belief that we must care for each other, and that the suffering and pain of any group in the community affects us all.

89 Conference on Summer Activities

ONE ATTEMPT TO ACTIVATE THE SLUGGISH SUMMER ACTIVITIES: THE SYNAGOGUE MOVES TO THE HOME

JOELT. KLEIN Rabbi, Temple Israel, Manchester, N. H.

It has become a commonplace event that our generation witnesses time honored axioms crumble; it is a cliché that age-old principles, held basic for centuries, do not stand up in the light of new evidences. With an increasing frequency, we realize that procedures and processes are not necessarily good because they were done and followed for a hundred years or so. Yet, I have a firm conviction that certain things are not necessarily bad just because they were done a thousand years ago. One of my life principles happens to coincide with the theme of our convention that we are quasi-duty-bound to renew the old, and to sanctify the new. I teach and encourage, believe and urge-—if I can—all who touch the sphere of my influence to be brave and courageous, to become an initiator. We, as well as generations before, have the right and the duty, the ability and the possibility to create tradition. The core of my ministry is to spread the understanding that while we are descendants, at the same time, we must look upon ourselves also as predecessors, knowing that there will be also a long line of successors to follow us. We should not be awed by the recognition that we make the first step in the direction which may evolve into something that once will be called a tradition. It was within this consideration that, in our congregation, we started something we felt new circumstances and present day realities called for. Throughout the previous sessions of this "convention within the convention," we dealt with programs that could be and have been provided for groups which left their home, their city or their community to have a Jewish experience. We talked about those who participated in the various camp programs, enrolled in tours, attended retreats etc. I would like to present here an experiment which was done for and with individuals and families who did not go away, who stayed at home, literally remained in their home.

Up to this point, we centered our attention around those opportunities which were created by people who took summer vacations, who sought a different surrounding and environment during the summer months. In our state, one does not have to leave to escape the harsh realities of summer. Our state is one which proudly invites the escapees to enjoy the cool- ness of our climate, the beauty of our scenery during the summer months. The

90 past few years created a new trend. Our people prefer to seek summer during the biting cold months of the winter. Our people enjoy the summer within our borders, while a growing number signs up for the winter cruises, takes sun vacations in Puerto Rico and visits relatives in California between December and February. Watching the slowing down of all activities during the summer, the closing down of regular programs for the two or three months, I asked myself the question, "why should we pretend that God is on vacation also in New Hampshire just because it is so at other places or just because it was the custom for the past one hundred years?" I was confronted also by another question, "Why should it not be possible to be Jewish without crying?" If it never seemed to be difficult to bring the congregation to the individual members' home during the week of mourning, if there was always a ready response to the call to hold shivah minyans in private homes, why could we not celebrate also life in the same homes, why should we not gather on happy occasions, too, not only at times when death takes its toll? The requests to hold services in the homes of mourners always elicit a ready response; there is no difficulty to assure a much larger attendance than the bare minyan, although very frequently, we satisfy ourselves having only the minimal quorum required, present. Such occasions often provide special opportunities for the individuals in attendance to involve themselves in the conduct of the service. The personal relation and sympathy, the involvement in the affairs of the fellow-member or friend serve as a magnet to draw. The expression of sorrow creates the willingness to be more than a spectator in the procedures. This is an almost fool-proof evidence to the thesis that congregants stop coming to religious services when their deeply felt needs are neither fulfilled, nor satisfied; when they remain untouched by the goings-on; when they feel that they spent their time on something which does not touch upon the life-line of their involvement. The summer traditionally offers evident opportunities to involve the life- line of the congregants. If June is the traditional and proverbial month to marry, this is the month to celebrate wedding anniversaries. June is the month which gives the first chance of the year's graduate to return home and harvest the glory, deserved by the achievement; June and July are the months, along with August, when after the day's work, there are still many hours of daylight which the family can enjoy relaxing together in the home, in the backyard, at the pooliside, in the garden, or in the shade of the trees. This recreational relaxation invigorates the body and refreshes the mind; the tiredness which sets in during the depress- ing dark evening hours during the winter is not present to be used as a legitimate reason for staying away from synagogue services on Friday night that commences after the long week's strength-decreasing business activities. In one of the presentations here, we heard of the already traditional Amer- ican "Shul with the Pool." We in Manchester introduced the "Shul at the Pool."

91 The surroundings of our summer services were unique and varied from week to week. We went where the families were. We prayed in a living room, on the lawn, in the rock garden, or in a pool-side setting. In our tradition, we lovingly call and describe our homes as mikdash meat, a miniature sanctuary. If we take this phrase seriously, really there is no place out of the sphere of holiness. If we designate our home to be kadosh, set aside at that particular time for prayer, worship, and service, there would be no reason why a group could not gather there to form a congregation. There is no place which is closer to the primeval Creator than nature. The shady tree, the flower-filled garden, the blue sky, the golden sunset are most conducive to prayer. The natural setting—in our experience—removed the more staid sanctuary atmosphere. The summer services in the home setting offered us an opportunity to unite into a community those who belong to different synagogues and those even unaffiliated. These people usually feel uncomfortable in other synagogues. The out- doors and the atmosphere of the private home dissolve this effect. The in- formality and the hospitality of the host family offer a warmth which seem just the opposite to the freezing setting of the synagogue that by its nature requires a kind of formality.

This convention voiced already on several occasions and in different con- texts the realized need of our time. Even here, we joined the chorus of Boris Smolar, Dr. Leonard Fine and Rabbi Robert Gordis—just a few, just the best, and the most renown of the many voices—who expressed in spoken words and written articles the growing desire of our generation for unity. There is an apparent need for moving closer to each other in this urban world of imper- sonal anonymity. Our summer services appeared to become a vehicle toward the fulfillment of this need. They enacted my long cherished belief that there should not be here with us any longer the officially, institutionally maintained religious segregation among Jews in a community where they mingle freely on the social level and where the form of worship in non-Orthodox synagogues differs very little, and where the existing worship differences mean very little to the few who do attend services. In our community, at these summer services, we met people who had never been among the regular worshippers. Our summer "congregations" reflected the contemporary reality, which cuts across the Reform- Conservative lines of congregational affiliation. They came to the family, not to the synagogue. They were among friends, not with dues-paying affiliates. We saw them all very comfortable, praying and meditating together. Now that I attempted to give my reasoning, answering the "why" of summer services, describing their whereabouts, let me say a few words about the "how" of it. We maintain the vital statistics of our members in our congregational files. It does not even take too much effort to compile a list of the most memorable anniversaries, the names of the year's graduates, to keep an eye on those Yahrzeits which are still observed with attached emotions and religious and filial involvement. We have a mental picture of the homes and their capacity

92 to accommodate a certain number of people. Putting all this together, it is a pleasant task to approach the people appearing in the different listings and enjoy their kind offers to host a congregation one Friday night during the summer. The pleasure we derived from the freedom in the format of the service was just doubled by the reassurance that we returned prayer to homes from which it was absent for a shorter or a longer period of time. The kiddusb was chanted there again by the host or one of his sons at the head of the family table where it originated and where it rightfully belongs. The congregation stood around the table which served as the stand for the Sabbath candles, and we all chanted the brabah along with the mother or wife amid the surroundings where it always should have been. A real Oneg Shabbat was present when we all broke bread together at the time the man of the house or a relative recited the motzi over the hallab. Sabbath songs were sung together, either as part of the service or separately as the worshippers chose. Freedom of worship was enjoyed along with the freedom in worship. Our planning for each service took into consideration the attitudes of the host family. With the more conservatively oriented hosts, the regular order of the Friday night service was followed with some modifications. If the host family was more innovatively inclined, an intuitive free format was followed. The rabbinic interference was very limited, in line with my thinking that these were the people's services, not the rabbi's. On occasion, the service was—as probably always should be— conducted "by impulse" under the influence of the moment. Once, as the atmosphere suggested, the service centered around the most beautiful sunset, once around a tragic car accident, or the prevailing observance of the member's life event.

We are very encouraged by the response we enjoyed. We not only plan to continue our experimental services every summer, but also expect to gather in private homes a few times in the course of the entire year, too. We have plans to introduce this kind of "informal" home service on the three pilgrim festivals, Hanukkah and probably Purim. We have plans to continue our consistent effort to utilize such occasions of family togetherness as birthdays, wedding anniversaries, Yahrzeits and even the observance of the Bar Mitzvah, for such services. We need no stronger backing and reasoning to believe that our ideas are right than the morning session of this conference. One of our young panelists— without being aware of our ideas, experiments, and plans—described one of her experiences. As you may recall, she referred to a Bar Mitzvah held in Camp Ramah. What impressed her most was the warmth of those present, that the celebration was not the fancy party that she was accustomed to at home. The impressive thing there was that everyone felt himself part of the celebration. It was not for invited guests only, and although the boy's birthday was during the summer, the Bar Mitzvah was not postponed to the fall when the congregational activities return to normalcy and into full swing.

She was not aware of my dream that, one day, I shall be able to return the Bar Mitzvah to the home where it belongs. The idea is that the Bar Mitzvah is an occasion for the immediate family to initiate the boy—and now also the girl—into the first station of growing up, puberty. This event was carried into a synagogue because a close-knit community celebrated it like one family along with the real family. It was everybody's simhah. This kind of community dis- appeared in our highly industrialized society and with the completely altered life-style of the Jew in our "Western democracy. Taking into account the prevailing conditions, I propose a three-fold change in the manner a Bar- or Bat-Mitzvah is observed. I offer the new alternative to remove the "celebration" from the synagogue to the home where it has meaning, where the family fully appreciates the mile- stone in the life of the adolescent. The prayer service can be held in the home, too. It is an inbred Jewish tradition. The question was already raised: "Why should family and close friends gather for prayer in Jewish homes, only on occasions of sorrow and death; why shouldn't life also be celebrated there in joy and happiness?" If the celebration takes place in the home it can be observed at its due time, not depending upon the Bar-Mitzvah waiting list of the temple and/or of the caterer, or on whether it comes during the congregational season or in the summer months when God and congregation are on vacation. Furthermore, if the celebration takes place in the home, only those would gather there who are intimately involved in the family's affairs. Those who have no interest: business associates, non-Jewish spectators, abandoned old neighbors, those whom we feel we have to repay for one kind or another favoir really couldn't care less for our family affairs, anyway. The meal which now is being turned into a real gastronomical orgy and the truest desecration of the place, presently the synagogue, can be reduced in size; and the enormous waste of food and money will not cause suffering in the soul of those who care. The occasion will be only a natural event that marks a year, a birthday in the life of the youngster. It shall not be dependent on any given years of compulsory religious schooling. It will come under any and all circumstances, no strings attached. The child will not be forced to study for a fixed number of years and will not look forward to the hour when this unwillingly undertaken torture will have come to a close. Judaism, religion, and the Jewish way of life will not be studied for the bribery of a grand party. It can regain its value again, and there may be hope that its beauty and worth will be seen when the miracle may take place that Judaism will be studied for its own sake before and even after the thirteenth birthday. Furthermore, Judaism will be lived as a natural course of life in the natural setting, within the confines of the home. At that time, the phrase will not be an empty slogan, it will be a reality rather than a pious wish, "Judaism is not a religion, it is a way of life."

This has been a small beginning in a small town, somewhere in the woods of New Hampshire. But the logic of this one step, once probably will have the force to make summer's sunshine brighten the wintry, cloudy days of our contemporary Jewish existence. The Current Scene in Education: Opportunity and Challenge — Public Education — Elementary and Secondary

THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMUNITY, THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND CULTURAL PLURALISM: THE REALITY AND THE MYTH

SEYMOUR P. LACHMAN Vice-President, New York City Board of Education

For the last 100 years the American nation has had an absolute faith in the power of public education to correct all major problems of the day. Andrew Carnegie expressed this thought when he wrote at the end of the 19th century, "Just see wherever we peer into the first tiny springs of the national life how this true panacea for all the ills of the body politic bubbles forth—education, education, education." It is the hypothesis of this paper that absolute faith in the beneficence of public education was as ill-placed 100 years ago as it is today. Yet few Americans question this faith. Instead, they busily complain about the inadequacy of the results and the delivery systems of mass public education. A lack of questioning is true especially in the American Jewish community, many of whose members believe that their prosperity has resulted from the system of public education. But have we as an ethnic group whose continued vitality is essential to its future existence, been so well served by the public educational system? Perhaps, the problem is even more basic than is generally realized. Let us briefly examine the history and growth of this problem by studying the development of education in America.

The colonists brought to the New World the educational traditions that they had experienced and accepted in the Old World. Initially, the school was the handmaiden of the church and it was accepted that education at all levels should serve the ends of institutionalized religion. The Puritans in particular believed that the young should learn how to read in order to better understand the Bible and achieve salvation. Yet, the Puritans as every other Christian group from New England to Georgia, responded to class attitudes and economic près- sures and offered a two track system of education. Boys of the lower classes and all girls received no more than rudimentary schooling in reading and religion. Sons of middle class families aspiring to upper class status went through the upper track of Latin grammar school and college. A small leadership cadre or elite was thus prepared for service in the church or for those activities befitting a gentleman.

95 Appearing first in the 1680's, the New England Primer came into common use throughout the colonies and continued in use into the early 19th century. An alphabet rhyming to religious teachings was its hallmark. The first rhyme was always the same regardless of edition or locale: "In Adams Fall We sinned all."

The rhyme with "T" reflected infant mortality and the fear of early death:

"Time cuts down all, Both great and small."

The Puritans' need to be saved was expressed as follows:

"Oh! that by early grace I mights For Death prepared be."

Then slowly, but surely, things began to change and soon the world of nature and stories about animals replaced the eschatological stories based upon the Bible. In 1830 no state could yet boast a general system of free public education in the modern sense—with full tax support, compulsory attendance and enforced maintenance of schools. New York City's "public" schools were Prot- estant sectarian schools maintained by private association. Teaching techniques often did not serve the non-Protestant American, especially the recently arrived Irish-Catholic immigrant. Yet, within a generation, many of these schools became converted to public schools as tax supported secular education became accepted throughout the United States.

Ambitious and hyperbolic language, with almost religious zeal, was used to describe the mission of the public schools by a generation of educational re- formers. Yet, their dream has never become reality although many Americans have misconstrued reality by citing the dream and incorporating it into the mythos of their historic being and the civic religion of their nation. The greatest of these educational leaders was Horace Mann, appointed in 1837 as the first secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education. In his 12th Annual Report he wrote that education, "beyond all other devices of human origin is the great equalizer of the conditions of men, the balance wheel of the social machinery." A new vision was thus born—a vision of a public school that would, unlike the 19th century Prussian Volkschule, be common to all people receiving children of all creeds, social classes and ethnic backgrounds—a public school that would serve as a means of upward mobility for the lower socio-economic classes. It was a noble dream that was worthy of the spiritual descendants of Thomas Jefferson. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a pipe dream. Yet, the new domi- nance of the common school forced many private and sectarian schools to lan- guish. Among those private schools were the first Jewish day schools that were organized in the 1840's and 1850's. These early Jewish day schools had been started after newly arrived Jewish immigrants, as well as some of the native

96 American Jews, had refused to send their children to the so-called "public" schools which were permeated by Protestant teachings and influence, as well as unsatisfactory "monitorial" system of pedagogy. Dr. Hyman Grinstein, the American Jewish historian, has estimated that the peak enrollment in the Jewish day school movement in the mid-nineteenth century was in 1855 when "the total number of students in both the congregational and Jewish private schools s׳reached over 1,000—with 800 in the congregation schools." During the 1850 and 1860's similar Jewish day schools accommodated hundreds of students in Chicago, Philadelphia and Baltimore. By the 1870's these schools had ceased to exist, as the new concept of the public school began to take hold of the people's imagination. By the time newly arrived East European Jewish immigrants opened their first yeshiva ketanah in 1886 in New York City (Etz Chaim) the previous generation's attempt in this area was hardly remembered, if known at all.

A great number of laymen soon began to believe, at the urging of leading educators—Mann, Barnard, Pierce and Lewis—that the schools and only the schools—could solve the huge and complex problems relating to emancipation, industrialization, nationalization and urbanization.

It was Mann's dream which fired the imagination of many of America's immigrants of the late 19th and early 20th centuries including numerous social idealists within the Jewish community. It was Mann's dream which today fires the imagination of many black, Puerto Rican, and Chicano leaders. But it has never been more than a frustrating and non-deliverable dream for many Ameri- cans—a fact which leading liberal humanitarians and especially liberal Jews have refused to recognize. Let us again look at the record of the recent past and present.

A study commissioned by New York's Board of Estimate in 1911 and undertaken by Prof. Paul Hanus of Harvard University revealed that while some New York City schools were doing very well scholastically, other schools containing the largest number of immigrants, were not dealing adequately with the rapidly multiplying needs that confronted them. This was confirmed by numerous public and private records that revealed unemployed immigrant families caught in the almost impossible bind of poverty amidst the erratic and destructive behavior of an unregulated business cycle. New York's Superintend- ent of Schools, William Maxwell, called out for public concern and aid to resolve the unique and exceptional educational problems of immigrant children. Society, in general, did not listen and did not respond. According to the Hanus survey and reports of school superintendents for 1904 to 1922, between 32% and 36% of public school pupils were "over-age" and making "slow progress" in any given year. Excessive retardation was claimed to be correlated to lower socio-economic life patterns. In his 1922 Annual Report, New York City School Superintendent William Ettinger cited progressive failure by students in high school grades and a great deal of truancy. Indeed, fewer than 10% of the school population graduated from high school in 1915. 97 But here we find one of the important major differences between "then" and "now." Many of these "drop-outs" of pre-Great Depression days, as well as long term truants, were frequently encouraged to leave school by the available employment to be found in manufacturing and industry. Indeed, some historians are of the opinion that this was just what the industrial order required. Jobs not only could be found, (with, of course, different standards than that of today) but they were readily available and frequently served as an inducement and reason for permanent truancy. For those remaining lower socio- economic immigrant children in school, scholastic success would oftentimes come only after the establishment of ethnic stability—built around perhaps ethnic businesses, commercial or labor organizations and the creation of an ethnic middle class. Ethnic cohesiveness and solidarity stimulated internal self- help organizations that in turn served some as catalytic agents necessary for their scaling the walls to the middle class of the outside general society.

Before the Great Depression manpower was the crucial factor and the factory and the union were frequently more powerful assimilating agents and change factors than was public education. The ethnic immigrants did advance in every way—through business and commerce, labor and trade unions, politics and government but not usually through the mobility that was supposed to be provided by the public schools. Thirty years ago Marie Syrkin wrote in Your School, Your Children that the high schools of the cities were unable to educate properly masses of Ameri- cans; that the methods and the system used then (and still extensively used today) was a debasement rather than a fulfillment of democracy and sprang from "a distrust rather than a faith in the common man." Yet, in 1941 over 38% of our nation's population had a high school experience as against 75% today. We had difficulty in educating one-third of the masses then and we are having greater difficulty in educating three-fourths of the masses today.

Perhaps it is too much to ask that an educational system serve as a socio- economic means of upward mobility for all of its constituents or as a laboratory for democracy without concomitant changes in employment, housing, health, family relationships and in social class values. Yet, this is precisely what educators claimed they could do and this is what the nation expected them to do and this is what they have not done. Education has just not been able to accomplish what John Dewey called modifying "the social order." Instead, education has by and large and with few notable exceptions, reflected the social order and has not brought about any significant or major changes. In this regard, public education, these last 100 years, has been more reflective of the philosophy of William Torey Harris, United States Commissioner of Education, during the latter part of the 19th century, than of its commitment to Mann, Barnard, Dewey, et al. Whereas Mann believed that the common school was to make a substantial contribution to the development of a new social order, a new society and a new public philosophy, Harris believed that public education's role was merely to play a part in confirming a new order that had already come into existence.

98 Public education became then the "rubber stamp" of economic improvement rather than the "operation boot strap" necessary for advancement. It was used by the children of those who made it without diplomas and degrees as a means of maintaining their own and their families' middle class status. Yet, once having arrived into a kind of sub-affluent class, they immediately developed into diligent guardians and upholders of the middle class values they had now inherited. Once having "made it" they deduced that all anyone else would have to do to make it was to practice and do things the way they told themselves, they and their parents had done. The White Anglo-Saxon Protestant ethos had brought about a self-fulfilling prophecy for those who should have known better. They came to accept the myths of their past as provided by others, rather than the reality of their past as experienced by themselves and their forbearers.

But urban public education never really provided the much heralded and believed in upward mobility for the majority of poor white ethnic immigrants and sons of immigrants—the Irish, Italians, Hungarians, Polish and other Slavic groups. Smaller, yet more cohesive and stronger ethnic groups, such as the Chinese, Japanese and European Jews, initially could, as groups and thus also as individuals, more adequately contend with the Protestant ethos, which domi- nated and surprisingly still dominates the public schools.

But, it is interesting to note in this connection that there were, surprisingly, some very great differences among the Jews according to their nation of origin. In 1911, the United States Immigration Commission (1911, Vol. I, p. 31) discovered that 37% of German Jewish children experienced school retardation, as against 41% for the Russian Jews, and 67% of the Polish Jews. These proportions closely resemble those for non-Jews of those nationalities. In addition, there is some evidence to indicate that among the Jewish immigrant groups, those whose children achieved well stood somewhat higher on the occupation ladder, as well as the urban in contradistinction to the rural scale.

If the public schools have been a false panacea; if they have not succeeded in solving the problems relating to emancipation, industrialization, and urbanization—one must admit that they have been at least moderately successful in Americanizing large numbers of immigrants that have come to these shores. Yet, at what a price in lost values, group and family identity and simply human dignity.

The truth is that our nation's public schools and for that matter, most other public institutions, have not done a good job in encouraging cultural pluralism or in developing a healthy respect for one's heritage if that heritage is not of our "Puritan fathers" or our "Anglican ancestors." Indeed, the reverse was frequently true, for as Crevecoeur pointed out, it was felt that the immigrant had to be stripped of "all his ancient prejudices and manners" in order to become a "new" man. This homogenization of American values to conform to a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant mold not only wreaked havoc with the black man's identity, it was equally destructive to the ethnic Catholic or the ethnic

99 Jew who wanted to be different by being true to his particular traditions. David Cohen, co-director of the Harvard Center for Educational Policy Studies, in his recent article on "Immigrants and the Schools" states categorically that "there is no evidence of any effort to employ the immigrants' language and culture as educational vehicles. I have been unable to find any hint that cultural diversity was entertained as a serious possiiblity; it appears that the WASP reigned supreme in urban public schools." More personally and pointedly, Michael Novak, a Slovakian Catholic American, in a recent issue of Harper's Magazine (September 1971), confessed that "nowhere in my schooling do I recall an attempt to put me in touch with my own history. ... It is hard to grow up Catholic in America without becoming defensive, perhaps a little paranoid." I also remember quite vividly my own impressions while in elementary school, junior high school and high school. I recently shared these impressions with a close friend of mine who is also in his middle or late thirties. I came from a traditional Jewish home environment and he came from a secular Labor Zionist strongly Jewish home environment. We both shared a common language which we spoke at home to our parents and which was our native language—Yiddish, Our parents, especially our mothers, felt much more comfortable in speaking Yiddish than in speaking English. Yet, in the post World War II decade, espe- daily when we had our secondary school experience in two different junior high and public high schools in New York City, we both felt that we were made to feel embarrassed—especially at open school week—by the fact that our parents spoke Yiddish better than they spoke English. Later we were both proud of the fact that our parents had given us this unique cultural heritage through the medium of Yiddish and we realized then, several years after the fact, that the white Christian ethos enveloping and inundating the public school structure, even in New York City, had refused to recognize the rich, cultural expressions of our home and had instilled in us, unfortunately, a reaction of embarrassment about our "different" language and culture.

The damage to pluralism in American life has been further and graphically described by one of America's outstanding anthropologists. Several years ago Margaret Mead wrote The School In American Culture. In this book, Miss Mead describes the effect of the public school upon the typical immigrant school child. "They must be taught," she writes, "not the constancies of their parents' immediate past . . . but they must be taught to reject, and usually to despise their parents' values. They must learn those things which, to the extent that they make them Americans, will alienate them forever from their parents, making them ancestorless, children of the future, cut off from the past." E. Digby Baltzell, in his book, The Protestant Establishment, wites of the openness of the liberal Protestant establishment which permitted Fiorello La Guardia and Sidney Weinberg to enter the liberal establishment. But the key to entry is the acceptance of the values of the dominant culture and all too frequently the American version of the Church of England as well. Thus if the schools aided in the assimilation or the Americanization of the immigrants it was at the expense of their previous structure and their authentic identities. It was a

100 melting pot rather than a mixing bowl and a melting pot that did not always work and was in frequent and dire need of repair. We as Jews who value the tradition of education must now ask basic questions of our schools as we continually have asked basic questions of our society and all of its other institutions. The public education system must not become sacrosanct for this then is another version of avodah zorah (idolatry). Are the public schools producing what educators and laymen have said for over a century they can produce? Shall we reinterpret the role and function of public education to meet not only the needs of the time but also the realities of their delivery and performance? If we truly believe in pluralism and in the concept of freedom within diversity in American life, how can we best reshape the structure and institution of American education to meet this goal? Charles Silberman, in his excellent study, Crisis In The Classroom, has referred to public schools as "grim joyless places" that are "oppressive and petty" in many of their rules. He and now Albert Shanker recommend the American version of the British Infant or Open School—Lillian Weber's "Open Corridors" —as an antidote that would turn schools without joy into schools with joy. Yet, with open classrooms, even if they take the grimness and pettiness out of schools also always rid them of cultural homogeneity. I have my doubts but I do know that this approach is not a direct challenge to the public school system that all too often emasculates other cultures in distilling a joyful or joyless homogeneity of a society's dominant values, and at the same time it constructs a civic religion out of these values. Now, lest I am misunderstood, let me emphasize my belief that we cannot and should not throw this imperfect institution out. It is the best method we now have of educating over 50 million American students—in the values of democratization and equality and we must more fully develop and perfect it. It has had many achievements along with its numerous imperfections. To paraphrase Winston Churchill's description of democracy—for the masses of Americans—it is probably the worst educational system—except for all the other alternatives. But is it best for all the members of the American Jewish community? How can the American public school structure be improved upon in order to permit more fully the development of authentic cultural pluralism for the American Jewish community and all other ethnic groups as well?

It is, of course, beyond any doubt that public education as we know it today, must be strengthened and improved. Budget levels are too low even for survival in many school systems and certainly must be increased with a much greater expenditure of funds coming from the federal government. Yet, the expenditure of increased sums does not guarantee the delivery of more and better service; it just aids in achieving at least minimal standards.

There must be a start towards encouraging authentic group identification if the diversity of our American democratic society is to be continued. This involves a basic reinterpretation of the value and importance of public education in enhancing rather than extinguishing a multi-cultural democratic

101 experience. The phenomenon of cultural pluralism will have to be more readily understood and incorporated within the curriculum. And this is not just a problem of dealing adequately with Black Americans and Spanish Ameri- cans, as necessary as this is. The Rev. Paul Asciolla, an Italian-American editor and ethnic "activist" in Chicago, has said:

"Ethnics are trying to find out who they are. The history books they studied in school didn't tell them. They are rootless people. They gave the 'melting pot' a chance. They tried to become 'Americanized' . . . but they could never find out what becoming an American meant in terms of full acceptance. . . . Cultural pluralism is the most logical solution we can hope for. But we have to redefine our values and ask: What does it mean to be an American?"

Frances Sussna, a former Hebrew school teacher, has attempted to answer that in educational terms in the Multi-Culture Institute that she established in San Francisco over two years ago. How can a teaching of even positive difference lead to respect and integration as well as of avoidance of racial and ethnic discord? The San Francisco Institute seeks to answer these questions by dividing the entire curriculum and every school day into separate components. One component includes any of six ethnic areas—Chinese, Japanese, Jewish, Black, Spanish and polyethnic. (Italian will soon be introduced as the seventh area. ) The other component is totally integrated and is used for general learning such as writing, reading and math. Language and culture (but no religion) are taught in the ethnic part of the day—and once a week each ethnic group in this private school shares an ethnic theme that they have studied with the entire group. Thus, this multi-ethnic approach aims at a sharing of the more general aspects of American life and ideals, but without submerging the ethnic heritage of the different groups. The school has received much support from a broad cross section of San Francisco, major foundations and the National Project on Ethnic America, which is supported by the American Jewish Committee. The next question is—can the Multi-Culture Program be used within and not outside of the public school structure? With variation, change and care, it possibly can. It cannot succeed, however, if thought of as another easy solution or panacea. We've had much too many of these in the past. But careful planning and study, as well as several model programs, are necessary for adequate evaluation. The San Francisco public school system has already begun experimenting in this area and I hope that the New York City system will soon follow suit.

Basically, we must bring about a new awareness in our nation's public schools—an awareness of the needs and aspirations of our varied and culturally rich ethnic groups. A recognition must be given not just in rhetoric but in programs, emphasizing communitarian as well as atomic needs of the individual. The recently concluded 1970 census surprised many people when it revealed that fully 75 million persons among the nation's 200 million identified themselves by one of the major ethnic categories listed—German, English, Irish, Spanish, Italian, Polish and Rusian. These Americans were not at all embarrassed

102 but were indeed proud to be identified as hyphenated Americans. If you add America's six million Jews (who were not listed for reasons of church and and state) and the almost 23 million black Americans, we discover that a majority of almost 55% of America's population can be listed as ethnic or hyphenated Americans. And this fact receives grudgingly little or no recognition in most of the textbooks and curricula used by our public schools. Yet, if properly accepted, recognized and guided this heterogeneity can be a positive boon to our democracy; if frustrated or denigrated, as has frequently happened in the past, it can recoil in a negative manner with dangerous and destructive fall-out for all. There is no alternative—the public schools of the nation must accept pluralism in the reality of its existence—in commitments, morés, manners, dress and must not even appear to crush those who differ, for in the nation as in the world we must all learn to live with people who differ in values and goals if we are all to live together as one—in the broadest sense of the word.

As Chairman of the Jewish Studies Committee for Elementary and Sec- ondary Schools of the American Association of Jewish Education I am already working in this area and emphasizing Jewish history and literature but with proper respect and safeguards for the principle of separation of church and state in our public schools. I can only hope and pray that ten years from now the two dozen secondary school textbooks that I studied a decade ago will no longer be Judenrein in terms of both important contributions to culture and civilization, as well as in the tragedy and triumph of a people through the annals of history. Even this past year, studies by both the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League revealed that there has been inadequate and insufficient improvement in students' texts. These studies revealed that school material on the Jews continues to suffer from an overemphasis on the past and that the Nazi persecutions are inadequately treated. Both a new commitment and a change in philosophly are necessary. As Dr. Melvin Scult, Professor of Jewish Studies at Vassar College, has stated, "Old-line liberals will see ethnic assertiveness as divisive. . . . The new liberal on the other hand will realize that independence and self determination among ethnic groups are primary requirements for future integration."

Up to now I have been speaking about the need for strengthening cultural pluralism, but that new pluralism might also emphasize a strengthening of religious pluralism. There are, of course, some new programs that combine both aspects—such as the Voucher Plan—as developed by Christopher Jencks and his Cambridge Group. Yet, even without extended experimentation and research this interesting plan has already engendered a bitter divisiveness among various education groups, who will eventually have to stand together or not receive adequate support for any type or form of education. An equally bitter debate has surrounded the discussion dealing with the purchase of secular educational services at religious schools. How can we conciliate these abrasive battles where all lose and few, if any, win? Perhaps one must turn his thinking towards an older, largely still untried and less controversial program which even The New York Times recommends as an alternative plan that does not infringe

103 upon the separation of church and state. I am, of course, referring to the dual enrollment or shared time plan, recently encouraged by the New York State Board of Regents, where the child enrolls in two schools and divides his school day between them. He will take his religious and value subjects in the religious school and then go on to the public school for courses in the sciences, math, languages, industrial arts and other secular subjects. The plan has the decided dual advantage of clearly not using public funds for direct religious instruction and leaves the religious schools free of government control. There are, of course, many administrative, logistic and record problems to work out, but I for one would like to see more experiments in this area involving the Jewish community and the public school systems of a number of smaller cities and communities. And even though it would probably still have the opposition of strict sepa- rationists it would have a great deal of latent support from many educational leaders who are hoping to find a viable and constructive solution to the destructive battles and continued internecine warfare between the public and private sectors of education.

Yet, even though this lecture is entitled, "The American Jewish Com- munity, The Public Schools and Cultural Pluralism: The Reality and the Myth," I would be less than candid if I did not at this time leave the arena ,of public education and at least mention to you my personal belief in the importance of the private Hebrew day school movement, more adequately supported by the organized Jewish community, not only for the creative survival of the Jewish people in America but the enhancement and growth of the new pluralism in America as well. It is about time that we in leadership positions began evaluating America's post-Christian secular standards by the yardstick of a total way of life that is Judaism, and an historic people that is the Jewish people. Thé Hebrew day school might not be the educational option selected by most Jews in the United States but it is the best available means by which to develop a permanent leadership cadre that is steeped in Jewish learning and knowledge. And it is in only such a total environment that we can most adequately and intelligently develop our own unique Judaic message with the broadest application to all human concerns.

It might even be wise to structure some of our Hebrew day schools around a pattern that would cease compartmentalizing secular and sacred subjects and more adquately integrate both areas in one unit with values and religious courses interpreting other subjects. This could develop into a more complete flowering of Shimshon Raphael Hirtch's dictum of "Torah-Im-Derech-Eretz." It would at the very least lead to some interesting comparison evaluations with other frameworks of reference.

Though it is true that the purpose of Jewish education is not to save Amer- ican society, its uninhibited function on various levels could actually serve to enrich and enlarge that added and important perspective of difference which needs to be revived and acknowledged in American civilization today. What our troubled times might just need is the particular message of a Jewish education, with universal significance. It could provide an added dimension—a

104 yardstick that is both a part of and apart from our present society—that would function as a critical apparatus continually evaluating our own personal authenticity, as well as the aims and conduct of our American society and the world community. "When Rabbi Schneur Zalman, the great Hassidic Rabbi of the late 18th and early 19th century was imprisoned in St. Petersburg on false charges, he was visited while awaiting trial by the thoughtful Chief of Police of Czar is t Russia's capital city. Struck by the great majesty of the Rabbi's general appearance and demeanor, the Police Chief engaged him in conversation and asked him a number of questions relating to sections of the Holy Scriptures that had puzzled him. Their discussion turned to the story of the Garden of Eden. "Why was it, the official asked, that God, who is all knowing, had to call out when Adam was hiding and ask him, "Where art thou?" "You do not understand the meaning of the question," the Rabbi answered. "This is a question God asks of every man in every generation. After all your wanderings, after all your efforts, after all your years, oh, man, where art thou?" Where are we as Americans and Jews, after all our wanderings throughout the globe, before coming to this blessed land and where are we, today, in this nation, after all our efforts, to further the democratic ideals that America stands for? Is this generation closer to developing a truly democratic pluralistic society where all groups and all peoples can live together as one, at the same time that their important group differences are observed and respected? Where are we in the arena of public education? Have we used the public schools to enhance the concept of pluralism in a heterogeneous society or have we blindly walked down the path to homogenization and conformity? Let us all ask ourselves the question that Rabbi Schneur Zalman said that God asks of every man in every generation. And then let us all act—and act courageously—in keeping with our commitments and our goals—as both Jews and Americans.

105 THE JEWISH DAY SCHOOL —OUR ONLY HOPE

HOWARD D. SINGER Rabbi, The Emanuel Synagogue, West Hartford, Conn.

I was very much impressed by Dr. Lachman's learned talk. I must tell you my talk will be a good deal less learned, a good deal more informal. I feel a little bit like a Joshua who came to Jericho all set to blow the walls down, only to find that Dr. Lachman has undermined the walls completely. All I've got to do is help you draw certain conclusions from his talk. I don't think you are willing to draw those conclusions yet. I also suspect that Dr. Lachman's brilliant and incisive comments on the public schools create a false impression. Not that he gave you a false impression deliberately, but that we may think all public school officials have his attitude toward ethnic rights and cultural pluralism. The trouble is there's only one of him. I am here today to destroy some myths and to present you with certain dilemmas. The subject is ostensibly public education, but as far as I'm concerned, the only subject worth discussing is the one that Mr. Elie Wîesel brought up yesterday. How do you save Jews? How do you save American Jews, and Jews in general? This is fundamentally what it's all about. I am a fellow obsessed; I have a one track approach, a one track mind. I know what I want.

Shmarya Levine said something a long time ago which I now toss out to you. He said, when will the Messiah come? And he answered, when Jews will stop saving the whole blooming world and have a little mercy on their brother Jews. This is also what I want to say to you today. It is the point of view from which I see everything. It doesn't matter how important other things are. For me everything else must take a back seat.

Now, we have not expressed this point of view or acted upon this point of view for the last 50 years. Everything else has been first with us; Jewish education, Jewish survival, Jewish values have been second. The public school, as Dr. Lachman quite properly said, has been almost an article of secular faith with us. You know that what I've said is true. I think your burst of applause, spontaneous and heartening to me, is testimony to that. You know that our people are concerned with Vietnam, they're concerned with ecology, they're concerned with pollution, they're concerned with civil rights, they're concerned with consumer protection, they're concerned with separation of church and state.

But I must tell you that when it concerns Jewish education, Jewish survival, they are not really interested. Just today at lunch, I sat with an old friend, Rabbi Fishel Perlmutter, who told me of a fascinating incident. He goes to Ohio University. On the campus, there is a Newman Club. There's also a rabbi on the campus. The rabbi is

106 worried about Vietnam. The chaplain of the Catholic Newman Club came to Rabbi Perlmutter and said, "you've got a lot of Jewish kids on campus. What can I do to get them kosher food?" And this is in microcosm the predicament of our Jewish people.

Dr. Lachman implied that the public school failed. Most respectfully I disagree with him. I think it succeeded. Why?

Because its purpose was to create a melting pot. Dewey's comment, that its purpose, was modifying the social order, succeeded as far as we Jews are concerned. We are thoroughly modified. We have been modified to a fair-thee- well. We have to understand what happened to us.

In 1880, there were 250,000 Jews in this country. Between 1880 and 1922, 2,650,000 Jews came to this country. And most of these Jews came from Russia, Poland, the Balkans. They weren't particularly sophisticated or cultivated. The great need which the Yahuddim, the German Jews, saw at the time was to bring these people into the mainstream. We all wanted the melting pot. The Hebrew Alliance in New York went to the extreme of refusing to have Yiddish books in its library. At the 42nd Street Public Library at the same time, there was a sign hanging up, "Here you can ,eet Jewish books." This is the extent to which we were self-hating, to which we worshipped the concept of a melting pot. When Horace Callen spoke of cultural pluralism way back then, this country wasn't buying it. We are still not really buying it.

By 1955, even after the post-war immigration, the Second World War immigration, 85 percent of American Jews were native born. We finally had arrived. But my point is, that we still really haven't arrived psychologically. We are still eager to join the mainstream. But the fact is, as any rabbi can tell you, we are so far in the mainstream now that we're drowning in it. What we really have to do now is not worry so much about getting into the mainstream. That period is over. We need not worry so much about the capacity of the public school to create a melting pot. The problem now, clearly, is to recognize the fact that ethnic particularity is legitimate, and should be encouraged by Jews. So much of what Dr. Lachman said is so clearly the sort of thing I believe, that I feel it unnecessary to add further information along those lines. People, get over the idea that the public school was ever really public. The public school has always been a Protestant parochial school. It is true, but we refuse to confess it to ourselves. I disagree with Dr. Lachman only because he has hope this will change. Dr. Lachman thinks that with a new component here and a new technique there, it will improve. Most respectfully, I don't agree. He's sincere. But that's his job as a public school representative, just as it's my job to represent organized religion. You don't take me seriously; you shouldn't take him too seriously either.

107 You can't take him seriously because the situation is inherently impossible. You can win a battle on the issue of the Lord's Prayer in the public school. You can bring it all the way to the Supreme Court, and you can win on Christmas. But of course in a sense you can't win even in the area of Christmas. The problem is too subtle. For instance, is a Christmas carol christological and therefore verboten? Or is it "the spirit of the season" and therefore permissible? How many of you have problems along these lines in your local school? A show of hands, please? Almost everybody has, and that proves it. It's hard to win because you can't draw lines.

Secondly, the problem is not Christmas, or the Lord's Prayer. The real problem is that the material in the history text is subtly slanted from the Protestant point of view. In any history text, Ferdinand and Isabella will be the people who sent Columbus out on his merry voyage. They will not bother to tell the student that Ferdinand and Isabella were also the people who sent the Jews out on their not so merry voyages during the Inquisition. They were the ones who expelled the Jews. No public school history text bothers with that. Why should the writers bother to include it? We are less than 3% of the general population. In the public school picture, we will never be important enough for that sort of thing. I do not think that the public school machinery will ever be able to get this kind of subtlety into the curriculum. So much depends upon flavor. The atmosphere will never be the kind that reinforces our kid's ethnic and religious identities. Public school authorities are not enemies, but they just can't be aware of us. You left with the fact that the public school, with the best intentions in the world, even with people like Dr. Lachman at its helm, cannot really serve the interests of Jewish survival. This is the conclusion I came to a long time ago. I decided that if that's the truth, the alternatives are either acceptance of the subtle second class citizenship built into the public school, or another kind of school system entirely. The Jewish day school is the answer. My answer. I must tell you that the biggest barrier to the growth of Jewish day schools is not American society's opposition. It is Jewish inhibition. We feel inhibited about this sort of thing. The biggest fear in the Jewish mind is that by establishing independent Jewishly run schools, we will ghetto-ize ourselves. The notion that a day school product is in any way inferior in the secular areas is something that we Jews cannot any longer abide. We ought to drop it like a hot rock. Drop it as the symbol of the old Jewish insecurity, of the old Jewish self-hatred which has plagued us for so many years. We're no longer in the 20's and 30's where people were embarrassed by Yiddish accents. Unless, of course, we really are still Alexander Portnoys, insecure, frightened, ill at ease lest we be accused of being un-American.

This is why, even in United Synagogue, you find reluctance to face the facts about the public school. They'll agree up to the point that Dr. Lachman

108 went. "Yes," they say, "The public school has been a disaster for us in many ways. But on the other hand, . . ." There's always another hand. I say no more other hands. All we're entitled to is two hands and we've filled them up a long time ago.

The public school has been an article of faith for many years, but only to Jews. Wealthy Episcopalians never took the public schools seriously. Choate and Groton happen not to be public schools. Only the Jews rallied around the public school and made it a part of their secular faith. Certain doctrinaire reflex liberals still feel this way. There are neighborhoods in New York City where the only people who still are in public schools in large numbers are the Jews and the blacks. The blacks who can afford it would prefer private schools, but the Jews would stick to the public schools as a matter of faith.

Let me tell you something, my friends, I love America. I'm a veteran, all the right spinach on the chest you know, but I worry about your kids. I worry about their loyalty. And I know that the best afternoon Hebrew schools, with the most devoted teachers and the most brilliant principals cannot do what has to be done to give our children enough spiritual food to live a Jewish life. Only the full day school can do that.

I am not saying, mind you, that all day school products are wonderful, or that every day school product is a great saint. But you have a fighting chance in a day school. At least the public school is not sabotaging you every morning.

These ideas that I've expressed to you today would have sounded far out four years ago. But today the blacks are saying that black history cannot be done justice to in the public schools. They're right. Today the Indians in the South- west are saying, "We are sick and tired of being told that Columbus discovered America, when our ancestors had been living in Arizona for the last thousand years. The Chicanos are telling the public school authorities that their history is being ignored. They want bi-lingual systems. Good for them. If Puerto Ricans had our money, and know how, they would not be content to have a token course in Spanish in the schools. Our history and our tradition cannot be adequately conveyed in any public school structure. It's too complicated. What we ought to do at this juncture is to recognize our own hang-ups and act on the assumption that these hang-ups no longer apply. Recognize our own fears and decide not to live in the shadow of our fears.

I'm assuming certain things that maybe I have no right to assume. I would have difficulty getting all this across to an ordinary group. But I'm assuming that you're a very select group on the following basis:

You're presumably United Synagogue leaders. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here. The fact that you actually come to the Concord and the fact that you sit through a session indicates that you really care about education. You really care. I'm delighted at that.

109 Every Rabbi has to end a speech with a story. The story is that a Jew from a small town once came to Warsaw. He began to get hungry, and he found a little restaurant. But he was afraid to leave a horse and a laden wagon on the street in Warsaw. Warsaw supposedly was full of horse thieves. So, according to this charming story, he waited, and sure enough a nice Jew came walking down the street, very dignified looking, and he stopped the fellow and said, "Listen, my friend, will you do me a favor? Yes? Please, watch my horse. Watch my horse for a few minutes while I go into the restaurant there and grab a bite." The passerby was very insulted. He said, "Do you know who I am?" "No, who are you?" "I am the Executive Director of the Central Committee of Warsaw Jewry." The implication being of course, me, a big shot, you ask to mind your horse? But the little suburban Yiddle said, "Listen, if I trust you, why should you care?" I say this to you too. You all are, collectively, the executive directors of the Central Committee of American Jewry, in charge of survival. It all depends upon you. I trust you. You should be willing to hold this horse. You all have to go back and educate your communities that it isn't ghettoization, that it isn't withdrawal from American society. You all need Solomon Shechter day schools. It's not too hard. Every synagogue is potentially a Solomon Schechter school. The classrooms you've got. They're empty until three o'clock every day. Why don't we use them? I say this with a certain minimum of authority, because I pulled it off twice. There are witnesses here from two communities, I'm happy to say. I did not do it alone, of course; but I was agent provocateur both times. You can create these schools. You can overcome the inhibitions that people have about separatism. You can assure people that the secular level can be superbly high. If you do that, they'll be willing to buy the Jewish element too. This is the key. Too often people have the impression that every non-public school is a "shtetel" kind of operation. It can have the same chic as the fanciest private school, provided you know how to operate it. Learn how to do it, and don't wait. Start now.

110 AMERICAN JEWISH EDUCATION: REALITIES AND PROSPECTS

ELI GRAD President, Hebrew College, Brookline, Mass.

On the altar of American Jewish public opinion, Jewish education has paid off its guilt. It has received double for all its sins. The American Jewish educator has carried on his shoulders, almost single-handedly, the burden of the dilution of Jewish life. He has been maligned as the cause of the alienation of our youth and accused of jeopardizing—if not forfeiting—the Jewish future in America. Rarely—if at all—is the erosion of American Jewish identity charged to the Jewish community centers . . . rarely—if at all—is the failure of the value structure of the American Jewish family charged to our Jewish family and child services . . . rarely—if at all—is the disintegration of creative Jewish life publicly charged to the rabbinate or to synagogue leadership for their failure to use their considerable influence and prestige to build value-centered Jewish communities.

The Jewish educator is the traditional scapegoat. So long as he is there to accept the blame, the American Jewish community need not face the naked truth: It is NOT Jewish education that has failed American Jewish life. . . It is American Jewish life that has failed Jewish education. It is NOT the Jewish school that has failed to prepare Jews for creative Jewish life ... It is Jewish life that has failed to maintain the environment in which Jewish schools can thrive and serve and create. . . . The Jewish educator is NOT blameless! Aware as he is of the growing malaise of American Jewish life he should have warned more loudly . . . protested much more vigorously . . . demanded much more militantly. He should have described from every platform the impossibility of the task he is told to perform. He should have shouted from the proverbial roof tops that he cannot succeed in the setting in which he functions. In preparing for this presentation I contacted colleagues representing every stream in Jewish education: I sought information, I solicited views, I asked for interpretations of trends. It soon became evident that while American Jewry has not reached the point of sharing activities and programs, it can be said safely that, at the least, it shares problems and challenges. Torn between the opportunity to wax lyrical in the descriptive or useful in the prescriptive, I opted for the latter in the hope of contributing to the resolution of the problems we face. I hasten to add that I am an inveterate optimist by nature: I believe that our present is an aberration and that our future will, indeed, do justice to our glorious past.

What are the realities and what are the prospects?

Ill An Environment for Jewish Education: We developed an American Jewish educational establishment in which the overwhelmingly predominant form of schooling is the supplementary afternoon school. These schools were called on to transmit factual knowledge to their students while values and commitments were developed in the home and in the neighborhood. The five-day-a-week program was the rule rather than the exception in Hebrew school education. As the home and the community abdicated their responsibility for instilling Jewish values and developing Jewish commitments, the school was charged with ever increasing responsibility in the face of reduction in available hours of instruction and the number of years the child spends in school. Even if excellent teachers and superior instructional materials were available, the school cannot "make knowledgeable, committed Jews" in six hours per week over a five year period.

My first proposition-. Our congregations, the lay leaderships and the rabbis must commit themselves— as a first priority—to the establishment of standards of commitment, learning and participation for synagogue membership.

Joining a synagogue must entail much more than the readiness to pay dues. The prerequisite to holding synagogue office must be a Jewish life which will be an example for others to follow. The considerable prestige of the pulpit (or at least our major pulpits) must be committed to showing the way to Jewish values and insisting that these values become functional in the lives of our congregations. Let us rebuild our congregations as structures of Jewish value and we will have contributed significantly to the resolution of the problems of congregational education.

Theory and Practice: Judaism involves theory and practice, knowledge and implementation. With very few statistically insignificant exceptions we have not provided for the implementation of knowledge in a setting of the practice of values.

My second proposition: We must develop integrated formal-informal educational programs in which classroom transmits values and the informal program puts these values into practice. Integrated programs are within the reach of every congregation and there is sufficient evidence of their potential to enhance successfully our effectiveness.

.׳Achievable Goals for Our Schools The typical congregational school curriculum reflects a plethora of subjects in a setting of grossly inadequate time. We yielded to the reality of the

112 Bar Mitzvah dropout phenomenon and created a curriculum in which the child is expected to learn all that a Jew should know by the time he is thirteen. The result of the over-abundance of texts and expectations is a paucity of knowledge and achievements.

.׳My third proposition

Let us demand of our educators goals which are believable, expectations which are achieveable. Let us structure our curricula as 12 year programs and let us make it very clear that the responsibility for making sure that the child is available for that portion of his education which belongs in the high school years rests squarely with the home! Let our curricula be manageable enough to permit a rewarding depth of achievement, a satisfying spark of vitality. Let us bear in mind the principle of effective programming: That which cannot be done well should not be done at all.

Who Shall Teach Our Children:

The on-going public flogging of the Jewish educator for the failures of Jewish education has provided the American Jewish community with a powerful cathartic: "If only we had effective professionals in our classrooms, the problems of Jewish education would soon be resolved." I submit that settings in which most of our schools operate, combined with conditions of employment, preclude the possibility of professional development of the Jewish educator.

The most obvious criterion of a profession is the right to determine who shall be a member of the profession. Medicine is a profession and no one can practice medicine in these United States without certification by his fellow professionals. Law is a profession and no one can practice law in these United States without certification by his fellow professionals. So long as every congregation persists in engaging unqualified individuals without insisting that they pursue a program of training and become professionals, Jewish education cannot and will not be a profession. The professional Jewish educator faces a long up-hill climb in the development of his own professional image and in his ability to cope with the complex challenges he faces every day. I have a great deal to say on this subject to my fellow educators at our own meetings and much of what I have to say is neither gentle nor particularly laudatory. The unavoidable fact remains, however, that it is not within the power of the professional educator to professionalize the field without the firm commitment of employers to abide by standards of professionalism. Professionalism is predicated on a sense of usefulness and of purpose, on the knowledge that one's life is limited to the pursuit of meaningful objectives.

113 Professionalism is predicated on the sense of dignity which derives from acceptance by one's community. Professionalism flourishes through stability and opportunities to grow and to develop. Professionalism requires the opportunity to support one's family and meet one's needs in a manner comparable to the life-style of fellow citizens in similar occupations.

My fourth proposition: Let each and everyone of us commit ourselves to the development of d profession in Jewish education. What can we do in this regard? As a United Synagogue we can collectively commit ourselves to abide by standards of professionalism in our employment practices and we can demonstrate our commitment by assuring compliance through the type of sanctions which were previously associated with such issues as playing bingo in our synagogue buildings. As members of congregations we can make sure that we engage only professionals to serve our schools and that we treat them professionally. Where suitable professionals are not available to us we can—at least—provide for the continued professional training of the individuals we engage. We can give our educators the sense of dignity, of being valued by our congregations. We can make sure that when honors are to be given, our educators will share in them. When we celebrate together, our educators will be invited to celebrate with us. When we pray together, our educators must be welcomed to pray with us as a matter of course. We can give our educators a sense of usefulness and of purpose by demonstrating our collective commitment to the ideas and ideals they Convey to our children. Every marathon race begins with a first step. The development of the profession of Jewish education begins with individual educators in individual congregations on a day-to-day relationship and not only at major public events. It is within our power to build a profession and I urge that we commit a portion of the energy we spend on lamenting the national situation to changing the conditions within our individual congregations.

Professional Discipline: We decry the lack of suitable materials for Jewish schools and the absence of programs of research and evaluation. Yet we persist in practices which are highly detrimental to the development of instructional materials and programs of evaluation. Hundreds of principals have discovered that the technology of mimeographing and offset printing makes it possible for them to become authors. Every school board formulates a curriculum of its own, sufficiently different

114 from all others to rule out the possibility of standardization of tests and evaluation procedures. It is interesting to note that in the face of aggregate expenditures of $150,000,000 a year, nationally, for Jewish schooling, there is literally not one single full-time position in the United States in the area of evaluation in Jewish education.

My fifth proposition: Let us encourage the publication of suitable instructional materials by ere- ating a market which will support the qualified authors and publishers of such materials. Let us use professionally published texts in our schools and let us insist that materials prepared by those serving our schools be subjected to the same rigorous criteria of evaluation which characterizes the publication of professional texts. We have an excellent national Education Commission. Our commission has criteria for the accreditation of schools, it provides curricula, it publishes text books. Let us, as a United Synagogue, create the sanctions which will move our schools to submit to the accreditation procedure. Let us insist on the use of standard curricula in our schools and let us make sure that changes we wish to make in our curricula are subjected to full professional evaluation. Let us, as a United Synagogue, provide our Education Commission with the staff to undertake a program of research and evaluation and with the movement discipline which will bring our Commission into each of our schools.

A Word About Day Schools: We built supplementary congregational schools to serve the needs of homes where Judaism was practiced, in communities motivated by Jewish values. These supplementary schools were a fitting response to the promise of the America which was to be a melting pot, a new society unlike any we have ever experienced in our past. We have now discovered that the promise is not free of challenge and we have not yet learned to respond effectively to the challenges of America.

My sixth proposition: The day school is the fitting Jewish response to the challenge of America. While serving the needs of its own students, the day school helps assure the effectiveness of the congregational supplementary school as well. For its own students the day school provides an environment in which Judaism is a total life system in which children are not compartmentalized into "Jewish segments" and "general human segments" and in which children grow wholesomely and creatively as American Jews. The community which has excellent day schools has excellent supplementary schools. The day schools provide a reservoir of full-time career teachers

115 who are able to render some additional service to the congregational schools. The day school sets the standards in the community by which the supplementary schools are evaluated as well. The future of Jewish life in America requires that we build, finance and maintain excellent day schools in every one of our communities.

.׳Higher Jewish Education Judaism is an affair of mature inquiry and understanding. To fathom its fullest meaning requires a lifetime of study.

My seventh proposition: Let each of us evaluate the effectiveness of our schools by the number of young people we motivate to go to institutions of higher Jewish learning and to commit themselves to the services of our people. Let us—as a first priority— seek out our potential scholars and leaders. Let us nurture them with loving care. Let us shower them with the affection of concerned communities. In their commitment to every human cause within our society, our young people are consistently demonstrating that they are available and that they do care. Let us help them clarify the objects of their concern and channel them to become instruments in our people's destiny. The Jewish educator has paid double for all his sins. Let us now join him in recreating the environment in which he can fulfill himself as an educator in the service of our communities. On my way to the office, this morning, I had the distinct feeling that through the din of car engines and horns and multitudes of people rushing to and fro, I heard faintly in the distance the sweet sound of the footsteps of the Messiah. I felt that I heard him beg: Open a path for me through the hustle and bustle of your pre-occupations. I am ready to come. We can open the path, my friends. We can open the path.

116 JEWISH EDUCATION—DAY SCHOOL AND SUPPLEMENTARY

ELVIN I. KOSE Rabbi, Beth Shalom, Union, N.J.

I must confess to a bewildering sense of inadequacy when confronted with the assigned subject of dealing with the history, growth, curriculum, etc. of the day school movement. For even a casual review of the growing literature on the key problems of enrollment, sponsorship, aims, administration, personnel, finance, achievements, materials and methodology can keep us talking for years. The 1970 Yearbook of the Educators Assembly alone can generate convention themes for decades. A large portion of the statistical data is available at our National Commission office or education libraries and need not be incorporated into this presentation.

Moreover, most educational issues interlock and it becomes rather difficult to isolate any one specific as the most crucial. If we start with inner school structure, how can we not include sociological realities as integral to the total picture? If we pinpoint parental motivations as the key to intensive education, will we be negligent in underassessing methodology, community support, and the other elements that undergird such a venture? My vantage is that of one field worker who has kept up with theory while pragmatically testing and eclec- tically activating realizable achievements with occasional success.

A good working backdrop for a discussion of the day school movement is contained in the Rockefeller Report on education (published in 1958 and called "The Pursuit of Excellence") which contains the following statement:

"What most people, young or old, want is not merely security or comfort or luxury—although they are glad enough to have these. They want meaning in their lives. If their era and their culture and their leaders do not or cannot offer them great meanings, great objectives, great convictions, then they will settle for shallow and trivial meanings."

The impulse to become involved in a day school, as in any spiritual venture, starts with the uncompromisable conviction on the part of a few leaders, lay and/or professional, who believe that Judaism offers these meanings, objectives, and convictions, and that we literally have no future without such an educated core. This is especially true when confronted with crisis in its various mani- festations of intermarriage, the deterioration of the Jewish home, and the erosion of the will to live proudly as Jews.

A crisis is not necessarily marked by disaster or violence. It is marked by the absence of any general, tacit adherence to an agreed upon system of values. Our present school dilemma mirrors our own mental chaos. There is nothing else it can do in a democratic society where our institutions are representative.

117 Up to the last decade the basic issue in the day school movement among Conservative Jews was essentially motivation—the "why" rather than the "how." The struggle consisted in trying to justify and validate the day school. It was an issue that dealt with American Jewry's subconscious, the mood and attitude, rather than the programmatic.

A brief analysis of this unwillingness to move toward new educational vistas through the day school movement in the face of the obvious shortcomings of the afternoon school can be formulated in psycho-educational terms.

The Metaphysics of Aristotle opens with the well known statement: "All men by nature desire to know." If this is so, then why do so many require special motivation? Why do we not accept intensive Jewish education as self- evident? Why is Judaism such an unknown area, relegated to a marginal corner of our lives? And why is there not a greater effort by Jews to become more knowledgeable? According to Robert Ardray in his The Social Contract which deals with motivational theory, the heart of the problem of whether we move toward or away from new experience and new information depends upon the kind of person we have become and the way we see ourselves. If we are secure, adequate, unthreatened, then we are able to reach out and seek out the unfamiliar. If we are insecure, afraid, uncomfortable, then we are more likely to expend our energies conserving and defending what we are rather than moving toward what we might become.

In psychological terms, man cannot seek out and search in a world that he does not know if he lacks the security and stability of a positive concept of self. He must believe in his worthwhileness and in his capacity to cope with that which is not already precisely known to him. The attraction and repulsion toward learning reside primarily within the learner rather than in the material itself. Thus, the problem that had to be met in pioneering the day school lay in rallying those leaders who were not yet "lost" or demoralized and who still had a strong self concept and the vitality to draw others to the excitement that day school education promises. These leaders understood that the day school as compared to the afternoon school, is effective because of its total hold on the child and his family. The day school cannot be dismissed as an intrusion on leisure time nor as a temporary ordeal that ends with Bar or Bat Mitzvah. It absorbs the entire family in a meaningful, undistracted venture of relevant bi-cultural learning that reaches the heart of both Jewish and American identities. If such attitudes could be developed in an afternoon school instead of its consignment to a supplementary, part-time venture not very different in essence than piano or ballet lessons, the same affirmative results would probably follow. But the realities of the afternoon school are quite otherwise.

Moreover, the leaders of the day school movement understood that what is important about Jewish education is not that it is an economic preparation for

118 life, or that it shows one how to acquire marketable skills. Its importance is that it furnishes a foundation on which later, within the limits of one's abilities, any intellectual structure can be erected with a reasonable assurance that the Jewish dimension will be a strong factor. Intensive Jewish education should give the student the wherewithal for authentic, ongoing self-education that should be everyman's concern to the hour of his death and will preclude one's being lost.

When a Jew knows how he became a Jew, what large general movements of history produced him, he is oriented to the world. He may at times be scared but he won't be bewildered. In such teaching a student learns how to locate himself in time and space and to survey the present in the light of an imperfect but ever-functioning knowledge of the past. The tradition also provides great models by which to judge his own lesser performances. And it gives him the ability to investigate for himself anything that interests him, provided his mind is equal to it. And this he will do as an affirming Jew. His genius, in whatever form, will express itself from Jewish roots outward.

This may not sound like very much, but it is a vital something that is extremely significant when we view how lost our average Jew is today.

Our "average" Jew is intelligent, and educable, but lost, precisely because he lacks this orientation in time and space. He may "succeed," he may become a good, law-abiding citizen and on the whole he may live a pleasant life. Yet during most of that life, and particularly after his fortieth year or so, he will feel vaguely disconnected, rootless, purposeless. Like the very plague he will shun any searching questions as to his own worth, to his own identity. He will have lived a fractional life.

In accordance with his luck and temperament, he may become happily lost, or unhappily lost. But lost he will become. Lost he will remain. Lost he will die.

And if we allow these lost ones to multiply indefinitely, they will see to it that the rest of us will be lost too. I am aware of the various studies that denigrate the effectiveness of intensive Jewish education in the absence of a complementary home and social context. Some educators dismiss the day school merely as a more vigorous means of imparting information without affecting basic attitudes and patterns of religious behavior. But if we believe that knowledge is a precondition of behavior, then continued study is essential to the development of the integral Jewish personality who practices what he knows. Moreover, personal observation and a corroborative study by Victor O. Sanua ("Jewish Education and Attitudes of Jewish Adolescents" in The Teen- ager and Jewish Education, N.Y., Educators Assembly of the United Synagogue, 1969, p. 130) show another side. This study found that among adolescents with an extensive religious education, attitudes toward anti-Semitism, the out-group and Israel are not much

119 different from those adolescents who received limited religious education. How- ever, he also discovered that "intensive" Jewish education has a definite influence on attitudes toward favoring Jewish education and religious practices—what we call general Jewish identification—and discouraging intermarriage.

I am prepared to say "dayenu" to this, but only as a first step. Since I960, however, we have moved considerably beyond the first stage and need not argue with the residual, locked-in hostilities of an earlier generation toward the day school. The issue of parochialism or self-ghettoization means very little to the native-born Jew today. Motives of day school support and enrollment may vary widely and often remain inarticulate, but they are not triggered by anti- Semitic fears or a rejection of the American spirit. The American Jew who supports the day school does not feel threatened and is thus properly motivated to explore new ways in seeking "great meanings, great objectives, and great convictions."

Today we are dealing with forty day schools in our network with an enrollment of 6800 students and a projection of 60 schools and 10,000 students by 1980.

Our primary job today is to establish and refine an educational philosophy based on academic needs, social needs, and individual needs and translate them into performance that would convince our constituency that we have no peers. The Jewish day school should be quite different from the public school in form as well as content. In this task the quality of performance of our teachers and administrators is the prime determinant of the quality of education. A student's educational growth can rarely transcend the limitations of his teachers. Greater financial reward is an obvious recommendation but will not, by itself, insure improvement.

Vitalized programs designed for educational growth must be established and maintained. Reservoirs of experts among our laity in a variety of fields can be invited to bring insights and experience to our faculties. Practitioners in the economy such as bankers, businessmen, industrialists and government officials can meet with social studies departments; professional writers, newspapermen can meet with English departments etc. University consultants who can effectively translate new theory into pedagogic structure can be utilized, as well as other channels for upgrading curricula and methodology. The major pitfall in our consistent growth is the unwillingness of the organized Jewish community to assume its proper role in funding the day school. The pittance that is extracted only under extreme pressure and grudgingly given with an unwilling heart represent a massive hurdle to overcome. Most Jewish community councils operate from a conditioned pattern that insists in 1971 that welfare, defense, and recreation—the issues during the thirties—are still primary. The result is that only 8 to 10% of the hundreds

120 of millions raised annually goes toward education—from the elementary schools to our highest learning institutions. If we fail to convince ourselves and our fellow Jews that the day school is an indispensable element for the Jewish future, and demoralization that afflicts some sectors of our educational structure will spread here too and may threaten to become irreversible. The recent decision of the California State Supreme Court regarding the unconstitutionality of the property tax system in providing monies for education contains the following statement: "We are convinced that the distinctive and priceless function of education in our society warrants, indeed compels, our treating it as a 'fundamental interest.'" (Serrano vs. Priest) Can we do less? We have a remarkable opportunity to write a glowing chapter of Jewish creativity and achievement through the day school movement which has already demonstrated its effectiveness in revitalizing all sectors of Jewish education, especially the high school and college levels. Our response to the emerging maturity of this movement through consoli- dation and expansion will largely determine our effectiveness in the years ahead.

121 EXPERIMENT, EXPERIENCE AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL SCHOOL

ALVIN MARS

"Ah, sighed a Melamed, "if I were Rockefeller, I'd be richer than Rockefeller." "How could that be?" he was asked. His response: "I would do a little teaching on the side."

The age of the melamed has long since passed us by in the history of American Jewish education. Today, more than half a million children are receiving some form of Jewish education. They no longer sit with the hapless melamed receiving rote Bar Mitzvah instruction, or in some crowded classroom in a pseudo-Heder reciting verses in "Ashkenazis" and Yiddish. We now have large synagogue buildings with more adequate facilities for our schools. There are principals, teachers, youth leaders—all organized for the proper functioning of a proper educational establishment. We have more and better textbooks, new methodologies of Hebrew instruction, and a sharp eye on what is our role in the growing area of affective education.

But with it all, the "kvetch" of this little joke still remains with us. Jewish education is supplementary, secondary and not primary. It is not essential. It is something we as American Jews do on the side. Within the push and pressure of the American society, most Jewish groups opt for a policy or process of accommodation between their Americanism and their Judaism. A consequence of this accommodation is that Jewish education is shifted into a secondary role—and becomes but supplemental.

We can decry this fact with much bitterness and vigor. We can shout of the woe of our plight and call for a miraculous but really unexpected reversal of societal trends. We can preach doom and gloom for the future of American Jewry and Jewish education in the light of this reality. But this is not my purpose. I present the situation of supplementalism within the congregational school not as a complaint but as a challenge.

We can begin to see the nature of this challenge by surveying a few statistics. In 1967 a National Census of Jewish Schools was conducted by the American Association for Jewish Education. It revealed that 13.4 percent of students receiving a Jewish education were in Jewish day schools; 42.2 percent were in one-day-a-week schools, and 44.4 percent were in midweek afternoon schools that meet from two to five times a week. In other words, almost 90 percent of our students rely on supplementary experiences for the totality of their Jewish education. And even the most sanguine prophets of the day school movement do not predict that we will go beyond 20 percent as the high point of day school enrollment for the foreseeable future. Therefore, as important a role as the day school will play in American life, it is still the supplemental

122 school which will be the major instrument and institution of Jewish education for the masses of our children. This we can view as our challenge of population. In a special article in the 1969 American Jewish Yearbook, Dr. Walter Ackerman points to a second challenge. He states:

"We reveal no hidden truth in pointing out that American education is job oriented. The public school and college systems in this country are predicated on the assumption that a major function of the school is to provide an adequate supply of highly trained technicians to meet the demands of an expanding economy. The broader aims of education have been subverted to the narrower goals of developing marketable skills. "If not by choice then by circumstance, Jewish education is both in fact and theory, the exact antithesis of general education in our time. With the exception of a few students possibly contemplating careers of professional service in the Jewish community, our pupils are truly engaged in Tora I'shma. The Jewish school serves no pragmatic ends and can have no other real function than to help its students appreciate the intrinsic value of education. Therefore, when the Jewish school models itself, as it often does, after the public school in organizational patterns, administrative techniques, means of pupil control and discipline, and methods of instruction, it distorts its uniqueness and creates obstacles to the achievement of its goals. To do so is to play a game in which the rules are not related to the results."

Striking out on yet uncharted paths of educational structure that will facilitate the projection of the correct message we have to present is our challenge of authenticity in educational organization. Dovetailing with the organization of the Jewish educational process is the challenge we face in understanding the peculiar nature and role of the supplemental school and its curriculum in the society at large. When John Dewey described the school, he spoke of it as an institution which existed within a society. Hie school existed as part of the milieu which was supportive, which provided the base of experience for what occurred within the school. In essence, when the child passed out of the portals of the school, he merely moved along a continuum from one of society's institutions into another. By definition, a school has to exist within a society; one which does not is an anomaly. This, however, is the unfortunate position of the Jewish supplemental school. With this reality, I am sure, we are all too familiar. Our schools exist without and outside of a society. Far too frequently, the totality of a child's Jewish experience and not just his formal education begin and end with the ringing of bells at four and six o'clock. How artificial it must all seem to the student! Can it ever be meaningful when formal Jewish education has few real Jewish life experiences going on about it to which it can relate? Therefore, our third challenge is the creation of an experimental surrogate society for the student, one which will flesh out the informational and factual curricular skeleton which the program of a normative school usually represents.

123 Growing out of these challenges is one central challenge which, I think, might be considered as an imperative for the supplemental school: we must learn to capitalize on and use the unique nature of this type of institution for its own benefit and advantage. If we do have the masses of Jewish students in our midst, we must learn how to better organize the educational enterprise to fit the varied nature and backgrounds of the kinds of students who come to us. We must mold the curriculum to the learner and his needs and problems and not just the reverse. If we are different in our very essence from public education we would do better to accept this difference, build on it and emphasize it—make it our strength rather than entering into self-defeating apolo- getics. If we have no supportive society without, perhaps we should begin to build one within the framework of the opportunities provided by our existence as synagogue schools and offer Jewish life experience as part of what used to be considered the formal curriculum.

Ae we reflect on these problems and challenges, a disclaimer or perhaps a note of caution is in order. The Jewish supplemental school cannot accomplish everything. It is not an elixer, steady doses of which are sure to cure the ills of assimilation, apathy and indifference. Indeed, it has its problems as an educational institution, but it is still a starting point, a seed, which properly nurtured, will yield good fruit. The possibilities which it offers us are legion, and we dare not neglect them. It is my purpose now to give some examples of what has been done in one congregational religious school to meet the challenges heretofore enumerated. Though I will speak of the Beth Sholom Religious School of Elkins Park, Pa., please do not assume that I select it because it is without problems, the paradigm and paragon of Conservative religious schools. Rather, I will use it as an example simply because as its educational director, I am more familiar with it than with any other school. Moreover, because of able rabbinical and lay leadership the school has struck out in a number of exciting, innovational, and experimental directions. Perhaps through this sharing of ideas you will be able to envision revisions and react to the educational programs which exist in your home congregations, and profit from our experiences and experiments.

First, permit me to draw a picture of the school for you in broad strokes. The school includes eight hundred students studying in five different departments: nursery, primary, elementary, high school and college of Jewish studies. The two largest departments are the elementary with approximately 350 students and the high school with about 300 students. Our elementary department meets three days a week (two weekday afternoons and Shabbat morning) for six hours, and the high school classes are also held for six hours—four on Sunday morning and two on Tuesday evening. It is worth noting that two of the years our students are in the high school department, they come for eight instead of six hours a week. This is accomplished by the addition of a compulsory Bar/Bat Mitzvah course during the first year, whose curriculum goes far beyond just learning the trop, and a compulsory confirmation class program with the Rabbi during the last year of the formal high school. As is customary in most

124 schools, I assume, children must begin Aleph class when they are in third grade of public school and complete the Chet class after eight years of instruction corresponding to tenth grade in public school. While our areas of experimentation are many, I would like you to take an imaginary walk through the school with me and take a look at just four different items along the way. Hopefully, these items will give us a clue about what is going on within the school as a whole. So come along with me now and carefully check for: 1) an arithmetic lesson, 2) a piece of cake, 3) a mound of dirt, and 4) a one hundred dollar check. On this trip we will not pay attention to some other things we see along the way such as a language laboratory, instructional materials center or art room. We will leave them for our next visit.

The Arithmetic Lesson — Jewish educational mathematics generally states that five plus three equals eight. However, we stumbled upon the interesting fact that four plus four equals the same number. All kidding aside, I am sure you realize that most afternoon congregational schools, or at least in the Philadelphia area, have a five year-three year educational structure for elementary and high schools respectively. Indeed, from the statement reported in the most recent Pedagogic Reporter, "(the student) . . . will attend the high school for a minimum of three years," it appears that our National High School Curriculum Commission projects the same format for the future, too. We. however, sensed a number of problems with the aforementioned five-three plan. In the first place, even the best of our Hey class students just did not seem to fit into the elementary school. They were no longer children, but rather pre- adolescents. They looked at themselves differently, and deserved to be considered differently. Indeed, though discipline was not a serious problem in the school, the most difficult and exaggerated cases invariably happened in the Hey class. However, no matter how hard we tried to differentiate the program, the Hey students were still part of the elementary school and shared in elementary curricular experiences. The Hey-Vav years, also, are the "Bar Mitzvah" years for the bulk of our students; they are the years of completion of an elementary program and decision making about continuation into a high school program. At this crucial time, the Hey class student was the senior of the elementary school. He was the model for the younger children, but had no immediate and visible models of teenagers studying in a high school.

Therefore, we revised our program and created a four year elementary school—Aleph through Dalet—and a four year high school—Hey through Chet. The first result of this program was to affect the entire nature and complexion of our elementary school. It became a younger, more homogeneous and educationally manageable unit. School-wide activities and general feeling and spirit in the department improved noticeably and appreciably. Second, by moving into the high school, the Hey student was offered a program of instruction and Jewish life experience which more closely approximated his psychological development. Third, instead of being the senior of the elementary department, he had now become the freshman of the high school. It was the Chet class

125 finishing his eight year program who was now his model and example, and very visible to him. Finally, the question of continuity was greatly affected by the shift of emphasis in decision making which the new four-four plan created. Now, instead of deciding whether to enter a Hebrew High School program after completing his Bar (or Bat) Mitzvah, a student would have to confront his parents with the question of whether he could drop out of a course of study in which he had already invested a year or a year and a half. Continuity in our school has already been affected significantly.

We move on now to our second stop of the tour in a classroom in which we find a leftover piece of cake. This tasty morsel remains as a testimony to an Oneg Shabbat which was celebrated as part of a living Sabbath experience carried out through our Team Teaching Program for the Sabbath elementary school, an innovation of the past two years. Actually, both team teaching and the Sabbath School are not revolutionary ideas. The former has existed in general education for more than a dozen years, while the latter has been growing in Conservative and Reform congregational schools for the past two and one half decades. Our congregation has had a Sabbath School for at least fifteen years. It was successful in familiarizing our students with the Sabbath prayer service and with bringing the children to synagogue, but not with much more. The traditional nature of the Sabbath education was much too formal and structured, i.e. an hour of class and an hour of services. Teachers, who had to see both of their weekday classes for an hour each, were never a part of the service, and consequently, Sabbath prayers were not really integrated into the rest of the curriculum. With the institution of the team teaching program we were able to achieve many desirable accomplishments. First, we broke down the formal nature of the day and were able to infuse it with an almost informal, "extra-curricular" flavor which presented Shabbat as a day which was dramatically different from other school days. Second, by assigning three curricular areas easily developed into experimental programming—Tefillah, Oneg Shabbath and Social Studies, we further enhanced this difference. Finally, by using the medium of team teaching only on this day, we were able to introduce the flexibility of the educational structure which the methodology implies. Children have large group and small group experiences which vary from week to week. The order, length and presentation of the three curriculum areas vary according to the decision of the individual team. Oneg Shabbat is understood to mean not only the tasting of a Sabbath Kiddush by the children, but also the introduction of creative curricular units, story telling, singing, dancing, and Sabbath like entertainment, all of which is educational, experiential and makes the Sabbath a special day. All in all the program breaks through the traditional lines of a school curriculum and offers the child an exciting and continuous experience with an aspect of Jewish life which he might not experience in his home.

A mound of dirt, our third stop on the tour, is an interesting thing to look for in a religious school, but by finding it and investigating it, one can discover a clue to the experiential nature of our high school program and

126 perhaps a great deal more. Actually, the mound is not just of dirt, but was constructed as part of a project by our seventh and eighth graders of layers of home-made artifacts, crushed ersatz Temple walls and the like sprinkled over, layer by layer with earth. By the end of the project-course, the pre-teens had researched a whole series of events relating to Biblical history, had built and destroyed remnants of civilization after civilization, and constructed a home-made Tel or archeological mound. This course is but one which has been offered among about one hundred in our elective curriculum for the high school. Others, which are based on experiences, are art, music, Israeli dance, creative prayer workshop, and creating ritual objects. Of course, we offer the full range of Hebrew, Bible, history and Jewish life courses, too; but we have introduced some innovative directions in these courses that add to their interest and meaning for the child. Two examples, are 1 ) Jewish Values and the Jewish Home and 2) A Teenage Commentary on the Bible. The former is a course on Kashruth, Jewish cooking, holidays and values intrinsic to the Jewish home. Its point of real novelty is that the curriculum was written not only by our educational staff but also by a group of lay women and our Rebbitzen, who open their homes every Sunday morning for an hour and a half. Rather than being taught in school, week by week the students are exposed to the content of the course within the homes of people who serve as living models of what we are teaching. The latter course, teenage commentary, presents our students with a Biblical text which they begin to analyze together line by line. In this course each week's discussion is taped, and a different student takes the tape home, transcribes the salient points on ditto sheets and hands out these "minutes" of the last class for revision and refinement as part of the current week's work. The end result is a teenage commentary or response to a short selection of Biblical text. With the newly gained understanding of what the Rabbis were trying to do, we then proceed to study Rashi and other traditional commentators.

The one hundred dollar check is a bit easier to understand as we come upon it in the school. It is simply an incentive scholarship given to any child in our congregation who goes to Camp Ramah for the first time. This scholarship together with thorough follow through by the Rabbi at Bar/Bat Mitzvah family interviews and a program of publicity in the school works wonders in attracting more and more students to spend a summer at Ramah. In our own experience, we were able to raise our level of participation from five to fifty-five campers in just five years. Indeed, for the first time in Ramah history, we were able to send an entire class of fourteen students to camp, all of whom studied in the same class in the same division of the Poconos camp, and returned to Beth Sholom to continue this fall and winter as one class—the beginning of true year round Jewish education.

Coupled with the Ramah experience is the youth program of the congregation. It provides the framework of informal activity, the teenage Jewish society which is the experiential base for all that we do in the school. It goes more than hand in hand with the formal program, for as we conceive of the formal and informal, they are one and the same. As you have heard, experience begins in class and is carried out; experience also begins out of class and is carried in. About one half dozen Kalloth, retreats, are planned each year under the auspices of National LTF, which both the faculty and students attend. These are used to experience Jewish life as we, the students and teachers, conceive of it and to derive more meaning from and give more meaning to whatever we are learning in school. All this ferment creates a rhythm of Jewish excitement around our school which draws more and more youngsters into our fold. In his book, The Jewish School, Nathan Morris describes the school of ancient Judea as being spiritual and not necessarily pragmatic. It did, however, have a very real ground of existence and meaning which made it most legitimate even in Deweyan terms. We today must not abandon what is the nature and purpose of the Jewish school—even in its supplemental reincarnation. In this light it is appropriate to conclude with a story often repeated by Dr. Alexander Dushkin, the great Jewish educator of America and Israel. He tells of standing next to a Hassid who was singing with full fervor at the conclusion of the Torah service in the Yeshurun Synagogue of Jerusalem. When he came to the concluding line he cried our Hashiveynn Hashem elecha vena- shuva—"return us to You O Lord, and we shall return;" hadesh yamenu ke kedem—"Renew our days as of old"; and then he added—ve noch a bissel besser—"and even a little better." So it should be for the Jeiwsh School.

128 THE ALIENATED STUDENT —AND HIS INSTITUTIONS

NORMAN ADLER Associate Professor, University of Pennsylvania

In the fall of 1966, I first came across the paradox of the Jewish student that, by now, must be all too familiar to every adult in the American Jewish community. I was a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, and was holding a discussion session for a course in elementary psychology. It was after a rather detailed analysis of sensation and perception that we began talking about the role of psychology in contemporary society. One of the students in the class, a bright attractive Jewish girl from the East coast, who had always been diligent in her homework and attentive in class ( in short, a "good Jewish girl"), announced "My family is no good, my religion has nothing for me. Psychology is the only thing that can save us."

The paradox of this statement was that the speaker (whom I later found out had attended Hebrew school, been raised in a loving and relatively affluent home, and who had assimilated enough of the values of this home to gain entrance into and attend a first-rate university)—this girl had come to reject not only the institutions which had nurtured her but also the fundamental values and traditions basic to these institutions.

Probably because she was the first person to directly renounce the set of Jewish traditions which I had accepted, this girl became for me the prototype of a group that I have seen on every campus. The tragedy of this paradox is that the "alienated" Jewish student is so commonplace that he has become a cliché celebrated in the mass media.

The basic question as to the nature of the alienated Jewish student has two parts. First, why did students whose parents were loving and basically sympathetic reject the parental authority and institutions (i.e. become alienated) ; and second, were the Jewish students who displayed this syndrome any different from the students from non-Jewish backgrounds who were also "alienated"? The answers that my colleagues and I developed led us to the formation of a new institution, the Jewish Free University in Philadelphia, and an attempt to repair the rift between the student and Jewish culture.

I emphasize the fact that there are two parts to the question of the origin of student alienation because the generalized description of the non-Jewish radical somehow does not fit the cases of the Jewish students I have known.

The most complete "model" of the alienated student for me was that of Diana Oughton, whose brief life and violent death were chronicled by Thomas Powers in the book Diana. I present this story to you to show you what I think the broad outlines of student alienation are and to show how it is different from the case of the Jewish student.

129 Diana Oughton was raised in Illinois, in an affluent and enlightened family. She attended Madeira, an exclusive private school in Virginia, and then Bryn Mawr. Her altruism and education did not permit Diana to return to the quiet life of the suburban matron but sent her to the Peace Corps in Guatemala. During all of these experiences, entirely within the accepted norms of behavior for "good boys and girls," Diana grew psychologically further and further from her family. She worked in a "free school" in Michigan, joined the SDS, became a member of a deliberately sexually promiscuous commune; and finally, if the FBI reports are correct, she became one of the three or four people responsible for making the bombs intended to destroy American society but which acci- dentally destroyed their radical creators. I thought that Diana's story might be the paradigm for all student aliéna- tion, and although I now believe the Jewish student story to be somewhat different, I will outline the stages of the general model of alienation and then describe the differences in the Jewish profile. The initial, almost definitive, element of student alienation is separation. This is a psychological separation between the student and his or her parents and community. Diana's separation, like so many students', had a physical dimension. She went to private high school, college, the Peace Corps. Physical separation is, however, not sufficient in itself to create alienation. The president of Hillel on campuses has often come from another town but may be more intensely Jewish than when he or she was living at home. It almost an altruism, but if the values that the student brings to college are sophisticated and valid enough, he will not drop them (he may criticize the institutions "back home" but not the historic premises upon which they are based). It is only when there is a strong dissonance between the new learning and experience at the university and the perception of home values, that the physical separation becomes a deep-seated psychological rift. This is not to say that the university presents no difficulties even to the firmly committed. If you will permit the presentation of such a gross stereotype as the "average Jewish academician," such a person is not committed to a religious orientation. His humanism is usually secular-political, and religious discourse is more foreign to him than to most of the students in his intellectual custody. I remember one teacher at a prestigious university in the midwest who, upon finding a religious student in one of his social science classes, would delight in bellowing before the entire group, "You don't mean you really believe in anything as primitive as a God, do you?" In Diana's case, it was not her presence in Guatemala which led to the separation from her home, but her intimate experience of true poverty. She could not integrate this experience with her recollection of the family home in Illinois with windmill and ponds in the backyard of her parents' estate. If the student at college for the first time sees the real problems of society or for the first time examines the great critical ideas of Western culture without any Jewish sophistication, he is likely to reject his background as provincial and sheltered and his Judaism as Sunday school fables. Even if a student takes a

130 philosophy course in which the proofs for the existence of God are discussed, he is more likely to read Aquinas than Maimonides. If the new learning and experience cannot be integrated in a meaningful fashion with his Jewish background, the student is likely to go from the first stage of separation into the second stage of rejection. Of the 235 students enrolled last year in Philadelphia's Jewish Free University, 65 % of those responding to a questionnaire we sent said that as children, they had a mild or weak religious background. This background was not totally absent but was not strong enough either to provide a matrix within which they could easily work as modern, enlightened Jews. Because there can be no permanent psychological vacuum, the rejected institutions must be replaced. Sometimes the rejection of the childhood institutions is so complete that it is impossible to fill the void. I know one Jewish student, for example, who dutifully married a non-Jewish boy (thereby efifec- tively denying the Jewish mandate of intra-religious marriage) but who seemed not to have formulated a substitute for the Jewish family. She has consistently maintained that she wants no children and that sexual companionship is sufficient in and of itself. Most students, however, who reject parts of their background fill the gap with elaborate cultural—or rather counter-cultural elements. There are many elements of the counter-culture which have become popular within the students' lifestyles. Certainly, some of these elements are perfectly compatible with traditional Jewish values and pose no major threat to the integrity of Jewish communal life in some form. In this case, the contemporary Jewish institutions may come under attack for their pretentiousness, and the counter-culture is seen as a device for saving Judaism. In a selection by Alan Mintz, in a book called The New Jews, the program is laid out: "One does not like the Jewish community, but one feels responsible for what it becomes. Three areas of action become apparent: sensitizing the community to the social dilemmas of our time and helping to formulate a religiously-based response; criticizing and attacking the institutions and demanding they conform more closely to Jewish values; and most importantly, constituting as many uncompro- mised counter or parallel institutions as possible. We seek not defense of the community but participation in its becoming." (p. 32.)

If, however, the rejection of prior experience is complete enough, the adopted values completely replace the traditional ones. Current counter-cultural values include universalism, relevance, and mysticism. Total commitment to any one of these can lead to secularism, Communism, or involvement with Eastern religion. If the new life style leads to revolution, the student may be led to the fourth state of alienation: the attempt to destroy the parental structure entirely (as documented by Louis Feuer in his Conflict of Generations). I do not believe that the alienated Jewish student often reaches this extreme fourth stage or even totally rejects his Jewish background in less violent ways. There are two basic reasons for student separation and alienation; in both of these cases, there are circumstances which lessen the shock in the Jewish situation. The first reason the student has for leaving is the apparent hypocrisy

131 and materialism of his parents' lifestyle. This is a peculiar reason because it represents not so much a split from the middle-class parental values but a purification of a liberal political and social orientation that the students received directly from their parents. As Nathan Glazer says, "Jewish students were likely to come out of a cultural background in which Socialism in one of those variants was so common as the almost universal desire to send one's children to college." Glazer estimates that probably one-third to one-half of the identifiable radicals on campus are Jews and that there is historical precedent for this involvement. Perhaps because of this historical tradition, the student's social-political activism does not lead him to the violent reaction toward the parental generation that Feuer chronicles.

The second basis for alienation is a woeful inadequacy in the spiritual and intellectual equipment a student brings to college. As stated above, when we asked the 235 students in the Jewish Free University what kind of religious education they had as children, the majority stated that they had a mild or weak background. This lack of real Jewish knowledge and feeling, coupled with the attitudes of universalism, anti-legalism, and anti-intellectualism, adopted from the counter-culture, pose tremendous problems for the continuity of the Jewish community in this country. Despite all these factors, though, the alienated Jewish student possesses a basic identity with his tradition that may not be possessed by the non-Jewish counterpart. The results of our poll agree remark- ably well with a study of Jewish student activities and beliefs conducted by Sheryl Leonard for the American Jewish Committee in Chicago. We found that 76% of our students rarely or never attended Jewish functions on campus (the Chicago poll gave a figure of 53%). Only 19% of the students in the Chicago poll attend religious services with any regularity; and a like number (17%) stay away entirely.

Despite the non-identification and non-participation in Jewish activities, these students maintain a strong sense of identity and basic sympathy with Judaism. In the Chicago poll, when students were asked what the term "Jewish establishment" meant to them, they often applied this critical phrase to Jewish organizations, educational facilities, and synagogues; but only 5% thought that the Jewish family itself was the "establishment." When asked directly whether they had a sense of Jewish identity (as opposed to the question on direct participation), 93% said "yes," they did have a sense of Jewish identity. In our poll, 74% strongly support the State of Israel (although they have specific criticisms of it), and 69% thought it very important for his or her spouse to be Jewish.

Of course, the population sampled in both these surveys is biased in the statistical sense. In Chicago, the questionnaires were mailed to the children of parents involved in some sort of Jewish organization. In our sample, the students cared enough about Judaism to take courses in a Jewish Free University. We have not tapped the most radical fringe. The important point though is that these students who would not participate in the traditional Jewish institutions did have a strong, albeit latent, sense of Jewish identification and that some

132 of them were willing to enter a non-traditional institution like the Jewish Free University. I believe that the strong sense of traditional identification, which sepa- rates the alienated Jewish student from the non-Jewish students, is due to the two elements which have consistently protected our faith: the family and formal religious education. Despite the widespread criticism of the Hebrew school system and the condition of the Jewish home in America, these two institutions have prevented the total break-away of the Jewish adolescent into cultural forms completely alien to Judaism. It may not be enough, but it is infinitely better than nothing; and, more importantly, it offers the possibility of a re-vitalization in the coming generation.

In a very tentative way, institutions like the Jewish Free University, act as a first-stop for the student who wants to re-enter his tradition. The JFU and similar institutions are transitional because they must continually change in order to meet the demands of the re-entering Jewish student and because it is not the optimal solution to the problem. It is only with a thorough and genuine religious experience in childhood that we can produce college students secure in their Judaism and creative participants in society. It is the summer camp, the Hebrew and day school systems, the home, and the synagogue which must ultimately form Jewish consciousness.

The transitional nature of the Jewish Free University is almost its defining characteristic. It is a transition between the concerns of the intelligent college student in a non-Jewish atmosphere and the institutions of traditional Judaism. There is a precarious balance between pandering to the currently felt needs of universalism and relevance and the historical aspects of Judaism. Let me present a few of our courses and faculty to give some flavor to how we try to operate. There are courses in Talmudic and Midrashic views of man; Zionism—as the liberation movement of the Jews; the history and sociology of Jews in the United States; the Jew in American literature; Jewish music; Hasidic Judaism and Kabalah; moral and legal aspects of military service; post-Holocaust Jewish thought; a survey of Jewish philosophy. The faculty includes lawyers (James Or low and Jonathan Livney) ; authors (Chaim Potok and Maxwell Whiteman) ; social scientists (Daniel Elazar and Stanley Newman); and rabbis (represent- ins Hasidic and Reconstructionist as well as Conservative, Orthodox, and Reform points of view).

"We have recently begun a High School Division of the Jewish Free University because of the gap between Bar Mitzvah and college age. If a student does not attend a Hebrew school, the early adolescent years are almost completely vacant educationally. It is the psychologically transitional stage of adolescence that needs support and understanding.

The last reason that the Jewish Free University is transitional is that its function should be taken over by the enlightened community. There are Jewish Free Universities (or institutions like them) all over the country, the oldest probably being the one in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Since our inception three

133 years ago in Philadelphia, the format and to some extent, the content, have been developed by a variety of Jewish agencies. Hillel programs at the Uni- versity of Pennsylvania and Temple University have developed along these lines; some of the Hebrew schools in the area have presented elective programs designed for those high school students not in regular attendance; and the JYC has begun programming of this sort. All of these institutions have also co- operated with the JFU in offering their facilities.

The major support for our operation has come from the American Jewish Committee (Daniel Elazar and Stephen Goldstein being the two academicians who first helped develop the plan) and the Campus Commission of Philadel- phia's Federation of Jewish Agencies. Both of these institutions had the good sense to support the JFU without making it too institutionalized. In any experiment like this, it is crucial that the students and the faculty retain control of the educational process. Despite the problems we have faced, the JFU has developed into a fully functioning "non-institution." My main purpose in writing this analysis is to present the broad outlines of its operation in the hope that you can adapt it for your own communities.

134 THE ADULT IN EDUCATION

Louis M. LEVITSKY Rabbi, Oheb Shalom Congregation, South Orange, N.J.

There is no need these days to elaborate on the importance of adult education. To use the vernacular, it is the "in" thing. Colleges and universities, high schools, synagogues, churches, etc. all conduct adult classes. Like so many other nice things in the world today, to us Jews it is an old thing. In fact, it is older in the synagogue than the religious service. This will not be a learned dissertation on adult education weighted with scholarly apparatus, footnotes or glossaries. In the first place, I am not a scholar. I am a humble laborer in the vineyard of the Lord. Secondly, this is a practical work session for those of us who are interested in furthering the oldest form of education known to us Jews. Thirdly, the brevity of time allotted doesn't permit an extensive discourse. I want your discussion which is more important than my presentation. What I have to say is the practical result of what I have learned in more than 50 years of teaching adults, writing about adult education, and discussing it. In fact, I began this career while I was yet a student. The importance of it I learned from my father. So you are listening to the voice of experience. I shall be discussing adult education in the synagogue under the following headings:

1. Who shall teach? 2. What shall be taught? 3. Where shall we teach? 4. The mechanics of organization. 5. Extensive Education Program.

WHO SHALL TEACH? This is the most important factor in adult education. There are no dull subjects. There are only dull teachers. A good teacher can make even the telephone book interesting. Just think of the large and varied cast of characters in it! Teaching adults is a knack. It really cannot be taught. There are very few people capable of doing it. The best evidence is the huge overwhelming mortality rate of adult classes which I attribute almost entirely to inadequate teaching.

A rabbi is not always the best teacher. Nor is a rabbi always the most reliable teacher. Every rabbi is burdened with scores of small and very important things

135 that demand his immediate attention, and he finds that weddings or funerals or religious services in the house of mourning are terribly urgent. So are U.J.A., community or synagogue committee meetings. So are urgent personal coun- selling services which often must be handled immediately. All these demands deflect from time required for preparation or conflict with the fixed teaching schedule. Furthermore, a rabbi might think that because he knows the Bible or the Mishna or history or the prayerbook very well, he can teach from the top of his head. To this day, after teaching adults 50 years, it takes me from 5 to 10 hours to prepare every lesson. Often even this is inadequate.

Where do we draw teachers from? We may be fortunate in having a rabbi who can do it. Sometimes, although very rarely, one of our Hebrew teachers can do it. This is especially true in teaching Hebrew. Occasionally, we may find an adequate teacher in the academic world in our community. But teaching an adult captive group in a school is not the same as teaching an adult volunteer group. A librarian could lead a book reading circle. Should we be fortunate enough to find a person outside the synagogue, he must be very well paid. In our own synagogue we pay $100.00 for every lesson taught. We have paid as high as $250.00 for every lesson taught.

WHAT SHALL BE TAUGHT?

Only Jewish themes. All other subjects, vital as they are to the fulfillment of Judaism, such as sociology, public education, city planning, ecology, should be taught in other adult education groups such as the high school, community adult education program, the local university. The synagogue share is that of active cooperation and encouragement. In the synagogue we are to teach only Jewish subjects. Our manpower and finances are limited. The subjects should not be taught ever—not ever, in lecture form. Every- thing should be taught from text. There is an inherent value in the student holding in his hand a prayer book, or a Bible, or a book on Jewish history or Jewish philosophy, historic Jewish literature, etc. The words of a teacher do not evaporate so quickly. Hie old Talmudic adage still holds good. "Seeing is more effective than hearing." I am currently teaching a course on contemporary problems in Jewish-Christian relations from the text of the Mishna Abodah Zarah. Here are some text suggestions: a) The Bible. b) The Prayer Book. c) The Mishna. d) The Talmud—El-Am edition, one of the great contributions of the United Synagogue through the National Academy for Adult Studies to American Jewish life.

136 e) The tracts of the National Academy for Adult Jewish Studies. The student can put it in his pocket and can pick it up to read and discuss it the next week. f) The books of the Burning Bush Press which are inexpensive. g) Pamphlets of B'nai B'rith, Reconstructionist, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. (All the addresses are available in the American Jewish Year Book.) h) Two especially fine books published by Unesco which I very strongly urge every synagogue to teach. These two booklets are perfectly structured for adult studies. One is Leon Roth's Jewish Thought As a Factor in Civilization, and The Jewish People—A Biological History by Harry I. Shapiro, Museum of Natural History in New York.

WHERE SHALL WE TEACH?

The obvious answer, of course, is that we teach anywhere and everywhere. Preferably it shall be done in the synagogue. In some communities, especially smaller ones, it might be found to be more effective to teach in homes. In some synagogues they combine the Friday Night Service with some form of activity called adult education. Some rabbis now present a sermon-lesson or discuss the sermon after the service, with or without refreshments. This is not what I am talking about. I am talking about structured weekly study where both teacher and student come prepared. But Friday night can be made effective with careful preparation.

THE MECHANICS OF ORGANIZATION

a) Shall we charge? If groups meet in homes, of course there is no charge. If in the synagogue, some charge should be made for instruction other than Friday night. I believe that anything received for nothing is worth as much to the recipient. b) How is the cost to be paid? I maintain that adult education is fully as important as the religious school, and is as much a high responsibility of the congregations as is the school. Adult education budget should be no less than 5% of the total budget; and teachers, as we already said, must be adequately paid. c) How do you organize a class? It is seldom that you can organize a class by merely announcing it from the pulpit or in the synagogue bulletin, or printing elaborate high-sounding brochures or by calling the undertaking a college or an institute. All

137 classes must be assembled on a person-to-person basis. There must be a hard core, perhaps 5 to 10 people, who must be committed to a given class. They may be drawn from the board of trustees, sisterhood, young marrieds, Y.P.L., but they must be a basic group that commits itself un- reservedly to the class. They are the most effective medium that we have in advertising. They are hopefully satisfied customers. d) How long is a course to last? The course should last 6 or 7 or 8 weeks, roughly, between Simhas Torah and the middle of December; and pick up again about the middle of January for another 6 or 7 or 8 weeks. In my own case, I have been conducting a Men's Bible Study Class (reading the text word for word) for 32 years. The class begins the Sunday morning after Simhas Torah and keeps going until a week or two before Passover. We always have a formal siyum to which we invite a leading Jewish scholar, not necessarily an orator or well-known Jewish speaker, but a leading scholar to deliver an address "In Honor of Jewish Learning." e) How frequently are these classes to meet? They are to meet regularly every week or else the impact is lost. Should you find that you can't keep a group together for longer than four weeks, then the class should be held on 4 successive weeks. The span of interest is not very extensive and must not be stretched too long. f) No certificates are to be given. A Jew is to study all the days of his life, and gets no degree, no certificate, no honors, etc. g) What about bagels and lox? Well, "to them what likes it," I suppose it ought to be offered. Personally, I doubt the validity of it as a drawing card. But if you find that it will bring men who otherwise would not come, then slaughter the fat salmon and spread it thick with cream cheese; and on with the lesson.

EXTENSIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM—THE PUBLIC LECTURES

You will recall I said in the beginning that classwork is not to be lectures. Classes are intensive education. But, for many reasons, it is advisable to conduct a series of public lectures, perhaps once a month. But this too should be on subjects of vital Jewish interest. The lecturers should be Jews or non-Jews who can speak authoritatively on Jewish themes. There are quite a number of Christian scholars who can discuss a Jewish theme with large authority. We must steer clear of popular figures who may have vital subjects to present but not specifically Jewish. We must encourage the general community to bring them. In the synagogue we deal only with Jewish themes, preferably by Jewish men or women who are to be very seriously paid. This will require, of course, an entirely different form of publicity because it will have to appeal to people outside the congregation. But here again, the

138 hard core must come from the congregation itself. We must not depend on outsiders to make it a success. These lectures are definitely to have a charge. What about cooperation with other synagogues? I would recommend it only under very restricted conditions. There is an old Tâlmudic adage that food prepared in partnership is neither satisfactorily cold nor satisfactorily hot. It seems attractive to run lectures in conjunction with other synagogues. But that means working with various committees which slows up the process; and before we are through, the subject matter is watered down, the responsibility becomes diffused, and you wind up with Ralph Nader instead of Judah Goldin. I fully realize that in some small communities the burden of such a series of lectures is too great for the congregation and contiguous communities cooperate. But this should be done without diluting the content. Finally, after all I have said, none of this might apply to a single congregation represented here. Congregations have personalities, distinctive personalities. Generally, each congregation represents the extension of the personality of its rabbi, and nothing I have said so far, even though it comes from one-half century of experience, may apply to a single rabbi whose members are represented here. In which case I repeat the warning made long ago in the Bible, namely, that you must go to the prophets in your own community and in your own time. Or, if you want to go modern, cherchez le rabbin.

m Conference on Jewish Identity

NO JEWS, NO JEWISH IDENTITY

MILTON HIMMELFARB Director, Information and Research, American Jewish Committee

My subject this afternoon is "Identity." That is not a word I like. It is a clumsy word. It suggests the endless fight in Israel over "Who is a Jew?" Or it suggests Erik Erikson and the identity crisis of adoelscence. It may even suggest that racial-ethnic business that is so popular now: black is beautiful, Chicane is beautiful. Whenever a word makes you uneasy, the cause is apt to be more than merely verbal. About ten or fifteen years ago all England was talking about the Encounters popularization of a scholarly article on U and non-U־ magazine English speech (where U = upper class and non-U = non-upper). In England the upper class is the aristocracy. Winston Churchill was upper class. The most remarkable finding of this study was quite simple. It was that upper class speech, the U dialect, is direct, simple, even brutal, as opposed to the evasiveness and fuzziness of the middle-class, or non-U, dialect. What a middle-class Englishman calls spectacles an upper-class Englishman calls eye- glasses. Non-U dentures are U false teeth, non-U wealthy is U rich. When you don't hear what someone has said, if you are non-U you say, "I beg your pardon?" If you are U you say, "What?" It might be useful if we became U about "identity" and not use it. For what do we really mean by it? I suppose what we mean by Jewish identity is that we are Jews, and we want our children and grandchildren, and their children and grandchildren, to be Jews. In all examinations of this sort the best way to start is to go back to the beginning. As it happens, for the past few weeks in shul we have been reading about the beginnings of Jewish identity. From Lekh lekha to this past Sabbath's Hayye Sarah we have been told about the patriarchs. Bereshit told us how the world began, and Noah told us how the world began again. From Lekh lekha on, we have been told how the Jews began. The first words that God addresses to Abraham, something like 3,750 years ago—that is Albright's date—are lekh lekha: ". . . go from your native land, and from your family and your father's kin, to a country that I will show you, and I will make you a great nation and bless you. . . Continuing—and this is a most important part of the foundation of Jewish identity—God makes to Abraham (and later to Isaac and to Jacob) essentially a dual promise: that

140 the families of the earth will bless themselves by the descendants of the Patri- archs, that is, the Jews; and that the Patriarchs will have descendants as numerous, indeed as uncountable, as the stars of the sky, the dust of the earth, the sand on the seashore.

Jewish identity, then, is not something solitary, isolated. It is communal, collective. It has a quantitative aspect. In order for there to be a Jew there have to be lots of Jews.

What we may call the constitution of Jewish identity is to be found in the Lord's thought about Abraham as He is about to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. You remember that magnificently comic and moving bargaining scene between Abraham and the Lord, where Abraham, the first Jew, succeeds in Jewing Him down—here we can take pride in that offensive expression—from 50 to 10 as the number of righteous required to save a city. How did Abraham know God was proposing to destroy the sinful cities? Because God had said to Himself: "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, destined as he is to become a great and populous nation, through whom all the nations of the earth will bless themselves? For I have singled him out, in order that he may instruct his children and his descendants to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is just and right, in order that the Lord may accomplish for Abraham what He has promised him." And there is another key verse that I shall ask you to keep in mind, because we shall be returning to it. God promises Abraham: "I will establish My covenant between Me and you, and your descendants after you, ... to be your God and your descendants' after you." There is a story about George Bernard Shaw and Samuel Goldwyn, who were dickering about the movie rights for one of Shaw's plays. When reporters asked Shaw whether he and Goldwyn had come to an agreement, Shaw said, "No. Mr. Goldwyn thinks only about art, and I think only about money." (Macauley says that one of the more ridiculous events in history was the meeting of the poet Voltaire and the warrior king Frederick the Great, when the poet would speak only of treaties and strategy while the warrior king would speak only of rhymes and meters.) One weakness of people like us, one soft spot, is that we are like Shaw's Goldwyn. We like to think about "art," about lofty things—about identity, for instance. By contrast, the classical, commonsense, no-nonsense tradition likes to think about what Shaw called money—which is to say, about realities, as for instance human beings and how many of them are there. I suspect that when we prefer to think about identity, that is some kind of evasion. In general, the more modern or the more contemporary something is, the better the chance that it contains a lot of hot air. Characteristically, on the other hand, classical statements and classical documents have precious little hot air. They are tough, honest, clear-sighted. When I say classical, I don't mean only Jewish classical. To read about Aristotle on politics is like stepping out into the

141 open on a bright, chilly day. Accustomed as we are to hot air, the chill makes us gasp. We are not used to writings about politics that are devoid of cant, of hypocrisy, of verbal and intellectual flabbiness. Like Aristotle, the Jewish classics are shockingly direct. From that point of view, we moderns are non-U and the Greek and Jewish classics are U.

Let us recall that verse in Lekh lekha (Genesis 17:7) : "I will establish My covenant between Me and you, and your descendants after you, ... to be your God and your descendants' after you."

On this verse there is a splendid comment by the Rabbis (in Yevamot) which goes as follows: "If a man has not busied himself with the commandment to be fruitful and to multiply, he causes the Shekhinah"—the Divine Presence— "to depart from Israel, as it is said in Scripture: ... 'to be your God, and your descendants' after you.' When you have descendants after you, then the Shekhinah can rest upon you." What are the Rabbis saying? They are saying something that modern Jews, our kind of Jews, don't like to think about, for some reason. They are saying, "No Jews, no Jewish identity." They are being material—traditional Christian theology scornfully calls Judaism "carnal"—and we like to be spiritual. The chairman was kind enough to mention that I am an editor of the American Jewish Year Book. Some years ago the demographer Erich Rosenthal did two articles for us. The first was on Jewish intermarriage, and it was a huge success. We got many orders for reprints. Professor Rosenthal himself got many invitations to lecture and to appear in places like this, perhaps even before the United Synagogue.

The second piece Rosenthal did for the Year Book was on Jewish fertility, rather infertility. It was a complete bust, as far as popularity went. No one ־01 wanted to know about Jewish infertility. We got no orders for reprints, he got no invitations to speak.

Which is very funny. Isn't the reason why everyone is worried about intermarriage because intermarriage is a threat to Jewish identity? But if so, why do we want to forget the primitive basic truth that you can have Jewish identity only when enough Jews are born to have Jewish identity?

I am a product of the Thirties, and in the Thirties two of the major intellectual influences were Freud and Reinhold Niebuhr. Freud tells us to be suspicious of what someone wants to talk about all the time. Why does he not want to talk about what he does not want to talk about? Niebuhr's great contribution to us Jews was specifically Christian, because in that respect Jewish theology is a little weak. Niebuhr kept on reminding us that with human beings, the smarter they are the easier it is for them to fool themselves—a great Christian understanding. And so, armed with what my generation learned from Freud and Niebuhr, I ask myself: Why do Jews want to talk about intermarriage and not about fertility?

142 I am going to remind you of some grubby, statistical things. The first is that in all the world the only people who are substantially fewer today than thirty years ago are the Jews. In the past thirty years, while the population of the world has gone up, from 2 billion to 3/2 billion, the world Jewish population has gone down, from 17 million plus to 14 million minus. We don't like to think of it, but Hitler has won. Alone in the world, the Jews are substantially fewer today than thirty years ago. Even in the United States we have declined—though here not absolutely but only relatively. Thirty-five years ago we were more than 3.5 per cent of the population of the United States, while today we are fewer than 2.8 per cent. Our relative proportion to the population of the United States has dropped more than 20 per cent. In the United States there are three times as many Catholics as there are Jews in the whole world. In the United States there are almost twice as many Negroes as there are Jews in the whole world. In China, in one or two years, asf many people are added to the Chinese population as there are Jews in the whole world. In the United States the median age of the population is about 28— another way of saying that there are as many Americans under 28 as there are over 28. Do you know what the median age of Jews is? We are practically an old folks' home. Our median age is about 37. By contrast, the median age of blacks in America is about 21. What does this mean? More than fifty years ago a famous book, Theil- haber's Untergang Der Deutschen ]uden ("Decline and Fall of the German Jews"), announced the doom of German Jewry. It was not a political book, the name Hitler did not occur in it. It just analyzed the vital statistics—births, deaths, apostasies, and so on—and concluded that if German Jewry were not to die, if it were going to maintain itself, the average German Jewish family would have to have seven children. And this was obviously impossible. It was quite clear that German Jewry was going to die. And one can even say that Hitler was—forgive me—not necessary for seeing to the death of German Jewry. The German Jews were committing suicide. With American Jewry it is not quite so desperate, though it is pretty serious. I am going to bore you with numbers again. I mentioned that everybody wants to hear about intermarriage. Jews are supposed to be good businessmen, we are supposed to be Nobel Prize winners and good businessmen. What would we say of a businessman whose production was rotten and whose sales were terrible, and who therefore decided that the way to save his business was to watch out for wastage, spillage, and pilferage? We would say he is not a very good businessman. Of course, you try to prevent people from stealing you blind. But when your factory is not producing and your salesmen are not selling, you don't pin all your hopes on a security force. Yet that is what we American Jews

143 seem to have decided to do, basically, about our unsatisfactory population profit- and-loss position.

Wastage, spillage, and pilferage are inevitable in business; the most you can do is hold them down; you can't abolish them. Similarly, in America intermarriage is inevitable. In the American conditions of freedom and openness, there are only three things we can do to reduce the losses caused by intermarriage, or perhaps even convert them into a mild gain. We can increase the number of conversions to Judaism by way of intermarriage; we can launch a conversion program, regardless of marriage; we can have as many children as are needed to assure that even though some of them do intermarry, we will not be left with a net loss.

Let me give you some figures. In the United States we have not yet reached an intermarriage and disappearance rate of 25 per cent, but that is not an incredible percentage. Those of you who have read Artur Rupin know that there were rates of 50 and 60 per cent before World War I, in places like Budapest and Trieste. Let us assume an American Jewish slippage or attrition rate of 25 per cent. Let us also assume that every Jewish family has 2 children. (For accuracy, I really should say, let us assume that the average American Jewish woman, in the course of her life, has between 2.1 and 2.2 children.) Now assume that 25 per cent slippage rate. With 100 parents, in 4 generations (or a hundred years), we end up with fewer than 32. Let me repeat that. Start with 100 adult Jews, and in 4 generations there are only 32 Jews. That would be with a 25 per cent loss rate.

Now let us be very conservative. Let us assume a 10 per cent slippage— a very conservative assumption, in the social conditions of America. Start with 100 Jews, and in 4 generations you have dropped to 66 Jews.

Now let us revert to a 25 per cent loss rate, but make one slight change. Instead of two children per Jewish family—we won't ask for that German Jew's 7—let us assume 3. Every Jewish family has 3 children. Then, with a 25 per cent loss rate, at the end of four generations we will have increased from 100 Jews to 160 Jews!

With 160 Jews, we can talk about Jewish identity. With 32 Jews, we can forget about Jewish identity.

Why did I say that while our situation is not desperate, it is very serious? I fear that even if American Jews do begin to develop a concern for a higher birth rate—if—it may be too late. A rage for Zero Population Growth is upon us.

It may not be long before ZPG is enacted into law. That is, it may not be long before the law prohibits parents from having more than one or, at most, two children. That is now being advocated by top people—many of whom, incidentally, are Jews. So that even if we all left this room fired with zeal for piryah we-rivyah, fruitfulness and multiplication, we don't have much time. They are going to pass a law against it.

144 But the saddest thing of all may be that for Jews, they don't have to pass a law. If you go to the colleges, who are the most idealistic, world-serving young people? The Jews. Who feel most keenly the horrors of burdening the earth with offspring? Our own children, the bright, idealistic, concerned Jewish boys and girls. Who are taking the pledge against parentage? Jewish boys and girls. Among college graduates, who are at the head of the self-sterilization movement? Jews. The Chinese are having all those children, so the Jews resolve they are going to save the world by not having children. Of every 1,000 people in the world, 997 are not Jews. So the other 3, by suicide, are going to save the world from a population explosion. I have tried to talk to young Jewish people. I find it hard to get this point across, that our not having children won't save the world, but will destroy the Jews. To get the point across, I use jokes. I say it is as if, because everybody says that obesity is a serious problem in the United States, my mother, who weighs 97 pounds—at most—decided to go on a reducing diet. They don't get it. American Jews in the first place, and all of Jewry in the second place, are faced with an imminent prospect of a huge shrinkage, which may actually mean physical disappearance in only a few generations. We kid ourselves by trying to be spiritual and talking about identity, when the actual base for that identity is disappearing—when, in other words, there no longer will be Jews to have a Jewish identity. The most important thing we can do for Jewish identity is to see to it, in the first place, that there shall be Jews. Then we can worry about their Jewish identity. Time is running out. They may soon pass a law which will prohibit us from making up in the future for the losses that we have sustained in the recent past; and even if that law is not passed, precisely among Jewish young people there is a disproportionate eagerness to volunteer for childlessness, as a service to the world and to mankind—though for the world that service will hardly make a difference, while for us it will mean the abolition of the Jewish people. They say Jews are smart. Why should such smart people find it so hard to understand such a simple thing: no Jews, no Jewish identity?

145 ־־־ Synagogue Long-Range Planning The Changing Society and Its Effect on the Synagogue

COOPERATIVE ACTION

ARTHUR J. LEVINE Vice-President, United Synagogue of America Chairman, National Committee on Synagogue Administration

Since 1963 we have addressed ourselves at convention conferences to methods and techniques for effective administration of our congregations. We have recommended methods for budgeting, methods for attracting and retaining membership, and we have spelled out the various trends in our movement.

The congregational leadership to whom we spoke were and are for the most part men and women of the entreprenurial class mentioned by Rabbi Kelman; men and women who were not far removed from immigrant generations; men and women who were witness to and participants in the greatest historical changes of any previous Jewish generation—the Holocaust and the birth of the State of Israel.

And the congregations to whom we spoke were and still are embodiments of American and Canadian class values and ideals. The communities they represented were stable; essentially suburban even if located within a metropolitan area; with rising Jewish middle class populations resulting from the increasing economic improvement of the Jews in North America. And if there was a common characteristic to an uncommon people, it was the desire for Jewish education for their children

And the synagogue was and is unique unto itself. It functions as an independent entity, making its own judgments on the priorities of its expenditures; nature and scope of its programs; and its relationship to the larger Jewish community.

We have heard at this convention from Rabbi Gordis, Rabbi Waxman, Judd Teller and Rabbi Kelman as to the changing face of the Jewish community. We have heard that the synagogue we created to meet our needs will not necessarily meet the needs of rising generations; generations who do not have the nostalgic reference of Eastern Europe; who have not suffered rejection by the American culture; a generation that is in revolt against American middle class hopes and values.

146 We know from studies performed by Klausner of the University of Penn- sylvania; Goldstein of Brown University; Fein of Harvard, and Marshall Sklare, that: a) We are a declining population vis a vis the total American population —from 3.7% 20 years ago to 2.9% and declining. Indeed, we have achieved the goal of advocates of population control . . . almost a zero growth rate. b) We are an older population. At least 6 years older than the average white population and growing older. c) We are a shifting population with a distinct trend of our younger elements from the heavily populated North East and North Central regions to the South and West. d) We are an Americanized population—reflecting the transition from a foreign born or first generation society to 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation societies. There is little Jewish immigration.

WITH ALL THAT, WHERE DO WE GO?

In planning for tomorrow, it is not enough to know about today—but to apply the lessons learned from yesterday. The synagogue must be approached as a whole unit. Education, pulpit, administration cannot be separated The interaction and interrelationship of these functions have become too obvious. The effectiveness of the synagogue in defining the relationship of the Holocaust and a Divine Providence; of defining the relationship of Man and God, and of perhaps equal importance, Man and Man, will determine whether we bring the intellectual, the educated younger generation to the congregation, which in turn reflects on the quality of our future synagogue leadership, and on our future income.

There is another lesson. The synagogue can no longer stand alone, participating with others only when it is to its specific advantage to do so. It is not a fortress behind whose walls we hide from the world around us. No synagogue is unique unto itself—its actions, negative and positive, affect all other congregations. The mobility of our population renders the independent congregation as an obsolete concept. The quality of our children's education; the effectiveness of programming for the young marrieds, youth activities; all are of too great significance to be at the mercy of the whims of a synagogue board and the vagaries of a budget. Standards for these and other activities should and must be created by the United Synagogue and adherence to these standards must be enforced. What if the congregation does not have the funds? Join with others. Community schools or schools that span several communities, depending on distance, can furnish quality education at a lower per capita cost than the individual congregational school.

147 There may not be a large enough group of young marrieds in a single congregation to enable effective programming. Why can't they join in with other congregations?

Autonomy? Congregational loyalty? I submit these are anachronisms. Loyalty is to Conservative Judaism, to a synagogue that in all probability will not see the weddings of the children of the member, but after a few years will not see the member.

What about joint purchasing? Do I have to spell out the price differential that quantity buying affords whether it is text books or floor wax?

To what extent can you cut your operating budget by joining with other congregations in the use of computers for bookkeeping and billing. Indeed, couldn't a centralized office take care of the fiscal affairs of several contiguous congregations at the same time?

Membership campaigns are costly both in time and money—but vital. Why can't the campaigning be conducted by several congregations in several communities jointly?

Again, depending on distance, why shouldn't there be, for lack of better description, major and minor synagogues; the major synagogue being the larger, well-endowed institution, that could act as the service center for the smaller congregations within its scope. Maybe not applicable in all areas, but certainly in some. The services could be not only educational or programmatic—but also rabbinic.

The areas where our problems are the heaviest are areas where there is multiplicity of synagogues, where cooperative activities—even a joint pulpit— can be utilized effectively.

In essence, what I am suggesting is that we become part of a movement. That when a person is a member of one Conservative congregation, he is a member of all. When he moves from one, it is known and the community to which he moves is notified. The computer makes all this possible. If he has paid a building assessment in one congregation—he receives credit for the amount paid in the new congregation. He does not lose his affiliation by moving. He merely changes the sites of the affiliation.

To coordinate these activities, to provide the tools for planning and cooperative efforts, to act as the lawyer and accountant for mergers and consoli- dations, is part of the role of the United Synagogue, especially the regions. We have wealthy congregations—we have poor congregations. We have congregations who are increasing in size, and others that are decreasing. It is only by the interrelationship of one to the other in that totality of synagogue affairs, by the recognition that we are part of a movement, that we can begin the restructuring of our congregations; the rephasing of programmatic emphasis on the young to the middle-aged and older in many areas.

148 And let us not be overcome by statistics. If there is a 10% intermarriage rate, there is a 90% non-intermarriage rate. If 5% of the 350,000 Jewish youngsters are part of the New Left, 95% are not. There is no dearth of potential members.

And if the rising generations reject American middle class values, it is because they want to substitute Jewish values: morality, honesty, integrity, social justice. Our educative processes could not have been too bad in the past. That is where Jewish values were learned.

Our generations built the synagogues and created its operative techniques. Now let's make the necessary adjustments so that future generations can con- rinue what we have started.

149 FUTURE OF THE SYNAGOGUE

WOLFE KELMAN Executive Vice-President, The Rabbinical Assembly

I have a long range policy for myself, and that is to depart from the role of politician and assume one of statesman. A politician is one who deals with today's problems, a statesman is one who has a luxury of predicting the future and not having to live with his prediction. My tragic destiny, the past 21 years, has been that I have had to live with my predictions.

If I recommended a rabbi, that congregation reminded me very vividly if I ever made a wrong choice. So perhaps some day in the future, my past will not be recalled.

It is my assignment to talk about the long-range prospect for the synagogue. May I give another plug for a magazine with which I am identified. The current issue of Conservative Judaism contains a substantial excerpt, the one dealing with the Conservative Movement, of a long-range study I did for the American Jewish Committee.

I won't refer to the things that you can read for yourself, in the current issue of Conservative Judaism, or in the longer study which will appear in the book published by Quadrangle. Let me tell you some of the things that are not in that study; because in that study I tried to be neutral, that no one should suspect that I am identified with one group.

So, I had to eliminate my personal prejudices which are very, very numerous and this afternoon in the short time I have, I will try to share some of them with you insofar, as they affect, what I think, is the long-range prospects for the synagogue.

Let me say, first of all, that both recently this past year when I was preparing this study, and over many years, I have personally felt an ambivalent attitude towards long-range studies, predictions of the future, or getting facts about the present, whether demographic or census. On the one hand, as a working bureaucrat, I often felt the absence of hard facts. A congregation would call me up and say, "what is a decent salary to pay to a sexton of the congregation of let us say 900 families." And I would invent a figure and that would become the standard, hopefully.

But I had very few hard facts because it is amazing how few real studies there are, about what is really going on in the American Jewish community. We don't even know how many Jews there are. Eli Wiesel spoke mythically when he spoke about 6 million. For all I know there may be 12 million or 3 million, because we really do not know. That is one side of it: the absence of real information about the present.

150 On the other hand, if you study Scripture, and later sources, you notice an antipathy toward censuses. In the Torah, every time they have a census it either follows or precedes a catastrophe. It seems that somehow getting facts about Jews is associated with catastrophes. The only time we count Jews is after or before some terrible tragic event. Perhaps one should be apprehensive about the fact, that in the past year or two, there has been an explosion of studies: by the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Rabbinical Assembly, the American Jewish Committee. I have read the beginnings of a study sponsored by the Union of American Hebrew Con- gregations by Leonard Fein, and I am almost tempted to congratulate the United Synagogue on being the only large organization which has not sponsored such a study. I wonder how many synagogues could have been built 30 years ago if a demographic study was taken first. So you have this ambivalence. In the Jewish tradition thare is a negative attitude toward prophets of doom. Jeremiah is the only prophet after whom there is no street named in Jerusalem. But there have been throughout history, and most recently, people who wanted to predict the future. I recall reading one made by a learned Professor in 1954, when the American Jewish community was celebrating the tercenten- ary of the founding of the American Jewish Community. He was asked to predict what would be the Jewish reality in 1970. And he said in 1954, that by 1970, kashrut would be unknown, orthodoxy would disappear, etc. I can give other such predictions. On the other hand, I will tell you another one, one that I find, perhaps, much more wise than the one made by that learned professor. In 1968 in June, I had the privilege of spending a good part of almost 2 weeks with Rabbi Levin, the Rabbi of Moscow, that tragic figure, who was here on his very ambiguous mission. One day, I kidnapped him to my home for a few hours. My youngest daughter had just come home from her day school, 6th grade, with her school books and I invited her to join us. I showed her books to Rabbi Levin, and he talked to her in Hebrew. When she left, he said, "some day we will have this in the Soviet Union." And I said, "you really mean that, how can you say that?" He said, "I will tell you, I am here almost two weeks now, and I know what people said about America, 60 years ago when I was still a student. There were no Jewish day schools, there was no Jewish education. There were no Jewish teachers. It was a wasteland. And look at America today, thousands of children in day schools, a flourishing community, some day we will have this in the Soviet Union. But yet, I said to him, how can you compare? After all 60 years ago in America, no one was putting restrictions on Jewish education; on the publication of textbooks; etc. Where are you going to get the textbooks? Where are you going to get the teachers? He said, "When the time will come, we will have it." I thought he was insane, or just uttering pious platitudes. Who would have believed that less

151 than three years later we would see thousands of young Russian Jews who have studied Hebrew, who somehow have developed this unbelievable heroism, and commitment, this intense Jewishness. So perhaps the prophecies of Rabbi Levin have much more substance which leads me to my first prejudice. My first prejudice is one of unadulterated optimism. In my personal life, in my professional life, some of my friends know I am a very daring diver, and a poor swimmer. I plunge. That is my bias. You must take the rest that I am going to say in the context of that bias. I am bold enough to say and I will reiterate, that never before in American Jewish history by any index you want to measure, have more Jews from nurseries to golden age clubs received a better Jewish education, in better schools, from better teachers, have had a stronger sense of Jewish self-identity, a greater commitment to Jewish survival, than the current generation. All of us, and our children. Take any index you want, and measure it against any period in the past, of American Jewish history. The number of Jews who know Hebrew; the number of Jews attending synagogues; the number of Jews—you name the index— and we will be glad to take a measurement. Number two, the generation gap is a great myth. I don't know how many of you here are over 35. Those of you who are, ask yourself, how many of you have a greater gap with your children than with your parents. I am not talking of how nice you are to your parents, how you supported them when they were poor or how you visited them in the hospital when they were sick or that you call them every night because you have a guilt feeling about them. I am talking about a communality of concerns, the way of looking at the world, your commitments, your Jewish loyalty. Yet, you will ask me, why does one hear from most other people, that never before has it been worse in Jewish life. Never before has there been a greater gap between the generations. You name it and it has never been worse; and it is going to get worse. This reminds me of the Jew of Lemberg, which is the capital of our "homeland." (Judd and I are both from that part of the world.) When he was asked, "how are you," he said, "better than tomorrow." It is a kind of Jewish reflex. It is going to get worse. And maybe because we had that reflex it never really got disastrously and irrevocably bad. I am also reminded of another colleague of Judd's, a very famous Yiddish poet. Judd began his career as a poet in the Yiddish language, and he still speaks in the tree language of the poet, with imagination and with insight. A play based on Manger's poems was produced on Broadway. I don't know how many of you saw it. You may remember, in the second act, the hero comes out front and sings what is the basic aria for that operetta. And what is it? It is one word, sung; over and over again, in different keys; gevalt; and he sings it over and over and over again. Well, for 50 years we have been living with this gevalt syndrome. And for very, very good reasons. We have had ample reason to be involved in this

152 crisis mentality. After all, we have had plenty of catastrophies in these past few decades. With World War I, mass migrations ending in the unspeakable Holocaust, there has been ample reason for this crisis mentality. But the trouble is that we become so used only to responding when we are told there is a crises, gevalt, that we have overlooked that which has been happening while this shriek of gevalt was going on. I would like to suggest that we are now living in the waning period of a syndrome based on ideology which began in the late 90s and the early part of the century. The structures we have, the ideologies we have, the crises we are responding to, were all established, the ground was laid for them, and the leadership emerged, within the past 60 to 70 years. The American Jewish Com- mittee emerged as a response to a crisis of Russian Jews. The United Synagogue emerged in 1913. The Reform Movement, what we know as modern Orthodoxy, the secularist movement, the Zionist Movement, all came out of that same bedrock of Jewish life, as it was 60 or 70 years ago. These institutions and leaders and their appointed successors, tended to respond with the same reflexes that were very valid 60 years ago, 50 years ago, to the crises of Jewish life, the deseperate fight for survival. We have been in a new ball game, for almost a generation, since 1948, or 1954, whatever date you want to pick. But history and institutions and prophecies don't respond to pushbuttons. You can't push a button, and get an institution, an ideology, and turn it around in a year or week. It takes generations. We are now, I think, beginning to see a new leadership emerging, of a new kind of prospectus, such as Judd indicated, such as you heard last night from Gershon Cohen and Eli Wiesel which I think is beginning to respond to the realities which have been here, for almost a generation. Let me say a word or two about what I think is going to be the impact of this momentum which has been building up, and whose first fruits, I think, we will begin to see in the decades to come. First of all, we are going to have, as far as the synagogue is concerned, an equilibrium. There are very few new synagogues being established. A few are still relocating, here and there, but the idea of starting a new synagogue, in a new area, is practically ended. I remember when I first began my present work, in 1951, was the period of the largest explosion; there was not a summer when there were not 20 or 30 new congregations, entirely new, being organized. People, for the most part, who had never been in a synagogue moved to the suburbs. There was a process of Orthodox congregations converting to Con- servative, as they abandoned the inner cities. That is virtually finished. There is, on the contrary, an opposite process, of mergers. Mergers in the larger metropolitan area between existing synagogues. A synagogue in a peripheral area will merge with a synagogue in the suburbs that has a large mortgage. For example, last year in Philadelphia 8 Conservative synagogues merged and became four, and it happened in Chicago. You are

153 beginning to see this process in the smaller towns, like Duluth. This reflects, in part, the fact that we have pretty well met the need; there is no need in new areas for new synagogues. We may even have over-built. The building process is over. It also reflects a different kind of leadership. Who were the leaders of the synagogues 20 or 30 years ago? They tended to be entrepreneurs with strong roots in the local community. It was a man who had built up a chain of stores, it was a man who did very well in apartment houses, a real estate development. A man, who in one way or another, with his entrepreneurial skills, it could have been an entrepreneurial doctor or lawyer, it does not matter, it was an entrepreneurial mentality, who built up his business, built his profession, had deep roots in the community, and approached his synagogue with the same entrepreneurial personality. Let us build! He built 100 houses on speculation. Let us build a shul on speculation. We will fill them somehow. And they were, somehow! And let us get a rabbi, somehow! And let us get this rabbi, and he will fill the place, somehow! An entrepreneurial attitude, and by the way, I am not, for a moment, underesti- mating the profound gratitude that we should have to these people. And had we depended upon surveys in 1950, the Jewish community would be very poor institutionally and in leadership.

And the rabbi was expected to be an entrepreneurial type. A rabbi had to figure out a way in the suburb with 1,000 families, of different backgrounds, contradictory interests, the whole gamut of apathy and intensity of concern, to have one service on Friday night, that would attract 1,000 people. I have found, increasingly, a professionalization of the leadership of the synagogue. More and more the president or leaders who come to see me, are professionals, professors at universities, doctors, executives of corporations established by other people and they have a professional approach. They are prudent about risks. Corporations can't take too many risks. It has to get all kinds of market surveys, before launching a new product. The rabbi, and the educator, the whole synagogue staff, tend to be viewed differently by these professionalized leaders. The rabbis also begin to look upon themselves more and more, not as entrepreneurs, but as part of a professional group, which is why you had the debate yesterday afternoon, which involved some of these professional tensions. Rabbis and educators are demanding more and more a professionalized approach to their work, and laymen respond depending, I guess, on their history and on their temperament. I think this has many implications. We also have a more mobile community. This entrepreneur expected to live and have his children strike roots and his grandchildren strike roots, in the community; he wanted to build a cathedral that his grandchildren would be proud of. But when you have a mobile community of professionalized people, who this year work for General Electric, and next year in Tucson, you get a different attitude, both for good and for bad than you had from the entrepreneurial type with deep roots, wisely or unwisely, in the community.

154 Another word or two about what I think is going to be the future in the synagogue. I think you are going to see in addition to all the factors that Judd has referred to, the diminishing role of Israel, and therefore, greater demand for local participation, the lessening of loyalty to national organizations, whether it is United Synagogue or Rabbinical Assembly or American Jewish Committee, a greater regional loyalty. It was easy to be a national organization when you had 100 synagogues, it is difficult when you have 1,000. The same is also true of any group as we have grown. There will be a greater decentralization and those who don't learn to cope with that, will become fossils and obsolete.

I think there is also going to be a greater involvement by local federations in synagogue affairs. What do I mean by that? It is becoming for a variety of reasons, increasingly burdensome, for a synagogue, to carry the full budget for a Hebrew school and a youth program, especially when it has to compete with a local center, which gets full funding from a local federation for all its youth and adult activities.

Besides, the greater involvement of the government in health and welfare activities will compel a reordering of Jewish local philanthropic priorities. Federations are going to find themselves more and more obsolete in the area of health and welfare services, for which they were originally established and will emphasize the area of Jewish security overseas, and turn more and more towards funding Jewish educational activities on the local level, the day schools, the synagogue schools, the synagogue youth program, the synagogue camping movement.

One of the reasons that it has not happened already is the problem of logistics. The federation has not yet worked out the logistics of funding Jewish education. A sick Jew is a sick Jew is a sick Jew. And you take care of him. And a poor Jew is a poor Jew, and you don't ask him for his ideology, and we Jews have had this marvelous capacity for helping a poor Jew, a sick Jew, a persecuted Jew. We even help a man who spent 20 years defaming Israel, and had to leave Poland. We helped him. We don't ask questions. When it comes to matters involving ideology, education, Jews get up tight. How can we figure out a way of giving money to Lubavitch and Solomon Schechter schools. Once this problem of logistics is worked out, you are going to find federations getting much, much more involved than they are now, with all that that implies.

Federations are not going to give you money, if it is going to be wasted on duplication, on small classes, on teachers without standards, etc. So you are going to find a far greater demand on the part of parents, these parents I am talking about, for higher standards of education and youth work, a greater demand to find the funds for it, and those who provide the funds are not going to be like the entrepreneur who will give 25,000 dollars to "take care of the youth," and not ask too much, how the youth are being taken care of! It is going to be different when it is handled on a more professionalized basis.

155 I think demographically we are also going to get away from what obsessed many of us in the last few years, the youth adult. I found it a little disconcerting the last few years, to hear so much about the rebel youth, the handful of youth that made a profession of going to convention after convention to demand that the establishment they are attacking should subsidize them, and I often wondered, why there was not more attention being paid to the 20,000 kids in USY, than the 200 kids who make up these peripheral groups. Since we are talking about predictions, I think there is going to be far less emphasis in the decade to come on the identifications that we have had until now, Orthodox and Reform, secular and Yiddishist. These labels, which had great meaning at one time, are going to mean less and less. I think we are going to find a different kind of self-definition. We are also going to find, as a result, an even greater militant separatism on the part of the Orthodox. In 1954 they made a decision. It could have gone the other way. They made a decision to go off into this miltiant separatism, and I think it is going to get stronger. Although you know, the one thing you must never say, is "never." So to say there will always be militant separatism, no! As far as I can tell, in the foreseeable future, there will be though, a much more militant separatism on the part of the Orthodox, and those groups that were set up to somehow transcend these differences whether it is federations or other groups, are going to have a lot of trouble unless we come to the realization that we love them, they love us, but they accept one philosophy, we accept another. It is not that we are more compassionate than they are. I don't think that Rabbi Unterman is a less compassionate Jew than me. I have one view of the halacha. He has another. It is not a matter of compassion, or who is more liberal, who is more enlightened. But basically, I am very bullish on the Jewish future. The index that I have mentioned, any way you look at it, year by year, the number of day schools, number of people involved in Judaic studies on campuses, the growth of ethnic self-consciousness, all these factors, make me feel that the index for the future is upward. Does that mean that the Messiah is coming today, no! Tomorrow, maybe. But certainly the day after tomorrow.

156 THE CONGREGATION PROGRAM

RAPHAEL ELLENBOGEN Executive Director, Temple Beth El, Cedarhurst, N.Y.

For several decades, synagogue life in America has remained a stagnant accepted inevitability, in the pattern of Jewish tradition and heritage. Apparently, there was a resolute determination to accept the status quo of the life cycle of the Jew in synagogue programming, accepting the perpetuation of standards of our founding fathers as visited generation upon generation.

However, times have changed, life styles and structure have changed. The world has shrunk in size, while interworld communication has increased manifold. There is a new impetus and an acute awareness derived from technological developments. There are new thoughts and new directions based on a rapidly changing society. There is, most significantly of all, the emergence of a new- born generation, not content to just follow, but rather, surging ahead to be heard-to lead-to change, and, change is inevitable in our society. There is a new tone, a new image, new projections and a dramatic sociopolitical awareness, acute in its probing and provocative in its demands.

Several surveys and studies conducted by the United Synagogue of America and member congregations highlight these changes. There are a myriad of facets, leading to concern, serious thought, and immediate need for a renaissance of programming in synagogue life. A significant key lies in the restructure of the congregational program, geared to meet the needs of the changing society. A good place to start is the beginning—the planning stage. Every congregational committee should envision three co-chairmen, based on three age levels—ergo three life styles and experiences. Under age twenty-one, under thirty-five and over thirty-five. They will, with the guidance of the synagogue professional, plan, direct, evaluate, program and participate in the area and scope of the committee's work within the perimeter of their department. Boards of congregations must give top priority to the formation and nurturing of department and program committees. Too often this governing body gets too deeply involved and overreacts to finances and statistics, to the exclusion and at times, to benevolent tolerance of programming. We hear the inevitable retort, that without finances, programming and departments could not exist or survive. Shouldn't we recognize, that a satisfying program leading to involvement and participation, will bring an interested and committed membership, which, in turn, will lead to financial security. Relating to the educational school program of the synagogue, there are several changes that have taken place in the current child bearing population. Most young parents, almost without exception, received the benefit of an ex-

157 cellent secular education, and the vast majority are university graduates. They realize the deficiencies in their Jewish education, resulting from the built-in limitations of a 6 hour-a-week afternoon Hebrew School. This, coupled with problems in the public schools, has led to increased enrollment in day schools. The enrollment results not necessarily for the religious teachings, but more for the high educational standards and cultural exposure.

Also affecting congregational schools are the increased demographic changes, the rising cost of living, with religious school expense as a last item on the family budget and Bar-Bat Mitzvah as the ultimate culmination of the congregational school program.

Year to year changes in present curriculum are not answers. The religious school curriculum must be re-evaluated and redone completely—from scratch if you will—utilizing new concepts and techniques eliciting guidance from educators in all walks of academic life. This new, uniform curriculum would be available country wide, with all United Synagogue schools adopting same and following step by step its progressions. A "gimel" class in New York should have the same standards and progress levels as the "gimel" class in California.

The "Hebrew teaching profession" must take on greater self-disciplinary responsibilities and promulgate action to invite greater recognition and acceptance of the profession, with constant upgrading of standards and methodology. This should result in inviting or even enticing young American Jews into their ranks, rather than to remain content with the importation of men and women with language skills, but lacking in pedagogic experience and background and coming from an environmental experience foreign to our youngsters.

Part of any school should be the requirement of participation by parents in a bi-weekly, or at least, a monthly seminar, devoted solely to their child's curriculum, and an understanding of the schools' philosophy—resulting in an awareness of the value of the school and the values the school promotes.

The tuition structure of the school should be studied; a) allowing for greater participation by all segments of the community— and becoming an integral part of the planning and programming of the congregation. b) This may lead to suggestions, such as programming the 5 year school fees into 4 years of payment—similar to the coupon system utilized by banks for "Chanukah Clubs," resulting in the 5th year, or Bar-Bat Mitzvah year, to be tuition free. This "program" visualizes continuity, lack of financial pressure in the costly Bar-Bat Mitzvah year, greater acceptance in financial circumstances, towards continuation in upper schools and probably—most significant—as a deterrent against "drop outs" coinciding with the day of Bar-Bat Mitzvah. An integral part of the Hebrew School system is continuity and nursery programs can provide the acceptance, the desire, the interest and the background important to the decision of continued enrollment in school. This initial ex-

158 posure to Jewish life can be the most innovative, the most exciting, and the most productive. Thus, the congregational school program provides from cradle onwards. Onwards to Adult Education. This should be accepted in its broadest con- notation and should cover the major portion of the congregational program. Often, the accepted standard for this program, is the Rabbis' lecture series, his sermons and talks, guest speakers and lectures on Jewish topics and by Jewish personalities and writers. Added to this are courses in Hebrew from elementary to conversational to Ulpan or Bible or other typical Jewish subject matter. Why not enlarge the scope and attract more attention by adding subject matter such as: The child's curriculum, a study of "back to basics"—the whys and where- fores of religion, comparative religions, how the Synagogue operates, the communal life in your community, drugs and addiction, the adolescent, parent-child "rap" sessions, the professional in Jewish life, social action, sex and life, coping with living, committees and responsibilities etc., reflecting the current interests, fears and realities of today's society. And, why not include teen-agers in this "adult education" series—and why not as a family unit. The point to consider and a first objective to seek, is to educate our congregants—young and old—to the problems facing both the Jewish and the general society; and to the importance of developing a point of view and expressing it.

In the Sabbath life of almost every synagogue, a given "Shabbat" with the lack of a Bar Mitzvah causes one to reflect on the dismal and bleak comparative emptiness of the pews. Much thought, time and effort are spent to entice attendance and convert members from the "High Holy Day—Bar Mitzvah —Yiskor attendees," to practicing worshippers.

In most cases, it stems from the lack of interest on the part of the young and the indifference of the old. It is becoming increasingly apparent that in the life style of young people today, the need for regular, defined and regi- mented prayer was felt to be practically non-existent. Conversely, our Jewish young, in common with young people everywhere, are engaged in a search for identity. It is comforting, at least, to know that most wish to be identified as Jews.

Answers must be provided to this search for identity and a stimulating "Ritual-Worship program" can be effective.

Prayers should be updated in terms of today's society, youth and children must not only participate in the ritual, but have a role in the formation of the service. Synagogue attendance must be a family affair once again, and junior congregations should precede or follow the "adult" service—not coincide. High holiday seating should include the family as a unit. Girls and women should have a greater and often equal role in ritual. The time is near, when more and

159 more women presidents and officers will grace the pulpits of congregations world wide. The late Friday night Oneg Shabbat should be carefully programmed with attention to content and detail, by a specially designated committee for this purpose.

The pride of belonging and heritage can be sharpened by appreciation of ritual art, through arts and crafts lectures, courses and a Judaica museum. These tied in with ritual usage by the participants take on added meaning. A congregational choir or chorus of all ages, may not be as tone perfect as the professional body, but will provide active participation in services by a following of parents and friends. If necessary, a few augmented professional voices may preserve the cohesiveness of harmony. Peripheral benefits are many, including an interest in Jewish and liturgical music and the cantorial profession.

There is much tearing at the minds, souls and daily habits of today's youth. An unbelievably accelerated pace in society, technological, sociological, economic, race relations, war, peace, don't forget, sex mores, drug and narcotics uncertainties, relations and relationships and God ... or no God. They seek, they search—for peace, for answers, for identity and for the release from frustrations. Their minds are sharpened and not only do they think for themselves but dare to express it and do it.

Youth is no longer content to watch the passing parade. They seek to be part of it. Adults resent and attempt to restrict and prohibit this new expression, while yielding to a contradictory permissiveness. This gap must be narrowed and the synagogue can play an important role. The synagogue must be the focal point, the gathering place, the source of inspiration, guidance and comfort, and a place for dialogue and confrontation. The establishment of "lounge areas," (one I know has appropriately been named "Hamakon" . . . "The Place"), where young people can meet freely, talk and discuss problems, under an atmosphere of "controlled guidance." Programming should include secular life, community world-wide life, social action etc. Thoughtful expression in this controlled environment will lead to understanding and identification. Involvement and participation in "adult" programming, not as passive invitees, but rather in planning will tend to narrow the "communication gap." Lowering the membership age of congregations to eighteen will provide the status and stature necessary to growth in the congregational frame of organization and development. We must recognize that there is a "generation gap," which is common to all society. This is the "don't trust anyone over thirty" syndrome, which can be easily translated into the feeling that the synagogue is run by the older generation and that youth's voices will not be heard. Also that there is no chance

160 for them to participate in decision-making which will refashion the synagogue and they must, therefore, look elsewhere to achieve their desires and goals.

Continuity in youth programming is vital in view of rapidly changing daily events. Therefore, summer and winter vacation activities, in keeping with the economic and social climate of the community is a necessary adjunct to the total program.

Youth activities, vis-a-vis the educational program, should be considered an associate program, not a competitive area. Mutual development and cooperation on planning are imperative to a cohesive unit.

Affiliate arms of the synagogue often strive to maintain a separate identity, at the expense of the parent organization. A redefinition of roles and goals is indicated where this dichotomy exists.

Shouldn't we visualize Sisterhood and Men's Club as the "congregation's" committee at large—for programming and public relations? Shouldn't it be the role and scope of these "affiliates" to be representative of the synagogue, its administration, its professionals and its leadership. Too often, such groups operate as independent societies, utilizing the synagogue's facilities and resources and fail to "see the forest, because of the trees."

An integral part of program for affiliates, and we should include the P.T.A., Minyan Society, Couples Club etc. is internal education. Seminars and discussion groups covering the synagogue administration, committees, leadership structure etc., will pave the way for the development and awareness of "latent" leadership possibilities, and educate the community to synagogue programs, procedures and problems.

The return to the synagogue . . . worship and prayer . . . and the family as "the" Jewish unit must be paramount responsibilities and even directives for these arms. They must provide the motivation and impetus, by demonstration. Congregation meetings should be called frequently with "all" affiliates and the youth planning, programming and participating as a unilateral body, to avoid divisiveness and acrimony. The question of "involving" the synagogue in social action may present many pitfalls and raise questions of propriety, place, function and rights. The danger of projects which can result in ineffectual "do-goodism" and invoke "splits" and angry dissension is a real one. However, we can no longer stand aloof from the society in which we live and bury our heads in the sands of time.

Careful, thoughtful planning and consultation in all the areas of concern, by the total congregational representation, can be productive. Selective programming after careful screening is a priority. Action on problems affecting the local and world-wide Jewish community should receive special attention, and immediate response. General community social action should also be engaged in, but only after this careful screening process.

161 There should be no ambivalence of action when it comes to Israel. Without the synagogue, Israel could not exist or flourish and without Israel, we cease as a nation. Today, the effect of Israel has increased our pride in our heritage and gives a reason and purpose for maintaining à separate meaningful identity. This provides, in particular, a sharp and profound association and tie for the youth. It must be nourished and cultivated. Trips, visits, pilgrimages, and detailed "Israel based" programs, dealing with historical, Biblical, cultural and economic phases of Israel as a national homeland, must be envisioned as an emphasis of primary policy. It is important to note that the number of regular daily and weekly worshippers diminishes and declines, even though our society is increasingly developing the "five day" work week. Other activities start to replace "leisure time." The synagogue does not attract. We can no longer count on childhood memories of a European background to preserve Jewish group feeling. Today, the overwhelming majority of American Jews are native born. There are no recollections, real or fancied, to sustain them. Many are fourth generation Jews and many are caught in the trap of assimilation. The present group of college students will graduate, marry and when children are raised, will seek to join a synagogue. They will be extremely sensitive to intellectual shallowness and moral cowardice. They will be attracted to the synagogue which can provide answers to their quest for a meaningful life developed on spiritual foundations and values. Again, a frank discussion of ritual practices, formation of an educational procedure and the development of a ritual in keeping with modern trends and usages, palatable to all segments of the community, but careful to follow our basic doctrines, can produce greater awareness and deeper commitment. There can be a great promise and expectation of deeper identification with the synagogue ahead of us in the 70's. The renaissance of enlightened programming, meeting the rapid changes in our society, coupled with the recognition of problems, an alertness to needs, and a desire to re-evaluate and be innovative in our thinking leads to positive optimism. The new congregational program is the means. The horizons have opened; now the minds and hearts of the synagogue must be open. The tree of life is for those who take hold.

162 Laboratory For Leaders

THE FUTURE OF THE SMALL CONGREGATION

S1MCHA KLING Rabbi, Congregation Adath Jeshurun, Louisville, Ky.

Just ten years ago, at the 1961 United Synagogue Convention, a new feature was introduced: a "Laboratory for Leaders" for those who belong to congregations with a membership of 250 or less. This was a very wise innovation, for synagogues of this size do have their own problems and needs that are quite different from those of larger congregations in larger communities. At that time, I was invited to speak and felt very honored; today, I am doubly honored to be asked to do so again.

My own situation, though, is different from what it was then. At that time, I was the rabbi of the size congregation to be discussed; today, I am not—I serve in what would be called a middle-sized congregation. However, I was in Greensboro, N.C. for nearly a decade-and-a-half. I was there all that time not as a reluctant prisoner but as a happy spiritual leader who felt that I would accomplish more there than in a large pulpit. I have not changed my views even though I have moved to a larger community and I continue to regard congregations of 250 members or less as a field for great accomplishment and achievement

Being now able to regard my life and work in such a community with perspective, I am ever the more convinced that size has nothing to do with quality. There are problems and difficulties everywhere; there are potential and promise everywhere. Whether or not a rabbi can or cannot succeed depends on how good the shiddukh is between the congregation and its spiritual leader. Whether or not a synagogue can fulfill its role as a house of study, prayer and meeting depends on the commitment of a handful of lay leaders who are determined that God, Torah and Israel are sacred, that the cause must be served. If this is so, why did I make the move? I might add, parenthetically, that I had feared having regrets but find that I have none because I was fortunate to find wonderful, warm, receptive people. However, if my experience of the past almost six-and-a-half years in Louisville has been most gratifying, I have still not altered my views regarding smaller congregations.

I made the move from the one to the other for two reasons: one was because of our three daughters. One cannot gloss over the fact that it is more difficult to raise observant children in a smaller community. As they enter their teens, they ought to have a larger circle in which to mix and the possibility of finding at least a few others who keep Shabbat and kashrut and who pursue Jewish studies intensively. That in itself, however, was not the prime motivation because I have always believed that the home should be able to strengthen convictions even when the environment is not hospitable. Still, it was a factor. The

163 other was the pressure of colleagues who frequently suggested and urged that the time had come to experience a different kind of situation and to attempt to reach more people. Thus, when the opportunity arose, I could not ignore it— but the decision was reached only after much deliberation and considerable reluctance. I am telling you this short autobiographical account in order to establish my credentials. I am not coming to you as an outsider to advise you to be content with your lot. I come as someone who believes, as the basis of much experience, that smaller congregations can accomplish much, perhaps even more than larger ones. I certainly do not envy the tremendous memberships of big synagogues. To the contrary, I disapprove of them and, if I had my way, I would split them into two or three. I do not feel that their larger income in any way compensates for the coldness and lack of intimate relationships that are an inevitable component of bigness. Even in my present post—and I am as I mentioned, in what would be classified as a middle-size congregation—I am distrubed by the fact that I do not know and cannot possibly know all my members. How, then, can I have any influence upon them? What I miss is the warmth and intimacy that existed when I knew everyone, shared his joys and sorrows in a personal way, and was part of his and his family's life. Moreover, with size, many do not feel that they have any obligation or involvement in the synagogue. The affairs and business are conducted by a small group in behalf of those who hopefully will respond. In a smaller congregation, on the other hand, nearly everyone is somehow involved—even if he does not care to be. Whether it be for social reasons —just to be with other Jews, whether it be for the sake of children, whether it be because of embarrassment when confronted by non-Jews, or whether it be for love of God and the Jewish people, members turn to the synagogue, come to the synagogue, volunteer or are drafted to do things for the synagogue. I have found that the smaller membership offers greater opportunities to reach those on the periphery, those ordinarily indifferent to Jewish values and observances. In the large, metropolitan areas, such people do not even affiliate— or, if they do, they pay their dues and put in an appearance on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. In the smaller community, however, they need other Jews and are somehow drawn into the life of the synagogue. Let their motivation be purely social, once a part of things they are drawn into other aspects of congregational life. I have seen people who moved from New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore to towns with only one or perhaps two congregations. Before their move, either they did not belong to any shul or else held a token membership. After their move, because they did want to be with fellow Jews and raise their children as Jews, they became involved. Some of them eventually became members of boards or even presidents! A few became Sunday School teachers. Nearly all became part of congregational life and lived far more Jewishly than they would have had they not moved. When I was in North Carolina, I would often meet even those who did not attend services very often. I was in their homes and saw them at various

164 functions. I had the opportunity to talk to them and to discuss many issues, personal and non-personal, Jewish and general. And, in the course of establishing such relationships, I was able to exert some influence upon them Jewishly. If nothing else, they came to know their rabbi and became aware of things which Jews do and do not do. But it was more than that. Once aware of the richness of Judaism, some became curious and came to classes. And the adult education program literally changed the lives of many. The need to remain part of a group developed into an intellectual and spiritual need. What I have said in regard to adults applies with even greater force to children. The rabbi of the smaller congregation becomes a part of their lives in a way that would not otherwise be possible. He teaches them himself, not just in confirmation class but throughout their growing years. He sees them often and in varied situations, listens to them and talks to them, guides them and becomes their personal spiritual mentor. I do not want to paint an unrealistic, overidealized picture. There are certainly serious difficulties when manpower and finances are limited. Indeed, I would say that the most formidable problem is not money but leadership, lay and rabbinic. Of course, it is necessary to pay a sufficiently attractive salary to interest one who has spent years training to be a rabbi. Dedicating one's life to one's God and people does not mean taking an oath of poverty! Yet, as real as the need to meet budgets is, I do not regard it as an insurmountable problem. It is much more difficult to find the proper person than to come up with the necessary funds. Somehow, in some way, congregations manage to raise the required sums. Yet, there are some that are so small that they simply cannot. If there are only 50 or 75 families in a town, they may have to maintain a synagogue without a rabbi. Even were money not a problem, the dearth of trained men is. In such cases, alternatives must be found and I would like to suggest a few. First, in our days of rapid communication, no one place is really very distant from another. Therefore, congregations should maintain contacts with others and those that are small should arrange joint affairs with others nearby. Above all, they should have, not too far off, a rabbi to whom they could turn. I used to visit three small synagogues within a radius of 100 miles a few times a year. I was able not only to lecture but to give advice about what books to purchase and tell the volunteer Sunday School teachers pointers about teaching. Whenever something came up that required rabbinical knowledge, they would phone me or come to see me. Second, the local people must do whatever they can on their own. After all, the Jewish religion is not ecclesiastical; it does not depend on ordained clergy. All of us are equal before God and each of us bears the responsibility of living as the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Some Christian groups cannot function without a priest. We, on the other hand, can carry out the precepts of our religion without smikha. Shabbat services require a minyan, not a rabbi! I have yet to find a group of Jews without someone who can conduct a service. There are always a few who will dare to give a sermon

165 (canned or orginal!). There are always people who can be persuaded to take over Sunday classes. The fact that they say they know nothing is not a good reason to forget about them. Help is available—nationally and regionally. What is needed is a concern for young people and a personality that is not austere and forbidding. In those places where there is a rabbi, much of the burden falls on him. But not entirely. He needs help, particularly strong moral support. A certain amount of criticism is inevitable; indeed, it would be sad otherwise. Anyone who stands for something, who has beliefs and principles and standards, will inevitably be criticized by those who disagree or do not get their own way. I think that a spiritual leader is more acutely aware of this in a smaller congregation than in a larger. In the larger, he is more shielded; not being as close to so many people, he cannot be as familiar with their thoughts and comments. But this has its negative side also. It means that he cannot exert the same influence on people. The rabbi of the smaller congregation comes into frequent contact with his people on an other-than-formal basis. His very way of life, his example as one who lives Jewishly, has an impact. And if he personally engages in teaching, on all levels—adults as well as children, or I would even go so far as to say particularly adults—he can reach people whom he cannot reach in sermons or in conducting services. However, because such close relationships have their dangerous as well as their beneficial impacts, it is important for the congregational leadership to help the spiritual leader. I am not talking so much of financial rewards or even of physical undertakings but of minimizing criticism and fostering unity. Sometimes, even in smaller congregations, the work-load is too great for any one person and the staff must be increased by at least one other professional. He may be a hazzan who teaches or an educator-teacher who will work with the youth. I know how extremely difficult it is to procure the services of such individuals but the effort must be made. Here, the National Office should be of help. To be sure, those in New York cannot create just the right person but they can assist in finding someone. To fulfill this need, more money must be raised. After all, even a dedicated individual is not an ethereal being without wants and needs like everyone else. Yet, while stressing again that I do not underestimate budgetary needs, I feel that they can be met. It is not my task to suggest how—ah dank Gott! But, having lived and worked for so long with such situations, I know that many congregations of 50 families or less can manage to raise sufficient funds to pay both a rabbi and a teacher. Now, supposing that you are fortunate enough to secure two such people. That still does not mean that volunteers will be unnecessary. They are required even in those synagogues that have two or three rabbis, an educational director, an executive director and who-knows-how-many others on the staff! This is because any organization, whatever be its purpose, cannot rely solely on paid professionals. And our organization, our cause, the very essence of the synagogue, rests on faith and commitment. We cannot provide salvation for anyone but our-

166 selves. We seek to move people to know, appreciate and live in keeping with our heritage. We believe that every Jew should love and live Judaism. But that goal is Utopian. We can only work towards it and, in the meanwhile, the burden falls on the shoulders of a few—the few who admit their responsibility and refuse to shirk it.

We should remember something that Carl Sandburg once said when he received the Gold Medal for history and biography from the Academy of Arts and Letters: "We find it momentous that Lincoln used the word 'responsibility' nearly as often as he used the word 'freedom.' The free men of the world . . . can well ask themselves every day and almost as a ritual: 'Who paid for my freedom and what the price, and am I somehow beholden?"'

That is the question that we who are committed to the synagogue must ask ourselves: Who preserved our tradition, and what the price, and are we not somehow beholden? Not only are we personally ennobled by the time and effort we dedicate but we bear the responsibility to see to it that our congre- gâtions truly serve as the House of God—as the central place of prayer, learning and meeting.

That is why all of us must persevere, tend to the mundane details, meet and plan and execute plans and programs. We have to do so because we are Jews who need Judaism in order for our lives to have meaning. We have to do so because our congregations must be vital, dynamic centers of our religion and our culture. That is why you who are present at this Laboratory for Leaders, together with those at home who are not here, need to ignore the problem of numbers and go about our tasks with enthusiasm and dedication. We need to do so because positive attitudes and enthusiasm are catching and will infect others who are not among the leaders.

I remember the story of the small town in Eastern Europe which laid its first railroad tracks and the first locomotive pulled into the station. The local Hassidim were deeply impressed and felt that they should point out to their rebbe this tremendous scientific advance. They brought the rebbe to the station and, as he approached, he saw a long line of black, cold, sombre-looking cars attached to each other behind the locomotive which was belching fire. The boiler was getting hotter and smoke was rising from its short chimney. Sud- denly, with a tremendous roar, black clouds of smoke rose heavenward, the engine started moving and the long line of trains moved along with it. "Rebbe! Rebbe!", the Hassidim exclaimed, "What do you say to this wonderful sight?" The Rebbe seemed lost in thought for a moment and then replied softly: "Look how one, hot, fiery creation can pull along so many cold ones!"

That is what I want to say to you. Rabbis and laymen—what you can do does not depend on size. If you are determined to succeed and become a "hot," dedicated creation, you will be able to succeed in pulling along so many cold ones! And together, each of us in our own congregations but part of our whole family of congregations, will succeed in making our faith and our way of life stronger and finer and more noble.

167 ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCES IN THE SMALL CONGREGATION

ROBERT FISCHER Past Executive Secretary, Western Pensylvania Region, United Synagogue of America

In today's world of big business, big synagogues, big institutions we must stop and ponder, that we also have small houses of worship and small Jewish communities, as a matter of fact we in the United Synagogue have more small synagogues than large ones and today we shall devote our attention to the small congregations with memberships in the neighborhood of 250 families or less. The demands and services of a small temple are quite different from large congregations and our handling of each must be programmed accordingly. A member of a congregation with a small enrollment or in a small town is likely to play more of a major role in the workings of the "shull" and even take greater pride in its programs and accomplishments. A synagogue plays a very important and major role for a Jewish family in a relatively small community and therefore its functions and activities are of even greater concern to each of its congregants. On the average a greater percentage of the members in a small congregation take part and participate in the functions of the "shull" than in the larger house of worship where there are more "bodies" to draw from. The challenge is great and the small synagogue must give its members meaningful and vibrant leadership in order to keep the interest of our new generation of Jewish people. Since the administration of a small shull is in the hands of laymen, our approach must be geared to several volunteer members handling various aspects of the day-to-day business of the congregation without a full or part-time administrator. The best and most practical approach is to have six to eight laymen who are able to divide the various responsibilities and each follow up on a specific area in the operation of their own synagogue. Each small or large congregation has certain characteristics all of its own, but basically a synagogue of about 250 families would have the following structure and operating procedure: PRESIDENT Relates to Rabbi and all other staff members All officers report directly to President FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT—FINANCE Budget and statements Collect dues Adjust members accounts Capital Funds Building Fund Cemetery operation

168 SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT—HOUSE Building maintenance Building improvements Lawn maintenance Purchase of supplies Kitchen control Maintenance employees

THIRD VICE-PRESIDENT—PUBLIC RELATIONS Bulletin—newsletter Publicity of all functions Public relations, etc. Membership explanation, etc. Welcome newcomers to area Clear dates of major functions

SECRETARY Minutes of all meetings Notices of all meetings Records of family members Congregation records and history

TREASURER Check book disbursement Payroll and taxes Accounts payable Insurance

These are just a few of the routine matters that must be taken care of in an active and involved synagogue. In addition to these somewhat administrative functions, we have the religious and program aspects which are usually under the direct guidance of the rabbi— A) Religious Services—and all arrangements B) School—administration and curriculum C) Youth Activities—even though they may be limited D) Adult Education E) Hospital Visits, etc. F) On Call for Family Needs

This list could go on, but suffice it to say, each member of a small congregation can and must be integrated to carry his full load of making his shull vibrant and meaningful.

169 THE RELIGIOUS SCHOOL AND THE SMALL CONGREGATION

ABRAHAM GITTELSON Associate Director, Southeast Region, United Synagogue of America

Of all the problems that beset the small congregation vis-a-vis its religious school—developing an articulated and meaningful curriculum, providing satisfactory supervision and administration of the school, organizing an effective high school program, individualizing instruction in classes encompassing students of widely varying ages and intellectual achievement, financing an effective program, and others—none is more crucial nor more difficult to solve than that of the alarming shortage of capable personnel, both on a classroom and administrative level.

I would like to offer for your consideration some suggestions as to what might be done to recruit, retain, and develop personnel on both a teacher and principal level. 1 ) In order to attract first-rate personnel first-rate salaries must be offered, and salaries are usually tied to the size of the teaching load. "Were we to offer a teacher increased teaching hours, we could justifiably increase his salary. It follows, then, that we must break out of the time barrier of holding classes only on a Sunday morning and weekday afternoon, but utilize, in addition, the Shabbat, evening hours, pre- and post-semester classes in June and late August, etc., as opportunities to both extend the school program and offer the truly qualified teacher both extra hours of teaching and extra pay.

2) We should seek out other areas within the synagogue framework in which the teacher can effectively function. Based on his talents, capabilities and interests, the teacher can probably most easily serve as a youth advisor or director, but also as Baal Kriah, Baal Tfilah, etc. 3) We should provide the teacher with goals that are realistic in terms of the extent of the program, the motivation of the student and the aspirations of the community. We cannot develop facile linguists in two hours of Hebraic study a week, nor will we produce knowledgeable Jews in a Bar Mitzvah terminated program. If we do not demand the impossible we spare the teacher much frustration and the community much disappointment. 4) We should enhance the status of the teacher in the community and the synagogue so that he is considered not as an employee, but rather as a respected professional. 5) We must provide adequate time outside of the classroom teaching hours for aspects of the teacher's job that may be just as important as formal instruction, namely, counseling students, educating parents, preparing materials, evaluating student achievement, etc.

170 6) We should prepare a teacher's manual that will both orient him to the synagogue and to the community, and provide him with the rules and régula- tions of the particular institution. 7) We should provide all the fringe benefits that are accepted as a common right of the individual in society today. 8) We should be crystal clear in the type of teacher we require, and indicate to the candidate the specific demands of the congregation in religious attitudes and practices, in relationships with the students, and in its goals for Jewish education. For example, Israeli teachers must be informed before being employed that most of our schools do not want an expert linguistic teacher who never attends services, and college students who are employed in our schools should be made to understand the demands that the position of even Sunday School teacher makes on their time and preparation. 9) We should use the resources of local colleges and universities in a variety of ways—as sources of teaching personnel from both the student body and the increasing number of Jewish professors, as institutions where both novice and veteran teachers can engage in professional growth through courses in the department of education, as sources of personnel to conduct special pedagogical seminars, etc. 10) We should emphasize the professional growth of the present members of the faculty, being willing to invest money in the teacher who is a member of the community and dedicated to Jewish education. An entire gamut of courses is available for such teachers: correspondence courses in Hebrew and Bible (University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin) ; summer courses in Judaica and Hebrew at the Jewish Theological Seminary, the Herzl Institute (515 Park Avenue) and the Board of Jewish Education (426 W. 58 St.), in New York City; a variety of courses and ulpanim in Israel (Department of Education and Culture, Jewish Agency, 515 Park Avenue, N.Y.C) : the summer program of the Melton Rsearch Center (3080 Broadway, N.Y.C. ), etc. 11) Your region of United Synagogue should be requested to organize one-day seminars, week-end and week-long institutes, and pre- and post- week-long institutes at camp sites convenient to the particioants with arrangements for families and with top educational personnel as leaders of the program. 12) All efforts should be expended to enrich the Jewish education of capable teenagers so that they may serve as assistant or full teachers. Teenagers should be subsidized to attend Camp Ramah, Ramah in Israel, USY pilgrimages to Israel, year courses in Israel, etc. The teen-age teacher should be encouraged to joint LTF and to utilize its materials for his own education and in his teaching. 13) We should encourage intelligent laymen who are expert in a particular field relevant to the program of the school, to serve as instructors specifically in those areas. Through on-going joint faculty discussion and evaluation of the effectiveness of the school program, these non-professional teachers can develop considerably more skill in instruction.

171 14) We should analyze the tasks that the teacher engages in, so that we might assign the "administrativia" to para-professionals (attendance records, marking tests, securing supplies, etc.) and free our good teachers for the essential tasks of teaching—explaining, counseling, diagnosing, prescribing, etc. 15) We should consider a program for recruitment developed by Dr. Bernard Kaplan (100 Park Place South, Alexandria, La.) in which the community provides a full scholarship at a local college, room, board and tuition, in order to attract adequate personnel to live in the community for a number of years and teach in the religious school. 16) We should utilize the services of congregants or others who are public school teachers or administrators in such areas as: team teachers with Israeli teachers wherein the latter teach the Hebraic subjects and the former the social studies courses; administrators of the school; specialists in specific subject areas; leaders of seminars and courses. 17) We should screen most carefully any teacher we employ, who comes from out of town. The investment of a number of phone calls is well worth the cost when compared to the investment made with the education of our children. Sources of information about the background and professional competence of a teacher include not only the school at which he was employed, but the Com- mission on Jewish Education of United Synagogue (218 E. 70 St., N.Y.C.), the Bureau of Jewish Education in the city where the teacher was employed, and the American Association for Jewish Education (114 Fifth Ave., N.Y.C.). 18) Recruitment should proceed along organized lines. Newspaper advertisements are relatively poor devices to attract good personnel. A board should turn to the placement services of the Educators Assembly (218 E. 70 St., N.Y.C. ), and of the American Association for Jewish Education, to the Teach- ers Exchange program (Jewish Agency, 515 Park Ave., N.Y.C.), and to Bureaus throughout the country. As regards Israeli teachers, we are fortunate in having in Israel outstanding educators of our Movement who can serve to screen potential candidates. In summation, clarity as to needs, proper screening, adequate salaries, enhanced professionalism, and sufficient opportunities for professional growth should help to alleviate to some degree the pressing personnel problem.

172 RELIGIOUS SERVICES IN THE SMALL CONGREGATION

JOSEPH WIESENBERG Director, Central States and Southwest Regions, United Synagogue of America

I heartily agree with Rabbi Simcha Kling when he says that it is a challenge to belong to a small congregation. As a matter of fact, I would go a step further and say that it is a privilege because there are a number of opportunities that are not available for members in a large congregation. You see, I'm not so much concerned with the type of congregation that has 150 or 200 members, because they are indeed blessed. They can afford quite a number of things that the smaller ones cannot. Usually, they do have a staff. I'm talking about the type of congregation that has been cited to you on occasion, like Alexandria, Louisiana, where they have approximately 30 families, or a congregation like Aberdeen, South Dakota, where they have 16 families. Or another one that I would like to bring the example of to your attention, Corsicana, about 50 miles south of Dallas, where there are 25 families altogether.

But in order to make the point and in order that I become the true Cruick- shank to my Dickens, that I illustrate the eloquent keynote speaker, let me make a profound statement at the very beginning. And that is that the Jewish community usually reflects the general community in which it finds itself. I have found in my travels that the Jews in Texas are very much like Texans, and the ones in Dakota are very much like Dakotans. But you see the ideal thing is a type of stuff that I happen to have the background of. I don't know how many of you remember the kind of situation that prevailed in the shtetl when people used to come to a minyan; there usually was at least a minyan of people who were the so-called Bretel Happers. Do you know what a Bretel Happer is? The kind of people who just love to conduct a service, and it actually takes sheer force to keep them away from the bretel, from the amud from which you doven.

But unfortunately, in this country we happen to be under the Anglo-Saxon kind of influence, and we leave it all to the paid clergyman, to the gentleman who is garbed in some kind of gown and is like a jack-in-the-box, who gets up from time to time and says now you rise, now you sit down, now you turn to page 15, and we shall recite the b or chu, 37, rise and we shall say. Back in Europe, it was done all by the congregation. And imagine my surprise at what happened when, among my duties, I was responsible for the High Holiday services of a small congregation. I recall, Rosh Hashanah happened to be on a Sunday eve. And since I had been removed from this congregation by quite a number of miles, I received a letter from the president of the congregation: "Would you please come before Sunday, be with us for the shabbat because otherwise we will not have time enough to talk about the High Holy Days services."

173 I came under the impression that I was subject to the Anglo-Saxon kind of environment, I was all prepared to conduct the services, I was also all prepared to deliver a sermon. To my greatest surprise I was told to "sit down in the congregation because there was a family there who had happened to be observing its 25 th anniversary, and they were going to take care of the services because, on principle, they do not believe in engaging the services of a rabbi. "We feel that everything should be done by the congregants," that was indeed a simcha, and there was a beautiful service conducted by the members of the congregation. The gentleman who happened to have been married for about 25 years conducted the shaharit service, the reading of the Torah was done by his son, and the sermon was given by his grandson, who had done a great deal of research in connection with the sidra that had been read that week. And in addition to that, in all probability that was the highlight of the entire affair, the daughter of the baal simha got up at the time when the aliah was given to the gentleman who was observing his 25 th anniversary and sang the kiddush from Fiddler on the Roof. Still, it was a beautiful service. The point is that congregants can be involved in services and they can be trained in order to conduct them for themselves. It only takes the kind of activity that goes along all over the place and you'd be surprised what type of services the United Synagogue of America can actually give you.

Now, I'll come to the opportunity that arose at the time that I happened to have been visiting Corsicana. It is a God-forsaken kind of community and I have a hunch the only reason why Jews live there is because they are making money "hand over fist." They have been isolated from the larger Jewish communities. This probably happened because they were not aware that very close by there was another Jewish community. At any rate, they had contacted the United Synagogue of America as they were wondering would it pay to belong to the organization and what would they be getting for their $5. per capita—the kind of question that I'm asked very often. We went to see this congregation and I was fortunate enough to be accompanied by the rabbi of Shearith Israel in Dallas. The upshot of that visit was that Shearith Israel had adopted that congregation and each time, though they have no opportunity whatsoever of doing their own training, or of making sure that the services are conducted by their own members, they have the opportunity of sending their children to Shearith Israel to be prepared for Bar Mitzvah services, for Bar Mitzvah training. They can take advantage of not only the actual services in the synagogue, but the rabbi will come and visit them regularly, the educational director will go down on a number of occasions and will see to it that there are some people who can eventually come in front of the congregation and conduct services for them. Another attempt we had made in connection with making congregants self-reliant as far as services are concerned, is the organization of rabbinical corps that we have in various regions. In ours, for instance, in the Central

174 States Region, when we first organized ourselves into a rabbinical corps, one resolution had been passed, and had been accepted by all the members of The Rabbinical Assembly, that they are to give a minimum of one weekend and two days of their time to service to the region. This way you will find that there is not a single community in the Central States Region—and I'm talking about communities like Ottumwa, for instance—who's ever heard of that one— there are about 35 families and they didn't have a ghost of a chance of engaging the services of a rabbi, but they do have services led by a rabbi once a month. The same is applicable by the kind of wonderful gesture that had been made by the Men's Club of the Adath Jeshurun Congregation in Minneapolis. It so happens that in Aberdeen, South Dakota, a congregation of 16 families lost its rabbi—and they did have a full-time rabbi. Can you imagine what kind of sacrifice that is in order to maintain a full-time person? But unfortunately that rabbi went to another community, to greener pastures. The Men's Club decided that they were going to make monthly visits to that community in order to have Friday night services together, to have the fellowship that can be enjoyed on a Friday night with the concurrent Oneg Shabbat. They are bringing their sermons. Some of them are canned, some of them are the result of research, but, at any rate, there is contact between the larger community and the smaller community. And incidentally, and perhaps that is the most important project in connection with that, those people get an education in the conduct of services for themselves. The last item, a practical way of illustrating Rabbi Kling's thought, is that even though you happen to be confronted with a very small congregation, it can still have some type of a service by taking advantage of the kind of personnel that is available, not necessarily a rabbi. In Marshalltown, Iowa, for instance, another very small community, the sum total of the members there is, I believe, about 21. A teacher, also in Adath Jeshurun, found himself without a job one day and was looking around for some place where he could settle. He happens to be blessed with a very pleasant voice. Before he became a teacher in this congregation he was a hazzan. He was invited by the Marshalltown congregation, he settled down there, and he is the factotum of that community. He acts like a rabbi, pontificates like a rabbi, despite the fact that the congregation knows he does not have any simiha, but he does fulfill the purpose for which he had been called. He teaches the youngsters there, and there are some excellent services conducted from week to week because they had taken advantage of the things that are available to them.

175 Special Conference for Rabbis on Intermarriage

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

IRVING LEHRMAN

Rabbi, Temple Emanu-El, Miami Beach, Fla. Session Chairman

As Chairman of our discussion today, I want to congratulate the United Synagogue of America for placing this very important subject—intermarriage— on the agenda of this Convention. This problem has concerned our people from time immemorial. In the very first pages of the Bible, you will find that Abraham asked his servant, Eleazar, to seek a wife for his son, Isaac, not of the Canaanite daughters but rather, as he said, "from my own land, from my father's house." From the beginning, Abraham understood that intermarriage endangered the survival of the Jewish people. When we refer to intermarriage, we must, however, realize that there is a distinction between intermarriage, on the one hand, and mixed marriage, on the other. Intermarriage relates to a situation where one of the parties converts to Judaism and if the conversion is a sincere one, the chances for a successful marriage are good. On the other hand, in a mixed marriage, two people of different faiths marry without any conversion and this is a threat not only to Jewish group survival, but to the very institution of marriage and the family. We Jews are not the only ones who look askance at this kind of intermarriage. In the studies made by the late Rabbi Albert Gordon of Boston on this subject, he points out that Christian groups, both Protestant and Catholic, also discourage intermarriage, looking upon it as a primary threat to family stability. Unfortunately, since there are still some rabbis who officiate at mixed marriages, the problem is one of grave concern. That is why it was taken up on the floor of the last convention of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, although unfortunately, no decision was reached. I am grateful that we shall have the opportunity of discussing it in some depth today and I do hope that out of our discussions will come forth real light.

176 HOW TO PREVENT INTERMARRIAGE

ISRAEL MOWSHOWITZ Rabbi, HiUcrest Jewish Center, Flushing, N.Y.

The reason for the opposition of Judaism to intermarriage is stated quite clearly in the Bible (Exodus 34:14-16) : "For thou shalt bow down to no other god; for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God; lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land and thou go astray after their gods and do sacrifice unto their gods, and they call thee, and thou eat of their sacrifice; and thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go astray after their gods, and make thy sons go astray after their gods." And again, in Deuteronomy 7:3-4: "Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For he will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods." It is quite clear that the Torah considers intermarriage to be a threat to the survival of the Jewish people. A minority group is vulnerable to the près- sures of the majority group and must constantly be on guard against them. Intermarriage erodes the spiritual and cultural values of the minority group. Intermarriage for a minority group member constitutes the first big step toward eventual assimilation. Statistical studies have shown that 70 per cent of the children of intermarried couples are raised as non-Jews. The increasingly high rate of intermarriage poses, therefore, a serious threat to the survival of the Jewish community. One writer has even described the Jew in America as the "vanishing American Jew," who will be absorbed and assimilated into the majority group through intermarriage. David Ben Gurion once received a letter from a Jew in Brooklyn who took him to task for permitting missionaries the freedom to carry on their missionary activities among Jews in Israel. "Even if it is true," the Brooklynite wrote, "that they only succeed in converting one Jew in two or three years, can we afford to lose even one Jewish soul after our loss of the six million?" Ben Gurion replied: "Stop worrying about the one Jew who was converted in Israel, and worry more about your grandchildren in Brooklyn, who will probably be lost to the Jewish people through intermarriage." It may be objected that the need of the group should not be our paramount consideration. Today we worship the cult of personal happiness. If a Jewish young man finds happiness in marrying a person of another faith, is it not wrong for us to dissuade him from such a marriage because it will not serve the best interests of the Jewish community? Let us, therefore, state at the outset that our opposition to intermarriage is not only based on group values, but also out of a deep regard for personal happiness. All studies in this field agree on the one fact: Interfaith marriages are not happy marriages.

177 Albert Memmi makes a profoundly true observation when he states that every marriage is a mixed marriage. Every marriage brings together two beings who differ from each other in a thousand respects. If no two human beings, both among the billions born, and the billions yet to be born, will not have the same fingerprints, how can we expect two human souls to be alike? So separate and distant are human beings from each other that one out of every four marriages ends in divorce. And one might add that the rest of us who stay married don't feel good all the time either. Success in marriage is as wonderful as it is rare. To quote Albert Memmi: "For this reason wouldn't it be better not to complicate it further? Isn't it wiser to shorten the inevitable distance as much as possible in the beginning? Every marriage is difficult, and it is a simple fact that a mixed marriage is much more difficult than others." Obviously, not all intermarriages fail; there are some notable exceptions. We do not, however, deal with specific instances; our concern is with the general rule. Studies of mixed marriages generally indicate that there is among them two and a half times as much separation and divorce as in the families where there is religious homogeneity. What then should our reply be to a young couple who are about to enter into an interfaith marriage and who point to a few instances of such seemingly successful marriages? We should quote to them the words of James A. Pike: "Suppose you wanted to fly the Atlantic and asked the agent: 'Is it a safe trip?' and he answered: 'Oh yes, every once in a while a plane gets through.' " I doubt if you would book passage. What is important to a young couple contemplating the matter is not that this or that couple seem to have worked it out all right, but rather what by and large is the success of mixed marriages. The welfare of the Jewish community as well as the concern for personal happiness would, therefore, counsel against intermarriage. But perhaps the most serious indictment of exogamous unions is the unhappy condition of their children. Albert Memmi wrote an autobiographical book about his own intermarriage which he significantly entitled Strangers. He makes the point that generally children strengthen a marriage because the couple is faced with a common responsibility. In mixed marriages, however, the bond is weakened and often stretched to a breaking point because children bring to light the problems inherent in the situation and force upon the parents a sharp and painful awareness of their acts. Many decisions have to be made. "Suddenly all theoretical options which had been relegated to the background and left in a convenient and equivocal shadow require urgent attention and threaten to materialize by themselves and at random." Should a child be baptized in church or named in the synagogue? Should the child be circumcised? In what faith should it be raised? Religion may not have been important before children arrived, but now it acquires a new and pressing urgency. Often these religious arguments are used by the parents as a cloak for the frustrations and irritations that accumulate normally in any marriage. Even if a conversion of one of the partners takes place, it does not really solve the problem of the children. The subconscious guilt frequently felt about having renounced one's faith may now come to the surface and find expression in a battle for the control of the children's religious identification. A good ex-

178 ample of such a reaction is the case of a young man from my community who married a Catholic girl who converted to Judaism. All seemed well until one of the children sustained a serious accident. The mother was convinced that this was punishment from God for her abandonment of her faith, and she proceeded to seek atonement by demanding that the children be raised as Catholics. The children of mixed marriages are marginal people in the classical sense of the term. They suffer from an identity crisis not really knowing who they are and where to strike their roots. They have a stake in both faiths represented by their parents and yet they wholly belong to neither of them. They frequently develop symptoms of self-hate and, as Albert Memmi observes, it is as if one part of oneself began to persecute the other. They have the uneasy feeling that by being loyal to the tradition of one parent, they are guilty of disloyalty to the other parent. In the face of this array of such formidable obstacles on the path to success it is fair to ask why people intermarry at all. The choice of a marriage partner is one of the most important decisions that an individual is called upon to make in his entire lifetime. One would, therefore, be justified in assuming that the choice is made after careful consideration and meticulous weighing of the strengths and weaknesses of the intended partner for life. The fact is, as Dr. Jacob Arlow observes out of a long experience as a practicing psychiatrist, that the individual is rarely aware of what guides him in the choice. He will sometimes use marriage to serve a purpose which is unconscious and has very little to do with the marriage itself. Dr. Arlow asserts: "Marriage is regularly used as a means to resolve long-standing, deep-seated, unconscious conflicts. Ac- cordingly, a marriage may serve as a vehicle for realizing, in disguised form, unfulfilled daydreams or forbidden gratifications of childhood. It may be used to right old wrongs, to compensate deprivations, to exact vengeance, to overcome humiliations and disappointments, to aggrandize one's image or to elevate one's self-esteem." If this is true of marriages in general we have reason to suspect that such emotional and psychological factors are even more prevalent in interfaith marriages. One result of a study of intermarriage in Indiana by Eric Rosenthal seems to confirm this suspicion. Rosenthal compared the marital behavior of individuals who had previously been widowed with those who had previously been divorced. He found that the divorced had a higher level of intermarriage, higher even than the one observed among the previously never married. A divorced person has obviously failed to make a successful adjustment in one marriage. It is logical to suppose that the failure was caused by some emotional or psychological factors. And it may very well be that these problems will lead him next time to seek an exogamous marriage. Much too often does intermarriage occur as a punishment of the parents. I recall the case of a young man who married out of his faith three times in succession, and after experiencing the heartbreak of these three marital failures, is now courting another non-Jewish woman. This cannot be pure accident. It reflects an unconscious desire to seek out partners of another faith. Our knowl-

179 edge of the young man's background will reveal the reason for his behavior: When he was six years old his father died. He was suddenly different from others; he was fatherless. He subconsciously blamed his mother for this deprivation. The mother now had to become the breadwinner for the family and accepted a full-time job. This deprived the young boy not only of a father who had died but also of a mother who was too busy to give him the attention that he desired and needed. It was to him further proof of his mother's guilt, of her wilful rejection of him. Now, as an adult, while on a conscious level he speaks of his appreciation of his mother's courage in keeping the family together, on an unconscious level, he feels a strong need to punish her. Hiding behind the cloak of the sacredness of romantic love he contracts interfaith marriages time after time as the socially most acceptable and at the same time most effective means of delivering this punishment. An immature and dependent individual will sometimes use intermarriage as a means of asserting his independence. He will do that which he knows is most objectionable to his parents. By this act of rebellion he thinks that he will achieve independence and maturity. Psychoanalysts see the Oedipus complex as an important factor in intermarriage. When we are adults we want to marry "a girl just like the girl that married dear old dad." As children, however, we wish to marry the very girl that married dear old dad. Most of us, of course, grow out of this stage of incestuous desire; but there are those who do not. The latter express their incestuous drive by marrying a taboo object, a partner of another faith. More often than we probably realize intermarriage is used as an escape from what Heine called the misfortune of Judaism. It becomes an admission ticket to the majority religion. There are those who feel keenly the disabilities of their Jewish identification and wish to spare their children this burden that they had to carry. It is truly astonishing that intermarriage among Jewish survivors of concentration camps who live in Germany is estimated to be as high as 70 per cent. This shocking statistic is comprehensible to us if we make the logical assumption that those who suffered the most from their Jewishness would be most anxious to spare their children this suffering. During a visit to Berlin a number of Jewish resi- dents of that city remarked to me that after Auschwitz a Jew should be very careful about bringing children into the world. There are other psychological motivations which may drive an individual into intermarriage. Those I have enumerated may already have given the impression that I am advancing the thesis that all intermarriages are abnormal. This is, of course, not true. There are many perfectly normal intermarriages, which result from a perfectly normal attraction of two individuals to each other. I stress the emotional and psychological factors, not because they are the only ones to consider, but rather because they are so often overlooked. Much misery could be avoided if the couples contemplating intermarriage would be aware of them. What then are the normal causes of intermarriage? It seems to me that the three major ones are: a) the open society; b) lack of religious commitment; and c) a misunderstanding of the American religious scene. An individual will generally marry someone from the marriage market

180 most accessible and available to him. The "only" man for a woman who lives in Chicago will be most likely someone who lives in Chicago. Not that there may not be some man in Paris or Oslo who may suit her taste very well; but they are not available. She is not exposed to them. A 1946 study reported that 50 per cent of some 1700 men selected women who were living within fifteen standard city blocks of each other. Proximity is thus one of the most decisive elements in the choice of a mate. Eric Rosenthal found an inverse relationship between the size of the Jewish community and the rate of intermarriage. For the individuals residing in a Jewish community in the five counties in Indiana with the highest concentration of Jews the intermarriage rate was 38.6 per cent. In all other counties where the Jewish population is small, the intermarriage rate was an alarming 63.5 per cent. Obviously, the marriage market in communities with a small Jewish population provides a small number of possible Jewish partners, and the individual is, therefore, more likely to choose someone from the much larger pool of available non-Jewish partners. In our open society people from different faiths are thrown together and communicate freely and easily with each other. This is especially true of the college campus where students from all religious and ethnic backgrounds live together. Away from home, the often lonely student will seek acceptance and companionship from another fellow student who is close by and available, without regard for his religious affiliation. On most college campuses the Jewish students are a small minority. It is, therefore, not surprising that the openness of the college campus combined with a relatively small Jewish population result in a very high intermarriage rate among college students—the highest of any group. The second important cause of intermarriage is the lack of religious commitment on the part of the parents. The rising rate of intermarriage parallels the spiritual bankruptcy of the Jewish family. The growing child soon senses whether Jewish identity means anything to his parents. He sees no Jewish ceremonies observed in the home. He is cajoled and coerced into attending Hebrew school but he notices that his parents do not engage in any form of Hebrew studies. He is taught how to pray and participates in junior congregation services, but he hardly ever sees his parents pray. He soon discovers that his parents are able to help him with his general studies but that they do not know enough to help him with his Hebrew studies. After his Bar Mitzvah he is frequently discouraged by his parents from continuing in Hebrew high school, even on the rare occasion when he may desire to do so. They explain that the secular high school is very demanding, and that he must devote his time exclusively to making a good record there so that upon graduation he may be admitted to a prestigious college. We, therefore, cannot blame him when he concludes that Jewish identity and Jewish values are of no significance to his parents. The vehement parental opposition to his exogamous mate is often met by the young person with incredulity and disbelief. Why should his parents be concerned about this, he wonders, when their Jewishness means little or

181 nothing to them. He considers their attitude to be hypocritical and dishonest, and ascribes their opposition to his intermarriage not to ideological grounds but to a morbid fear of what the family or friends might say. Unfortunately, in many instances, he is not altogether wrong. Intermarriage also finds encouragement in the false concept of religious tolerance. The stress is on the common denominator in all religions. We speak about the common roots of Judaism and Christianity and about a Judaeo- Christian tradition. "We emphasize our sameness and insinuate that the majority should accept us if we are not different from it. John C. Bennett warned against such a false approach to the religious scene in America with the following statement: ""When we think in terms of a common denominator, the danger is that this will become detached from its source in the particular traditions, that it will become something that exists in and of itself, that it will then become a kind of American sanction and become the fourth religion about which Will Herberg and many other critics of our culture speak. There is a danger—that interfaith discussions may encourage this secularized fourth religion, that it may become an American religion, that it may lose both the inspiration and the correction which are available in each of our traditions." In this kind of religious climate that prevails in America we should not be surprised if young people come to the conclusion that the specific faith group to which an individual belongs does not matter as long as he is "religious." If all religions are the same then why not interfaith marriages? To state the causes of intermarriage is much easier than to propose means for its prevention. Yet, the causes themselves suggest a course of action. The illness contains within it an intimation of the cure. No one will seriously suggest that we abandon the open society. But if proximity and availability of potential marriage partners is an important factor in marriage, then wtihin the open society we must be imaginative enough to create a marriage market where it will be easier for Jewish young people to meet each other. Hillel has been criticized because it functions mainly as a social club, as a dating bureau, as a place where boy-meets-girl. I consider this to be the strength of Hillel and not its weakness. What we need is more such places where young Jewish adults will be accessible to each other. We should have in our synagogues a register of all colleges listing their Jewish population and Jewish organizational life. We should encourage Jewish students to apply only to those schools where there is a Jewish presence. For a Jewish student to enroll in a college with a small Jewish population is almost an invitation to intermarriage. The rabbi, if at all possible, should visit the members of his congregation on the college campus and use his influence to induce them to join its organized Jewish activities. At the very least, he should communicate with them regularly by mail and indicate an interest in the extent of their Jewish experience on campus. Books and magazines of Jewish interest should be sent to them from time to time as a gift from the congregation. There should be continuous and frequent contact between the college student and his synagogue. In order to stop the galloping rise in the rate of intermarriage in communities with a small Jewish population we have to create a favorable marriage

182 market. This means that we must provide opportunities for the young Jewish adults who live in isolated communities to get to know and meet one another, To put it bluntly, we must do the work of the old shadchan. We can easily establish a register of single Jewish men and women who live in small communities not far from each other and invite them to monthly or even weekly socials and cultural events to be held in some central location. These lists could also be used for an exchange of "get acquainted" invitations from the young people of one small Jewish community to the young people of another small Jewish community. This is a costly plan which would require an office and office staff, but without this investment of funds and energy the small Jewish communities will not survive. The second major cause of intermarriage is the lack of religious commitment on the part of the parents. Parents must introduce Jewish practices and values into the home and thus demonstrate by personal example that their Jewish identity is a priority in their lives, if they are not to lose their children to another religion. The child will not understand why his parents are against intermarriage unless he sees through their daily practices how much their Jewishness means to them. We have demanded and succeeded in achieving certain minimal standards for the Bar and Bat Mitzvah. Some 25 years ago, when we abolished Sunday school, and required at least 5 years of attendance in Hebrew School as a quali- fication for Bar and Bat Mitzvah the pessimists predicted that there would be a mass exodus from the United Synagogue schools to other schools that had no such requirements. Nothing of the kind happened. Our members understood that we were attempting to bring dignity and responsibility into our education system and they gave us their wholehearted support. I believe the time has come to make some minimal demands from the parents. As a beginning we can demand regular attendance at the Sabbath services the year preceding the Bar or Bat Mitzvah of their children. We should certainly require them to attend special courses in Jewish history, basic Jewish concepts and synagogue procedures. And why not deny the privilege of celebrating their children's religious maturity to those parents who arrange non- kosher affairs? These are just a few specific suggestions. The important principle is to have the parents demonstrate in their own lives a strong commitment to their Jewish identity. The attempt to introduce standards for parents may meet with initial resistance. I have no doubt, however, that our lay leadership will understand the importance of such a step and will give us their ultimate support. It is also essential that we begin to emphasize the distinctiveness of Judaism, and make our young people proud of it. Only if they understand that not all religions are the same will they heed our strictures against intermarriage. We should stress that while Judaism has much in common with other religions, it is, nevertheless, different and has its own specific contribution to make to its communicants and to the world. We have talked so much about America being a melting pot that to be different seemed a vice. Today we speak of cultural pluralism as a desirable construct. America is ready to accept and even welcome

183 differences. We should, therefore, be prepared to convey our distinctiveness to our young people and to make them understand that it is precisely this distinctiveness that constitutes our strength and value for America. We should also be on guard against the growing tendency of intermarriage becoming acceptable. Many parents are no longer shocked, nor even very disturbed, when one of their children intermarries. Our sages tell us that the trouble of the many is half a comfort. Intermarriage occurs so frequently now that by its very frequency it has acquired an aura of legitimacy. It has even become for some people, to use the felicitous phrase of Marshall Sklare, "the wave of the future." We must never make peace with intermarriage, and must not cease our strong and persistent opposition to it so that we may divest it of every semblance of acceptance by the Jewish community. There is a synagogue in the greater New York area where the president is intermarried. He is a devoted and capable leader and his wife is a lovely lady. But when the parents who are members of this synagogue opposed their son's contemplated marriage to a non-Jewish woman, the son exclaimed in wonder- ment: "Why all this fuss? Isn't the president of our synagogue intermarried?" I know that this may sound terribly harsh, but if we are serious about preventing intermarriage we should refuse positions of honor and responsibility in the Jewish community to those who intermarry. Even if we exert every effort and use all the means at our command to prevent the rising rate of intermarriage we may not succeed, or succeed only partially. But if we do not use all our strength and imagination the attempt to formulate an effective program against intermarriage we will have defaulted on our sacred duty as guardians of the Jewish community's creative survival.

184 NO HALF-WAY CONVERSIONS

JUDAH WASHER Rabbi, Jewish Community Center, Teaneck, N.J.

The area assigned me in this discussion on "intermarriage" is that of presenting some thoughts concerning the problems involved in converting a non-Jew to Judaism, so as to give religious sanction to a marriage otherwise prohibited by Jewish law. For the purposes of this paper, I assume that the rabbi made an unsuccessful attempt to dissolve the proposed shiddach. The non-Jew with whom we are concerned in this paper, is most probably one who has consented to accept Judaism so as to make the marriage acceptable to the parents of the Jewish partner. The interest in Judaism is probably centered on the length of the study period leading to conversion and the formal conversion itself, rather than any real commitment to Judaism. Often times the Jewish partner to the proposed marriage has but a hazy understanding of his Jewish heritage. We, therefore, must face the basic question whether such a conversion can be performed according to halacha. Halacha seems to express two attitudes towards the problems of conversion to Judaism. One view of our Sages is that it is a mitzvah for a beth din to accept and convert a proselyte according to the din. There are rishonim who suggest that the conversion of a proselyte represents the fulfillment of the Biblical command, "Thou shalt love the stranger"—the implication being that as we cause the recognition of God to be more widely accepted by the non- Jewish world, we express our own love for Him. By dipping into Jewish tradition, we can become excited about the possible noble and learned Jewish souls who may descend from converts. Nevuzaradin is said to have become a "righteous convert". Niran Caesar is purported to have been an ancestor of Rabbi Meir; Sennacherib is associated with Shmaya and Abtallyon; Ben Heh Heh and Ben Bag Bag were either converts or descendants of converts. A well known dictum tells us that descendants of Haman and Sisera were among Jerusalem's Torah scholars. Lest we permit our enthusiasm to carry us away by the remote possibility of duplicating these historically recognized converts, allow me to cite the Talmudic viewpoint which very clearly states that "Evil after evil comes upon those who receive proselytes" (Yebamoth 109b). The context of this dictum leads us to the conclusion that the reference is to insincere and superficial conversions. Herein lies the real danger of opening the flood gates to the acceptance of a minimal Judaism as the norm; to not only condoning ignorance from within, but tacitly becoming an accessory to the storming of our religious gates from without. Statistics show that 70% of the offspring of intermarriages are raised as non-Jews and that they are almost irrevocably lost to the Jewish community. As we know them today, converts rarely sever their original family ties and one would be naive to expect them not to visit with non-Jewish

185 parents and friends. The thin religious veneer of many of their Jewish friends encourages and incites a convert's lackadaisical attitude toward Judaism. Such continued hostile environmental ties exert an important and detrimental influence on a convert. We are chilled to the marrow by the innocent naivete with which some converts pride themselves on placing a Chanukah menorah or a mogen dovid on the top of a Christmas tree. The behavior of such converts may seem to them as though they are inheriting the best of two worlds, but we rabbis have no alternative, but to view such superficial conversions as under- mining the sacredness of our Jewish heritage and threatening our future existence. So loose a convert cannot feel the radical and subtle changes that conversion to Judaism should bring about and it becomes difficult, if not impossible, for the convert to carry out the halacha which requires his life stance to be so radically changed by his conversion as though he were a katan shenolad, a newly born person. In working with converts, rabbis often have a tendency to minimize religious values that young people claim, "turn them off". Like parents, we try to build our case against the marriage by advancing arguments of the inevitability of future discord, the instability of a marriage involving different cultures and religious backgrounds. This type of approach may have psychological validity for parents who wish to avoid the charge of ethnocentrism. For rabbis to advance this type of argument is to expose themselves to the charge of being prophets of doom and of being unmindful that "love is as strong as death"—and can solve all problems. There are ample halacha citations which warn us against a permissive attitude toward conversion. For example, the mishna in Yebamoth (24b) states that "a man suspected of having had intercourse with a slave, who afterward was freed, or with a gentile woman who later became a proselyte, may not marry her because he may thereby give substance to the suspicion." The weight of this mishna is brought to bear not only on the ulterior motive involved in the marriage but even more so on the flimsy and superficial character of the conversion. Maimonides is unequivocal in stating that the marriages of Solomon and Samson were acceptable to beth din hedyotot, courts of secondary importance, but that acknowledged and recognized rabbinic courts refused to be intimidated by royal power, political or special status and did not recognize the marriages. The Rambam goes on to say that where a convert entered Judaism with an acknowledged ulterior motive, but had fulfilled certain conversion requirements, as for example, mikvah, the convert is not to be wholly rejected, but is not to be fully accepted until absolute sincerity is established through a full and unreserved acceptance of Judaism. In the eyes of halacha, a complete and unreserved conversion is dependent upon the kabbalah, the willingness of the convert to accept publicly and practice Judaism fully. Study with a convert is very important, but as a means towards practice of Judaism and should not be looked upon as an end itself. Halacha is clear that the act of conversion must create in the mind and behavior of the convert, a spiritual feeling similar to that experienced by the people of Israel at Sinai. A convert's status as a "new born child", is meant to express the complete merger of the convert with the total

186 sweep of Jewish history its ethical and moral values, its covenantal ties, its sufferings, etc. It is of high significance that our laws of conversion are based on Ruth's declaration: "For whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge; thy people shall be my people and thy God shall be my God." The forceful and traumatic proscription against intermarriage and the absolute refusal of our fathers of two or three generations ago to accept a convert, no longer exercises its hold. To modern parents, the idea of sitting sbiva for a child who has intermarried, is all but unthinkable. Modern parents do not wish to create an irrevocable rupture between themselves and their children and they are psychologically prepared to give first consideration to their child's personal happiness and fulfillment. Precisely in this age of acculturation, the disappearance of the rigid proscription and the lessening of concern for Jewish identity and religion, do rabbis face a historic decision on the survival of Judaism, no less critical and important than in the days of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai. I do not suggest that we be rigid and unfriendly in dealing with those who come to us for conversion, but that we do not be minimal in our requirements and permissive in our attitudes. From our pulpits and in our study periods wih converts, we need to stress the full force of our religious values. It is good to give converts first principles of Judaism, but we must stress the concept of zil gemor—Jewish behavior is enhanced by careful study. I suggest for your consideration that as halacha has made a distinction between eyrusin and kiddushin, so we should reorganize our conversion practices so that one period of time should be spent in study, while the second period, prior to actual conversion, should be spent in the supervised performance and observance of mitzvot. Both Jewish and non-Jewish partners should be encouraged to observe kasbrut, the Shabbat and to attend regularly Shabbat services. Mitzvot, particular to womenfolk, should be stressed and carefully explained from religious, hygienic and psychological points of view. We should show our "love for strangers", and our personal sincerity by inviting the couple to our homes and to the homes of selected members of our congregation, where hopefully they will be influenced by the spirit, the beauty and the environment of Jewish tradition. The Lubavitcher and Bostiner Rabbis use this environmental approach to very excellent advantage. Despite the mitigating circumstances which brought the conversion into being, encouragement and careful study of Jewish tradition can help the convert to a full acceptance of Judaism and a warm acceptance into our Jewish fold. For this to be realized, proof of sincerity and commitment are absolutely necessary. The Sefer Achiezer makes the point: "there can be no conditions nor halfway measures in a conversion". Together with social scientists, we might devise carefully worked out psychological tests to measure the quality of a proselyte's emotional detachment from former religious affiliations. Such a test would help us strengthen a convert's weak emotional and scholastic areas as they need be. Since Maimonides declare that kabbalah, the open declaration and practice of mitzvot to be most important, I suggest that the conversion itself be

187 incorporated in an impressive ceremony in the presence of three dayanim, to be followed by a formal ceremony in the congregation or chapel. I believe that our seminaries should offer formal courses of study in the laws of conversion; that a philosophy of conversion should be evolved, and that the administration of conversions should be carried out by a body of rabbis with national status. As important as pastoral training is in helping rabbis to understand and deal with problems of illness, death, mental health, etc., it is even more vitally important for them to have specialty training in the problem of conversion. For a rabbi in dealing with converts, to be neither condescending, abrupt or overly permissive, he will need careful study and an ability that can come from training and experience. Hillel directors, men directly involved in the early stages of interdating that ultimately leads to conversion, should have these studies included as part of their basic training. Some of us, in one form or another, have established lines of communication with our college students. All of us should give this association with college students a higher priority in our congregational work. While colleges and universities with large Jewish populations are not absolute guarantees against intermarriages, nor are Jewish-sponsored universities, yet they do offer distinct advantages and, therefore, we ought to guide our students into choosing a college where better than average Atid, Yavneh or Hillel facilities are available. To summarize: halacha requires that conversion be expressed in three ways: Milah, tfvilah and korban. In our American Jewish environment, for male and female, these three basic requirements should be expressed in an impressive conversion ceremonial, which will help the convert identify with the Jewish covenantal tie; in a carefully organized, supervised and sincerely administered educational program that will help the convert accept Jewish life, as completely as though he or she were "new born". Last but not least, the convert must be brought to a willingness to share in the totality of Jewish life—its sacrifices, its universal hopes and aspirations.

188 WHERE INTERMARRIAGE HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE

ARMOND E. COHEN Rabbi, The Park Synagogue, Cleveland Heights, Ohio

I presume that this large attendance is in no way a tribute to the distinction of the speakers but rather to the popularity of the problem that is being discussed. I say that because the last United Synagogue Convention that I attended took place twenty-five years ago and no one would have dreamt of putting on the agenda the problem of intermarriage, because it was not that current or frequent a problem. During these twenty-five years something we never contemplated has taken place. Intermarriage has become epidemic among us. I have been assigned the simplest part of this problem and that is why I can be briefer than my colleagues. They were obligated to tell you what to do to prevent intermarriage, and they did it very thoroughly. My assignment has been what to do after people get married, and that does not take much inventiveness. Most people know the answer to that. I join with my colleagues in what they had to say about the measures that have to be taken to prevent intermarriage because it is a threat to the survival of Jewish people, perhaps the greatest single threat to the survival of Judaism in the United States today, and it is the accelerating rate of intermarriages that accentu- ates the threat. Yet I venture to say that once people approach the possibility of marriage, either an intermarriage or a mixed marriage, it is much too late then to take any measures to prevent it. Relationships of love and integrity that were experienced in the home and the psychological relationships between children and their various parents have a great bearing on their acceptance or rejection of the idea of a mixed or intermarriage from the outset of a boy-girl encounter. There is a report here by the American Jewish Congress of the study that was made for the Congress by David Kapovitz of Columbia University, Bureau of Applied Social Research, which confirms all the things which Rabbi Mow- showitz and Rabbi Washer said. Children who have very good relationships with their Jewish parents are more likely not to entertain the idea of entering a marriage which is a complete repudiation of what their parents stand for. We ought to remember also that there are mixed marriages among normal, happy, well-adjusted, healthy human beings. It is certainly a fact that biology is a stronger force than theology to most human beings, and people get married because they are in love and they may never have hated their father and mother at all. They simply love the person whom they want to marry. Whether it is a mixed marriage or an intermarriage that takes place, the only reasonable attitude of the organized Jewish community should be one of unreserved and total acceptance of the partners in such a marriage. We have already lost the battle to prevent intermarriage. We have only one chance of saving the Jewish identity of even one partner to that marriage and only one

189 chance left of preserving the Jewish identity of the children of that mixed marriage or intermarriage. That chance depends totally on our psychological, emotional and intellectual ability to completely accept these people in the Jewish community and in the synagogues and within the Jewish religion. Any attempt at isolation, the slightest gesture or rejection, will seal the Jewish fates of the Jewish component of that intermarriage or mixed marriage. I think the only limitation on this acceptance ought to be such limitations as are prescribed by the halacha, by Jewish law. This means specifically if it is a mixed marriage and the wife is not Jewish, Jewish law holds the children of such a marriage are not Jewish and cannot be considered as such. When time comes for them to marry, a rabbi cannot perform the marriage of such a child with a Jew. The law is very clear, in matters of religion—children follow the religion of their mothers. The child of a non-Jewish mother, even though the father is Jewish, is not Jewish technically or legally. I think Jewish law holds and is binding upon any organized religious community that subscribes to the law; that means Orthodox and Conservative Jews. We cannot legislate for Reform Jews who do not subscribe to the fundamental principle of the binding character of Jewish law. We are primarily concerned here with mixed marriage not intermarriage where the non-Jew has been converted, because by any standard of Jewish law the party that is converted becomes totally Jewish without any questions or doubts being attached. Anyone who rejects a convert is acting contrary to the law. Our special interest here is with the question of mixed marriage where one of the parties has not been converted. Particularly here, I am suggesting total acceptance within the limitations of the law. If such people, for example, desire to affiliate with the synagogue after they married, I believe they should be permitted to affiliate on the basis of the membership applying to the partner in the marriage who is Jewish. It should be made clear at the time of application to the synagogue that the non-Jewish partner in the marriage is not considered to be a member of the congregation but the Jewish partner is considered to be a member and membership should be given in that name. What if they wish to enter the children in the religious school? I believe the children of an intermarriage should be admitted to the religious school of a congregation, and I do not know of any Jewish law that prohibits non-Jews from receiving an education in a Jewish religious institution. They should be welcome to the school and be permitted to follow the normal course of education. When it comes to the matter of Bar Mitzvah, obviously, the non-Jew cannot become a Bar Mitzvah. That matter should be explained in advance. If it is a matter of confirmation, a non-Jew is obviously not confirmed in the Jewish religion. If it is a matter of burial in a cemetery, a non-Jew cannot be buried in consecrated Jewish ground and that too should be made clear when such a family joins the congregation. Within those limitations, in every other way the family should be permitted to participate in Jewish life, first, on the grounds that they are human beings and, above all, the Jewish religion exhibits compassionate feelings toward hu-

190 man beings whatever their religious conviction may be and at least one of the people in this marriage is very closely tied to us. The second reason for this acceptance is because it is the only possibility that we have of holding at least one of the partners within the Jewish community and the only possibility of retaining the children of such a marriage, particularly if the mother is Jewish. Otherwise, everything is lost forever. We lost the battle in the first place when we couldn't prevent the intermarriage or the mixed marriage, but we have now a second chance to at least hold fast to the Jewish identity of a partner of that marriage. Rejection in any way, except where the law requires, is for us deliberately to throw away that last opportunity. What is more it is rejecting someone who wants to remain a Jew. He comes to the congregation and seeks admission, affiliation and to bring up his children as part of the Jewish community. Who has the right to reject such people or to cast them out? I would like to give you one example of the possibilities of acceptance of people in an intermarriage, even where such acceptance was unconscious. About a year ago a young woman called me in great despair. She gave me her name and I recognized that she was scheduled to be married in the near future and that she was a confirmand of our congregation. She told me that her impending marriage faced some crisis and she came to see me. She arrived with her mother and her father and her sister and told this story. She was going to be married to an Orthodox young man in the community and his parents came to call upon her parents before the marriage to discuss arrangements for the wedding. In the course of the conversation, which was cordial and pleasant, the groom's mother said to the prospective bride's mother: "I am very much pleased that my son is marrying into your family and I am very much pleased to become acquainted with you. You know, Mrs. Smith, if I had seen you on the street I wouldn't even think that you are Jewish." To which the bride's mother said: "I am not." The bride's father then told me his story. He was an American flier in the Air Force in the war and was in London when there was an air raid one night. He ran down into a shelter and it was terribly crowded. As a result, he became friendly with a lady against whom he had been crowded. She was not Jewish. He came from an Orthodox home in the United States and he did not dare inform his parents that he was in love with a non-Jewish English girl. He married her under British law in a civil marriage. He came back to the United States, never revealing to his parents that his wife was not Jewish, established a home, a strictly religious Jewish home, joined our congregation, raised the children in the school, the two daughters were both confirmed in the school and they never knew their mother was not Jewish. Thus, when the mother said: "I am not Jewish" this was the first time the girls ever discovered their mother's secret. They had been admitted to all the practices of the Jewish religion. They associated with Jewish people only and considered themselves to be good Jews. I explained that technically they were not Jewish, and it was a painful thing to do. But, contrary to some of the things that were said here today, I pointed out it would be necessary for this young lady to be converted to Judaism and also made it clear that since she had lived a Jewish life and received a

191 Jewish education, had been practicing Judaism, I had no desire to compel her to undergo any instruction whatsoever. It would be perfectly satisfactory if this were only a technical conversion with mikveh, and she readily accepted. At that moment her sister said: "Someday this is going to happen to me. Could I go through this conversion too?" I readily accepted. Whereupon the mother added: "We are married twenty-three years. I am not Jewish though I have lived a Jewish life. Could I join my daughters in this conversion?" They were all taken to the mikveh, all converted to Judaism. The humorous part about this was that an Orthodox rabbi called me before the wedding to tell me his great secret, which I should not reveal to anyone, namely that the groom was an adopted child. I performed the ceremony of conversion in the chapel of the synagogue. It was a very moving experience. As soon as it was concluded in the presence of his two daughters and wife, the husband said to me: "Rabbi, I was never married according to Jewish law. Could I be married now to my wife?" This was the happy ending to the story and I give it as an example of the Jewish people totally accepting and being completely accepted.

192 JEWISH LAW IN OUR TIMES

BENJAMIN KREITMAN Rabbi, Congregation Shaare Torah, Brooklyn, N.Y.

The condition of life in the past was such that the claim of halacha was hardly even a question, for many a rabbi who was able to invent or discover a greater severity was considered the greatest scholar and authority.

Our task in the Conservative Movement is vastly more difficult. Certainly the condition of the Jew is radically different from what it was in yesteryear. We are enveloped by a permissive and anti-law world that rejects out of hand regulated normative discipline.

We in the Conservative Movement nevertheless affirm the halacha and all its values. We must, however, with all of our resources concern ourselves with the challenge of accommodating the halacha to the needs of the day.

The late sainted Prof. Louis Ginzberg kept on reminding us that "the Talmud made it possible for Judaism to adapt itself to every time and place, to every state of society and every stage of civilization."

We need to make this Talmudic spirit live again within Conservative Judaism.

The great question that is before us is why with all such precedents and warrant in Talmudic tradition there has been so much resistance in our Move- ment in making the necessary changes and modifications. I suggest that the resistance to change is most often a psychological phenomenon and not founded on any theological of halachic philosophy.

In our Movement we have equated severities with piety and steadfastness and kulot—leniences—with a weakening of our faith and our loyalties.

In general, leniencies leave us with a guilt feeling. We must break through this psychological barrier if we want to revitalize the halacha in Conservative Judaism. We need to examine our goals. If we institute a kula, a leniency, simply to make life more convenient, then we must with some justification bear some guilt feeting, although the need for convenience cannot altogether be dismissed as a legitimate factor in the making of the law.

But if the leniency is for the effect of making the law meaningful and viable, then it takes on the character of a divine imperative.

Therefore, we urge, as I have urged The Rabbinical Assembly in my capacity as chairman of the Committee on Law and Standards, that those practices that are distinctive and unique in the Conservative Movement, even though they are departures from the traditional norm, should be made binding criteria for membership in the Conservative Movement.

193 I shall let two instances illustrate this matter. We have been for years saddled with the problem of the aguna, the woman whose husband is unable to or refuses to grant her a Jewish divorce and she is, therefore, not permitted to remarry. We have finally solved this problem within the framework of the halacha, and I would urge that it be considered a violation of the Conservative halacha to reject this solution. The solution worked out by the Law Commission is as follows: That a condition be made at the time of the marriage whereby the husband, should he refuse to grant his wife a get, the marriage is automatically annulled, and in those marriages made without this condition, a special beth din has been established to invoke the extraordinary powers of annulment. If there is anything characteristic of the Conservative form of worship, it is the non-segregation of the sexes in the synagogue. This is not a matter of compromise of the Conservative Movement but is an expression of our concern for the dignity and the rights of the Jewish woman. Any synagogue that insists on segregating the woman at worship services should be considered as violating the Conservative halacha. In our search for our definition of Conservative Judaism in our law, we need to develop forms of Conservative piety wherein we will join the law and its spirit. For example, the caterers have with great ingenuity been able to manufacture goods that are milk-tasting and milk-looking that are not dairy. Through synthetic chemicals, we have non-dairy ice cream, non-dairy cream and non-dairy milk. Some caterers even camouflage kosher food to make it look like prohibited trefe food. Here is where the letter of the law is satisfied but the spirit of the dietary law is completely disturbed. We have an opportunity in this instance and in many more where we can join the letter to the spirit of the law to fashion a new Conservative piety. Conservative Jewry can no longer continue without self-definition. It is hoped that both the laymen and the rabbis will get together to give definition, through the law, to Conservative Judaism.

194 NEW AFFILIATES OF THE UNITED SYNAGOGUE OF AMERICA

The United Synagogue of America is proud to welcome to its ranks the following twenty-five congregations inducted into the family of the Conservative Movement at the Opening Banquet of the Biennial Convention on Sunday, November 14, 1971. With their affiliation, the United Synagogue of America now numbers 829 congregations. We welcome the following congregations that have become affiliated with the United Synagogue of America since the last biennial convention.

TEMPLE BETH SHOLOM CONGREGATION BETH ISAAC Corona, California Trenton, Michigan

SEPHARDIC HEBREW CENTER CHELSEA HEBREW CONGREGATION Los Angeles, California Atlantic City, New Jersey

TEMPLE EILAT BERGENFIELD DUMONT CONGREGATION Mission Viejo, California Bergenfield, New Jersey

CONGREGATION BNAI SHALOM TEMPLE BET# SHALOM Newhall City, California Boonton, New Jersey

CONGREGATION BETH AMI SHAARI SHOLOM JEWISH COMMUNITY Santa Barbara, California CENTER OF SOUTH BRUNSWICK Monmouth Junction, New Jersey BNAI EMUNAH San Francisco, California LAKELAND HILLS JEWISH CENTER Ringwood, New Jersey ORANGE SYNAGOGUE CENTER Orange, Connecticut CO-OP CITY JEWISH CENTER BNAI ISRAEL Bronx, New York Rockville, Connecticut BETH SAMUEL CONGREGATION BNAI TORAH Ambridge, Pennsylvania

Trumbull, Connecticut AHAVATH ACHIM CONGREGATION ETZ CHAIM Carnegie, Pennsylvania Flossmoor, Illinois TEMPLE BETH DAVID BNAI ISRAEL CONGREGATION Providence, Rhode Island Alexandria, Louisiana CONGREGATION BETH JACOB TEMPLE BETH SHALOM Galveston, Texas Columbia, Maryland EAU CLAIRE HEBREW CONGREGATION CONGREGATION AHAVAS ACHIM (TEMPLE SHOLOM) Newburyport, Massachusetts Eau Claire, Wisconsin

195 SOLOMON SCHECHTER AWARDS

Presented by Dr. Morris Fond of Roslyn, N. Y., Chairman of the Solomon Schechter Awards Committee.

Award Congregation

ADULT EDUCATION: Congregation Adath Jeshurun, Louisville, Ky. Congregation Anshei Israel, Tucson, Arizona Congregation Beth Yeshurun, Houston, Texas Jewish Community Center, Shaare Zedeck Synagogue, Santurce, Puerto Rico Congregation Shaarey Zedek, Southfield, Mich. Special Award: Aanshe Emet Synagogue, Chicago, 111. Honorable Mention: Summit Jewish Community Center, Summit, N.J. Temple Beth Sholom, Haddon Heights, N.J.

CREATIVE ARTS: Anshe Emet Synagogue, Chicago, 111. Congregation Adath Jeshurun, Elkins Park, Pa.

DAY SCHOOL EDUCATION: United Synagogue Day School, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Honorable Mention: Robert Gordis Day School of Temple Beth El, Rockaway Park, N.Y.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION: Congregation Beth Shalom, Kansas City, Mo. Honorable Mention: Temple Beth EL, Cedarhurst, N.Y. Temple Beth Sholom, Haddon Heights, N.J.

HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION Temple Israel Hebrew High School, Great Neck, N.Y.

LIBRARIES: Anshe Emet Synagogue, Chicago, 111. Sinai Temple, Los Angeles, Cal.

Music: Beth Abraham Synagogue, Dayton, Ohio Congregation Adath Jeshurun, Elkins Park, Pa.

PARENT EDUCATION: Highland Park Conservative Temple, Highland Park, N.J.

CONGREGATIONAL Congregation Beth Sholom, Long Beach, N.Y. INVOLVEMENT IN PRAYER:

196 Award Congregation

PUBLICATIONS: Agudas Achim Congregation, Alexandria, Va. Beth Abraham Synagogue, Dayton, Ohio Ohev Shalom Congregation, Williamsport, Pa. Temple of Aaron, St. Paul, Minn. Tri-City Jewish Center, Rock Island, 111. Honarable Mention: Temple Beth Am, Los Angeles, Cal. Yorktown Jewish Center, Yorktown Heights, N.Y. Special Award in Valley Jewish Community Center and Temple, Publications: North Hollywood, Cal.

SOCIAL ACTION: Beth El Synagogue, St. Louis Park, Minn. Tifereth Israel—Town and Village Synagogue, New York, N.Y.

YOUTH ACTIVITIES: Farmingdale Jewish Center, Farmingdale, N.Y. Honorable Mention: Bet Torah, Mount Kisco, N.Y. Congregation Beth Shalom, Kansas City, Mo. Congregation Ohev Tzedek-Shaarei Torah, Youngstown, Ohio

SPECIAL (Israel Affairs): Arlington-Fairfax Jewish Center, Arlington, Va.

YEAR ROUND North Suburban Synagogue Beth El, CONGREGATIONAL Highland Park, 111. PROGRAM: Queensboro Hill Jewish Center, Flushing, N.Y. Shaare Zion Synagogue, Sioux City, Iowa

YOUNG ADULT CONGREGATION: (Special Award): B'nai Israel Congregation, Pittsburgh, Pa.

197 CITATION TO OUTGOING OFFICERS

At the banquet session on the evening of Wednesday, November 17, 1971, Rabbi Bernard Segal, executive vice-president of the United Syynagogue of America, presented citations to the following officers: Abe Birenbaum and Seymour Goldberg, both of whom served as vice-presidents from 1967 to 1971, and Jerry Sussman, who served as vice-president from 1969 to 1971.

In presenting the citations, Rabbi Segal expressed the thanks of the United Synagogue to the outgoing officers for their devoted services and for the lasting contribution which they made to the furtherance of the objectives of the United Synagogue.

Citation to Camp Ramah

At the Solomon Schechter Awards Session on the evening of Monday, November 16, 1971, the United Synagogue of America presented a special citation to Camp Ramah, on the occasion of the Camp's 25th anniversary.

Mr. Louis Winer, past president of the National Ramah Commission, accepted the citation on behalf of Mr. Bert B. Weinstein, who is the current president.

198 REVISED BY LAWS OF THE UNITED SYNAGOGUE OF AMERICA

ARTICLE I—PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES Section 1: The United Synagogue of America is an association of Conserva- tive congregations and represents the Conservative Movement in the Western Hemisphere. The United Synagogue of America is referred to herein as "UNITED SYNAGOGUE" or as "ASSOCIATION". Section 2: The objectives of the United Synagogue are to: advance the cause of Judaism; maintain Jewish tradition in its historic context; assert and establish loyalty to Torah and its historical exposition; further the observance of the Sabbath and of the dietary laws; preserve in the service the reference to Israel's past and the hopes for Israel's restoration; maintain the traditional character of the liturgy, with Hebrew as the language of prayer; foster Jewish religious life in the home as expressed in traditional observances; encourage the establishment of Jewish religious schools in the curricula of which the study of the Hebrew language and literature shall be given a prominent place, both as the key to the true understanding of Judaism and as a bond holding together the scattered communities of Israel throughout the world. It shall be the aim of the United Synagogue, while not endorsing the innovations introduced by any of its constituent bodies, to embrace all elements essentially loyal to traditional Judaism and in sympathy with the objectives outlined in this section.

ARTICLE II—AFFILIATES Section 1: The constituent bodies of the United Synagogue shall consist of organizations comprised of Synagogue-oriented groups of men, women or youth who shall have been accepted by vote of the Board of Directors, including but not limited to: (a) Congregations whose purpose and objectives are consonant with the purposes and objectives of this Association; (b) The Jewish Theological Seminary of America; (c) The Rabbinical Assembly; (d) National Women's League of the United Synagogue of America; (e) National Federation of Jewish Men's Clubs; (f) National organizations of professional personnel serving Synagogues. Section 2: All references in these By-Laws to "Affiliates" shall mean and refer to congregations and all other organizations presently affiliated with the United Synagogue and others duly accepted as affiliates pursuant to this Article.

ARTICLE III—MEMBERSHIP Section 1: Those persons selected and designated by Affiliates to represent their respective organizations as delegates to the Biennial Convention of this Association, shall constitute and are the MEMBERS of the Association. In the absence of any delegate, such person present at the convention as an authorized

199 alternate shall be a member instead of the designated delegate. A member shall continue in that capacity until (a) his designation is revoked by the organization that designated him, or (b) the organization that designated him has designated new delegates to a subsequent convention.

Section 2: All other persons who are members of Affiliated Congregations are ASSOCIATE MEMBERS and they shall have only such rights as are expressly conferred upon them by the Board of Directors.

ARTICLE IV—GOVERNMENT Section 1: CONVENTION—The Biennial Convention constitutes the meeting of the members of this Association. Each affiliated congregation is entitled to representation by one (1) delegate for each fifty (50) member families, but in no event fewer than two (2) and no more than ten (10) delegates. Each of the other Affiliates is entitled to five (5) delegates. Each congregation or other Affiliate may also designate one (1) alternate for each authorized delegate. Section 2: BOARD OF DIRECTORS—The business and affairs of the Association shall be vested in a Board of Directors. (a) The Board shall consist of the officers, all Past Presidents, the President of each Region, representatives from Affiliates other than congregations in such number as may be fixed by the Board, and such additional number of members of Affiliated congregations as will bring the total to one hundred (100) directors. (b) Honorary Directors may be elected by the convention to serve for a period of two ( 2 ) years. They may participate in all meetings of the Board but shall have no vote. They are to be nominated in the same manner as provided for directors. Section 3: EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE—The Board of Directors may vest in an Executive Committee powers to act for the Board between meetings of the Board not required by law or by these By-Laws to be exercised exclusively by the Board. The Executive Committee shall consist of all officers, all Past Presidents and such number of directors as the Board may determine, to be appointed by the President with the approval of the Board.

Section 4: OFFICERS—The officers shall consist of a President; a Recording Secretary; a Financial Secretary; a Treasurer; such number of Vice-Presidents as may be determined by the Board from time to time; and the immediate Past President, who shall be Honorary President. A Vice-President shall be designated from Canada and from each Region that represents forty or more Congregations. No officer shall hold the same office for more than two successive terms. Section 5: ADVISORY COUNCIL—There shall be a Council to act as an advisory body to the Association in such matters as may be referred to it from time to time by the Board or by the President. The Council shall consist of the Officers, any President of a Region retiring from such office between Biennial Conven- tions who is not a Director of the Association, and 200 representatives selected as follows: (a) Each Region shall be entitled to one (1) council representative for

200 each one thousand (1,000) member families in that Region, but not less than .to be designated by the Region ,( צ ) one ( 1 ) nor more than five (b) Each Affiliate, other than congregations, shall be entitled to representation by five ( 5 ) members of such Affiliate designated by its President. (c) Such additional number of members of Affiliated congregations as needed to complete the requisite two hundred (200) Council representatives.

ARTICLE V—STANDING COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS Section 1: The President, upon his election, shall, subject to the approval of the Board of Directors, appoint members of the following standing Committees and designate the Chairman of each committee: Biennial Convention Israel Affairs By-Laws National Enrollment Plan Congregational Standards Nominating Finance and Budget Regional Activities Insurance Program Synagogue Administration Section 2: The President, upon his election, shall, subject to the approval of the Board of Directors, appoint the United Synagogue representatives to each of the following Commissions: Jewish Education Social Action Placement Youth and to such other Commissions as may be created hereafter. Section 3: Each Committee and Commission shall perform the usual functions incident to its designated name, or which may be conferred upon it by the Board of Directors which shall have the right and power to fix and limit its powers and duties.

ARTICLE VI—POWERS AND DUTIES Section 1: CONVENTION—The members in convention assembled shall have supreme authority over the affairs of the Association and may take such action not inconsistent with these by-laws or not contrary to law as they may deem appropriate. They shall elect officers, directors, honorary directors, and Advisory Council representatives at the Biennial Convention and shall consider all other matters placed on the agenda of any convention. They shall establish policy and guidelines from time to time for the conduct of the affairs of the Association. Section 2; BOARD OF DIRECTORS—The Board shall implement the policy decisions of the convention and shall otherwise carry out the purpose and objectives of the Association. Subject to the supervening authority of the convention, and in addition to authority otherwise delegated to it, the Board shall have the power and duty to: (a) Create and organize Regions geographically aligned, to which all congregations shall be assigned, and to regulate the operations of such Regions including the approval of Regional By-Laws and the fixing of dues and assessments;

201 (b) Admit or reject, discipline, suspend or expel Affiliates; (c) Establish and discontinue additional Committees, Commissions and subordinate groups, and designate their powers and duties; (d) Suspend, discipline or remove for cause any Officer or member of the Board or Advisory Council or without cause, any member of any subordinate group, commission or committee established, appointed or confirmed by the Board; (e) Determine when a vacancy occurs and fill such vacancy in the Advisory Council, Officers and Board of Directors; (f) Fix and determine the date, time, place, duration and agenda of all conventions; (g) Establish and adopt policies not in conflict with those adopted by the Convention; (h) Engage, regulate and terminate the services of executive and administrative personnel of this Association; (i) Appoint a Parliamentarian who shall interpret the By-Laws and all rules and procedures at the convention and shall advise the Chairman of each session at such Convention. Section 3: EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE—The Executive Committee shall have such powers and duties (other than those specifically enumerated in Section 2 of this Article), as may be delegated to it by the Board from time to time. In addition, the Executive Committee may, in the absence of other direction from the Board, assign specific duties to the Officers from time to time. The Executive Committee's report shall be a part of the agenda at each meeting of the Board.

Section 4: OFFICERS—The day to day business and affairs of the Association, including such powers and duties as are usually assigned to the respective officers, and which are not specifically reserved herein to, or otherwise pre-empted by the Board or the Convention, shall be vested in the officers. (a) The respective officers shall have such further and additional duties as may be delegated to them from time to time by the Convention, the Board or the Executive Committee; (b) The President shall preside at all meetings of the Board, Executive Committee and Advisory Council; (c) The President may designate one of the Vice-Presidents to act as Presi- dent in the event of his disability or absence.

ARTICLE VII—MEETINGS Section 1: CONVENTION—The Biennial Convention shall be convened and held each odd-numbered calendar year. Notice of the Biennial Convention shall be given not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for the commencement thereof. Section 2: BOARD OF DIRECTORS—The Board shall hold its meetings at such times and places as the President or the Board shall designate from time to time. Special Board meetings shall be held at the direction of the President or upon the

202 written request of twenty-five (25) Directors. Notice of each meeting shall be given at least 14 days before the date set for such meeting, provided that a meeting shall be held during each quarter of the calendar year.

Section 3: ADVISORY COUNCIL—Meetings of the Advisory Council shall be held at such times and places as shall be fixed and determined by the Board. Special meetings shall be held at the direction of the President or upon the written request of twenty-five (25) members of the Council. Notice of each meeting of the Council shall be given at least 14 days before the date set for such meeting. Section 4: ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS—All Honorary Directors and members of the Advisory Council shall have the right to participate in all meetings of the Board of Directors, the Advisory Council and Conventions. Unless voting rights have been specifically conferred by these By-Laws, such participation shall be without vote. They shall be entitled to receive copies of the minutes of all such meetings. All Associate Members shall have the right to participate in any meeting of the Members without voting rights. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any convening body of the Association may go into executive session upon approval by two-thirds (2/3rds) vote of those present and voting.

Section 5: NOTICES—Notices of all meetings of the Association shall be in writing and shall be sent to all Directors, Honorary Directors and Advisory Council Members. Notices of the Biennial Convention shall also be sent to each Affiliate and to all Members of the Association. Notices of all meetings shall set forth the purpose or purposes for which such meeting has been called and the time, date, place and duration of the meeting.

ARTICLE VIII—ELECTIONS Section 1: The standing committee on nominations (Nominating Committee) shall consist of nine (9) Directors, all past Presidents and the President of each Region. The President of any Region, with the approval of the National Board of Directors, may designate another person within such Region to serve in his place. (a) Designations of persons who will serve on the Advisory Council shall be submitted to the Chairman of the Nominating Committee not less than ninety (90) days before the Biennial Convention. Immediately following the commencement of such ninety (90) day period, the Chairman of the Committee shall direct at least one communication to the organizations failing to make their designations before convening the final meeting of the Committee preparatory to filing its report. (b) The Nominating Committee shall prepare a single complete slate of Officers, Directors, Honorary Directors and Advisory Council Representatives, and shall present its written report of the slate, together with all other persons who will serve by virtue of their office or other designation to each member of the Board and to each Affiliated Congregation of the Association not less than sixty (60) days before the Biennial Convention. A complete report shall be

203 included in the Convention kit distributed to each delegate at the time of registration at the Convention. (c) Additional nominations may be made only by written petition in the following manner: (i) Nominations for officers, members of the Board of Directors and of the Advisory Council shall be by written petition signed by at least two (2) members in good standing from each of not less than five ( 5 ) congregations in good standing representing at least five (5) Regions. (ii) All nominations by petition shall be submitted to the Nominating Committee thirty (30) days prior to the Convention provided in each case, the consent of any such nominee shall first have been obtained in writing and attached to the petition. (d) In the event that one or more nominations by petition are submitted to the Chairman of the Nominating Committee in the manner provided herein, the Nominating Committee shall submit a revised report, setting forth the additional nominations, to all persons entitled to receive a copy of that Com- mittee's report, not less than fifteen (15) days before the commencement of the Convention. Section 2: The election shall be held during the Convention at the time designated by the Convention Committee and approved by the Board of Direc- tors. Section 3: All elections shall be by written ballot and a plurality vote of accredited delegates or their alternates present and voting shall constitute election, except that the President shall be elected by a majority vote. Where no additional nominations are presented, the slate presented by the Nominating Committee shall be the electoral ballot. Section 4: Each person elected shall take office immediately following the announcement of the results of the election, and shall serve for two (2) years or until his successor has been elected or otherwise qualified, unless the term of such person has been sooner terminated by death, resignation or removal from office. ARTICLE IX— QUORUM Section 1: A quorum for the transaction of the business of the Association shall be as follows: (a) CONVENTION: Fifty (50) accredited delegates from Congregations, or their duly qualified alternates (representing at least eight (8) Regions). (b) BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Twenty-five (25) directors. (c) ADVISORY COUNCIL: Twenty-five (25) Council Members. (d) EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: Seven (7) Committee Members. Section 2: Any number less than a quorum may adjourn any meeting to a time certain, and from time to time, without notice other than announcement of such time and place. Any business may be transacted at such adjourned meeting which might have been transacted at the original meeting but for lack of a quorum.

204 ARTICLE X—QUALIFICATIONS AND VOTING Section 1: Only delegates of Affiliates in good standing shall qualify for representation or for any other official participation in the proceedings, government or other affairs of the Association. An Affiliate is in good standing if it is not in arrears in its commitment for annual per capita dues (including Regional dues and assessments) for the fiscal year ended June 30th next preceding the Convention, or is not under suspension or disciplinary sanction. Section 2: No person shall qualify for membership, or shall hold any office (whether as a member of the Board of Directors, the Advisory Council or otherwise), or shall vote or otherwise officially participate or act under these By-Laws unless he is a member in good standing of an Affiliated congregation in good standing. Section 3: The names of congregations in good standing and the number of its members upon which the annual per capita dues are based, shall be certified by the Financial Secretary to the annual June meeting of the Board, and shall constitute the basis for representation under these By-Laws, unless otherwise determined by the Board of Directors. Section 4: Unless otherwise expressly provided in these By-Laws, all motions, resolutions and other orders of business shall be determined by a simple majority of the authorized votes cast. Section Each authorized voting member shall be entitled to cast one vote. All voting shall be in person only and not by proxy, except as otherwise required by the Religious Corporations Law of the State of New York. Section 6: Except as provided in Article VIII, Section 3, all voting except for election of Officers, Board of Directors and Advisory Council shall be by voice or show of hands unless a closed ballot is requested by two-thirds (2/3rds) of the number present and voting.

ARTICLE XI—DUES Section 1: Annual per capita dues shall be determined, fixed and allocated by the Board of Directors, provided that the Board shall first seek the advice of the Convention or of the Advisory Council before making any changes. Section 2: Annual per capita dues shall be due and payable in advance on July 1st of each year.

ARTICLE XII—RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE Section 1: The Board of Directors may establish such Rules of Order and Procedure, not inconsistent with these By-Laws, as they may deem appropriate in the transaction of all business of the Association. Such Rules shall be adopted on approval by a two-thirds (2/3rds) vote of those Directors present and voting. Section 2: In the absence of Rules of Order and Procedure adopted by the Board, Robert's Rules of Order, Revised, shall govern, provided, howevçr, that 242 at any Biennial Convention, at the commencement of the plenary sessions thereof, the delegates present may adopt special rules for the conduct of business at that convention on approval by two-thirds (2/3rds) of the votes cast.

ARTICLE XIII—ADOPTION AND AMENDMENTS

Section 1: These By-Laws shall become effective immediately following the close of the 1971 Biennial Convention. Nothing herein contained shall invalidate any actions or proceedings undertaken pursuant to the By-Laws in effect prior to the adoption hereof. Affiliations, membership and terms of office existing at the time of adoption shall continue without interruption and have the same effect as though they had been accomplished hereunder. Section 2: These By-Laws may be amended at any Biennial Convention by two-thirds (2/3fds) vote of the delegates present and voting, provided a quorum is present. Section 3: An amendment may be initiated by: (a) The Board of Directors, in which event the amendment must first be approved by simple majority vote of the Board of Directors present at a duly called meeting, a copy of such proposed amendment having first been incorporated in the notice of the meeting at which it is to be acted on; or (b) A petition in writing, signed by at least two members in pood standing from each of not less than five congregations in good standing rc^ renting at least five Regions and submitted to the Board of Directors at least m •y (90) days prior to the Biennial Convention. (c) In either event, the Board of Directors shall transmit the pro! ed amendment to its Affiliates at least thirty (30) days prior to the date appointed for the convening of the Biennial Convention and shall present such proposed amendments to the Convention with its views thereon.

206 INTRODUCTION TO GUIDE TO CONGREGATIONAL STANDARDS

JUDAH GRIBETZ

Chairman, Committee on Congregational Standards The 1969 convention charged our committee with the task of revising the Guide to Congregational Standards, which was adopted. The committee divided itself into several sub-committees, early in 1970 shortly after the convention adjourned in 1969. These sub-committees met, corresponded with each other, and with the other members of the full committee. The sub-committees finished their task and then a full committee was created to bring in final recommendations. I would like to stress that involved at all times, in the work of our committee were representatives of the Rabbinical Assembly, who sit on our committee, including the present and immediate past president of the Rabbinical Assembly. The proposed revision was presented to the Board of Directors of the United Synagogue on June 14, 1971. It was also distributed to all congregations and to all regions. The document before you contains the guide as it now stands, the proposed revision, and an analysis of the changes suggested by your committee. I will just stress some of the highlights of our work. An integral part of the proposed revision before you is a suggested amendment to the Standards for Synagogue Practice. That suggested amendment is printed on page 211. It speaks for itself. It speaks to the settlement of controversies within the movement by a panel composed of members of the movement. The language of the proposed amendment to the Standards for Synagogue Practice is the same as the language we are suggesting in Article I of the proposed revision of the Guide. The second highlight is that what we are proposing is a guide, not a code, for utilization by our member congregations in their dealings with their staff and leaders. If you would look at page 211 you will see that we have recommended that it be stressed as follows: "It is to be emphasized that the following is a guide then for congregations and religious leaders alike. While this guide is not to be construed as legally binding on any of the parties involved, unless specifically made part of the contract, tested experience indicates that what follows, promotes the most harmonious reltaionships among them." It is a guide, n6t a code. We are not a hierarchy. The final resting place is in the individual congregation.

We are suggesting a most important change in the matter of service. Under the old guide, recommendation was made that when a rabbi's services were terminated, severance was to be paid equal to one month's salary for every year of service, except the first year. This recommendation held in all

207 cases except for dismissal for cause. The proposed revision suggests that severance be paid only when there is a reduction in the salary of the rabbi's new position. Should the rabbi go to a new position, which pays him the same as or more than his old position, no severance need be paid. However, actual and reasonable out of pocket expenses incurred in seeking and moving to a new pulpit, not reimbursed by the new congregation, is to be paid. Another important change is the section on tenure which has been completely rewritten. In the old Guide, all that it said is that a "rabbi shall be engaged for one year, upon his first renewal, for three years, upon his second renewal, and for five years upon each subsequent renewal for three years." The old Guide goes on to say that these are minimal provisions, and may be made for longer terms. The proposed revision, on page 212, suggests that rabbis be engaged for two years, except for newly ordained rabbis who may be engaged for one year. In- sofar as renewals are concerned, the proposed revision suggests that the intentions of the rabbi and the Board of his congregation be ascertained at least four (4) months but not over six (6) months prior to the termination of the rabbis' present contract and that tenure may include the following variations: First, open end. Namely the rabbi serves as long as both parties agree that he serve. Or Second, specified tenure, namely, the rabbi may be reelected for a specific number of years. Experience has shown that the following is advisable: Initial term two (2) years; first renewal three (3) years; second renewal five (5) years; and of course, longer terms including life tenure, may be provided by the parties if they so desire. Another major issue involves freedom of the pulpit. Here may I digress for a moment. Our recommendation to this body is a unanimous recommendation. Our committee worked, I think, fully and democratically for a two year period, and our recommendations reflect the unanimous consensus of our views. In one area, however, there was not agreement. Actually I believe that the vote was equally divided. And that area is with respect to freedom of the pulpit. As a matter of fact, the discussion and trouble that this issue raised among the committee, was echoed when the committee presented this Guide to the Board of Directors in June. Therefore, we have presented to you, both views. For one, look at page 212, we have view (a), and I shall quote it; "The rabbi shall at all times enjoy the freedom of his pulpit which is the regular place from which the rabbi preaches during the worship services. A guest shall occupy the pulpit only on the invitation by the rabbi." The second view reads as follows: "The rabbi, shall, at all times, enjoy the freedom of the pulpit which is the regular place from which the rabbi preaches during the worship services. A guest shall occupy the pulpit only on invitation by the rabbi, and with the approval of the duly constituted officers of his congregation."

208 As I said, this is the one area where we did not have unanimous agreement, but I would not want to mislead any member of the ones assembled here. We had representatives of the Rabbinical Assembly on our committee. We have had them on the sub-committee that has prepared the work of our full committee. I would like to call your attention to the following statement in our program revision: "The Rabbinical Assembly through its president, Rabbi S. Gershon Levi, and its executive vice president, Rabbi Wolfe Kelman, both of whom are members of the Committee on Congregational Standards and have participated in the proposed revision, have advised us that they will strongly recommend to the Rabbinical Assembly the adoption of a similar provision." All they can do is all we can do: to advise and recommend. The Rabbinical Assembly will discuss matters relating to their position within their congregations as we are discussing these matters today. We cannot bind them as they cannot bind us. Finally, there are several areas where we believe work is yet to be done. We have sub-committees engaged in drawing up guides for executive directors; and for teachers. We hope, that our committee, when it is reappointed, will continue this work, and whatever its work product will be, will present it to the Board of Directors, and hopefully in two years hence, the work with respect to relationships with executive directors and teachers will be presented to a convention such as this. We wrote in our report that Standards concerning cantors were incoro- rated in the provisions concerning relationships with rabbis. Since our committee wrote that phrase and report, we have had communications from representatives of the Cantors Assembly, and this morning we assured them that whatever concerns they might have, would be fully considered by the committee in its work, in the next 2 years, and that we would appoint a similar sub- committee to work with the cantors in dealing with their concerns about relationships to synagogues. I would say in conclusion, that the last two years of work was a true exam- pie of a trite phrase, that phrase being participatory democracy. We had meetings attended by people from all over the country. We have had meetings in the last 2 years where almost the entire committee attended and participated. We had hard working sub-committees. This is not an easy area of concern. This is an area where understanding is most needed. I would like to thank the members of our committee for the work that they have done and I turn the matters over to you for your deliberations.

209 A GUIDE TO CONGREGATIONAL STANDARDS Approved by 1952 United Synagogue Convention Revised by 1971 United Synagogue Convention

PREAMBLE In the proper performance of its functions, the Synagogue has many relationships, and should exemplify in all of them a standard of conduct inspired by Jewish tradition and values. In dealing with its professional staff and personnel, in participating in the activities of the Jewish and the civic community, and in its relations with other congregations, the actions of the Syna- gogue should be at all times consonant with the basic idea that the Synagogue can and should teach by example as well as by precept The United Synagogue of America, by this Guide to Standards, therefore, requests of its constituent Synagogues that the standards herein formulated shall be followed by its affiliated congregations in all areas of congregational activity. This Guide marks only the beginning of an effort to develop a series of standards for congregational living in all its aspects. From time to time additional areas of congregational life will be studied by the United Synagogue for the purpose of establishing a comprehensive series of standards. The Guide is conceived in the spirit of the purposes stated and set forth in the act incorporating the United Synagogue of America: "The advancement of the cause of Judaism in America and the maintenance of Jewish tradition in its historical continuity; to assert and establish loyalty to the Torah and its historical exposition; to further the observance of the Sabbath and the Dietary Laws; to preserve in the service the reference to Israel's past and the hopes for Israel's restoration; to maintain the traditional character of the liturgy, with Hebrew as the language of prayer; to foster Jewish religious life in the home, as expressed in traditional observances; to encourage the establishment of Jewish religious schools, in the curricula of which the study of the Hebrew language and literature shall be given a prominent place, both as the key to the true understanding of Judaism, and as a bond holding together the scattered communities of Israel throughout the world. It shall be the aim of the United Synagogue of America, while not endorsing the innovations introduced by any of its constituent bodies, to embrace all elements essentially loyal to traditional Judaism and in sympathy with the purposes outlined above." The United Synagogue expects that its affiliated congregations will conduct their congregational affairs in conformance with the precepts of Jewish tradition at all times as formulated in the foregoing statement. Whenever any problems

210 should arise in these matters, the United Synagogue with its affiliates will turn to the National Organization for guidance.

Special Purpose In order to (1) establish standards for the conduct and performance of congregational functions, (2) define the relations of Congregations and their staffs, and (3) develop desirable intercongregational and community relationships, the following Guide to Standards is suggested and recommended for adoption by the United Synagogue of America for its constituent Congregations. It is to be emphasized that the following is a guide for congregations and religious leaders alike. While this guide is not to be construed as legally binding on any of the parties involved unless specifically made part of the contract, tested experience indicates that what follows promotes the most harmonious relationships among them.

ARTICLE 1—THE CONGREGATION AND ITS STAFF

A. General Provisions Section 1: Obtaining Personnel a. In order to maintain proper dignity and standards, congregations are urged to turn to the appropriate placement offices of the proper agencies affiliated or allied with the Movement for recommendations for filling any vacancies that may occur in the congregational staff. b. Congregations should not place advertisements in the press when seeking to fill vacancies in their professional staff, c. Upon making an appointment to its professional staff, a Congregation shall confirm such appointment to the recipient by letter stating the terms upon which such appointment is made.

Section 2: Social Security Every congregation should provide, unless the staff member prefers otherwise, for each member of its staff the benefits of the Social Security Act or Acts applicable to such staff member.

Section 3: Adjustment of Controversies The contractual relationship between a congregation and any member of its staff is one that should be marked by observance, not only of the agreement between the parties, but also by the spirit in which Judaism has resolved human problems through the ages. Any difference between the congregation and any member of its staff concerning its relationship shall be referred to the United Synagogue of America who shall attempt to bring about an amicable resolution of the differences. If such approach fails, the parties shall submit the controversy in question to the Committee on Congregational Standards of the United Syna-

211 gogue of America for binding arbitration under its procedures as currently in effect. B. The Congregation and Its Rabbi Section 1: General Principles The relationship between a congregation and a rabbi is that of a religious community and its chosen leader. Accordingly, the following general principles shall be considered as an integral part of this relationship. a. A rabbi is the spiritual leader of the congregation and as such is called to serve the religious, educational, spiritual and pastoral needs of its membership as well as to serve his congregation through his spiritual leadership in the community at large, both Jewish and non-Jewish. b. Reasonable opportunity shall be afforded by the Congregation to the rabbi to serve the interests of the larger community, both Jewish and civic, whenever and wherever such service shall not interfere unreasonably with the performance of his congregational duties. c. The rabbi shall at all times enjoy the freedom of his pulpit which is the regular place from which the rabbi preaches during the worship services. A guest shall occupy the pulpit only on invitation by the rabbi. d. The rabbi shall supervise all religious services and rites; he shall also supervise the educational program of the synagogue in cooperation with the Educational Director. e. The rabbi shall be afforded every opportunity for scholarship and the congregation shall recognize his need for ample time for study and research.

Section 2: Tenure of the Rabbi a. Initial Engagement: The initial engagement of the rabbi should be for the minimum period of two years, except for the newly-ordained rabbis, who may be engaged for one or two years, at the discretion of the congregation. b. Renewal: At least four months, but not over six months prior to the completion of the rabbi's agreed period of service, the Board of Trustees shall ascertain the rabbi's and its own intentions as to the future of the relationship. If the rabbi and the majority of the Board agree, the Board, after consultation with the rabbi, shall recommend to the congregation the rabbi's reelection, according to one of the following methods: 1. Open End: The rabbi will continue to serve the congregation until either the rabbi or the congregation announces its intention to end the relationship. (See: Termination of Agreements, below.) Under this plan, increments to rabbinic salary, pension, and benefits shall be reviewed peri- odically by the Board and, if approved, shall be presented to the congregation as part of an overall budget. 2. Specified Tenure: The rabbi may be reelected for a specific number of years. The following tenure arrangement has proved workable and equitable.

212 Initial term: Two years (one or two years for newly ordained rabbis). First reelection : Three years. Second reelection: Five years. 3. Agreements for longer terms including life tenure than those herein- above provided may at all times be made by the parties.

Section 3: Commencement of Term a. Since congregational activities usually start each year with the High Holy Day Season, a congregation engaging a rabbi should arrange for assumption of his responsibilities sufficiently in advance of that date, preferably not later than August 1st, in order to allow him adequate time and opportunity to become acquainted with the nature of his association and duties before the commencement of the active synagogue year. b. In cases where the rabbi is engaged for a term commencing at any other period of the year, the first year of his service should be adjusted, by a provision in the contract of engagement, so as to end on August 1st of the following year.

Section 4: Termination of Agreements a. During the first two years of service by a rabbi to a congregation, if either party wishes to terminate the agreement, written notice should be given by such party to the other party at least three (3) months in advance of the date of the expiration of their agreement, it being desirable that such notice shall be given no later than May 1st of any calendar year. b. After notice of termination has been given by either party to the other, the congregation after consultation with the Joint Placement Commission of the Rabbinical Assemby and the United Synagogue of America, shall have the right to invite other rabbis to its pulpit during the period between the receipt of such notice and the expiration of the existing agreement, and the rabbi shall have the right to accept invitations from other congregations. c. In the event that the employment of a rabbi is terminated by the congregation, the rabbi shall receive severance pay for the applicable period as hereinafter set forth. Such severance shall not exceed the difference between his new remuneration arrangement, if it is lower, and the old arrangement, plus actual and reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in seeking and moving to a new pulpit not reimbursed by the new congregation. In no event shall severance pay exceed one month's salary at the most recent rate for each year of service with the congregation beginning with the second year of service. If the rabbi voluntarily terminates his relationship with the congregation, or is dismissed for cause, no severance pay shall be obligatory on the congregation. d. Time of Pulpit Change: Placement openings occur at all seasons. As a consequence, placement opportunities for the rabbi cannot always coincide with ־the termination date of the rabbi's commitment, and therefore a rabbi's explora

213 rion of openings must necessarily begin before the expiration of his term. While the rabbi is morally committed to complete any period for which he has agreed to serve, and the congregation has the right to insist that he do so, the following procedure has proved both ethical and equitable: The rabbi may in the 12 months preceding the expiration of his contract seek or consider a change of pulpit. When he receives a firm offer of a new position and wishes to accept it, he will secure a release from his present commitment, his date of release to be determined by mutual agreement of the two congregations involved.

Section 5: Retirement Plan a. Congregations are urged to fully participate in the Joint Retirement Plan of the United Synagogue of America, The Jewish Theological Seminary of America and the Rabbinical Assembly to provide pension plans for all full-time professional employees, in addition to the federal Social Security program. Congregations are further urged to fully participate in such other employment benefit plans as have been or may be established by the Joint Retirement Board of the United Synagogue of America, The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, and the Rabbinical Assembly. b. In cases where the agreement with the Rabbi is terminated and the premium paid on the Retirement Plan extends beyond the terminated date of the rabbi's agreement with the congregation, the congregation shall waive its right to collect the unearned premium and, similarly, the congregation shall not be responsible for reimbursing another congregation when it secures the services of a rabbi for whom premiums have been paid in advance which have not been fully earned.

Section 6: Vacations Proper provision should be made for the vacation of the rabbi. Accordingly, the agreement between a congregation and its rabbi for the first year of his service to the congregation, should provide for a minimum period of vacation of one month. In subsequent years of such service, a longer vacation period should be provided for, it being understood that, at all times, the rabbi and the congregation shall arrange for the religious functions of the congregation during his absence. As this will necessitate the coordination of summer plans among rabbis in a given area, the Rabbinical Assembly should cooperate for this purpose and the Regional Offices of the United Synagogue should render active assistance in the event of emergency calls during the summer.

Section 7: Relationship to Synagogue Administration

a. The rabbi shall serve as the consultant and guide of the Ritual Com- mittee. He shall be invited to all meetings of such Committee^ and shall, in consultation with such Committee, decide upon all matters that affect the religious aspect of the synagogue. b. The rabbi shall be notified of the meetings of the Board of Directors or

214 Trustees of the congregation, and shall have the right to attend such meetings and participate in their deliberations, without any voting rights.

Section 8: Illness, Disability, etc. As experience has indicated that no rabbi serving a congregation for an extended period has been inconsiderably treated by the congregation when he became ill, disabled, or suffered other calamities, we have faith that our congre- garions will act thus nobly in the future and the continuance of such a course of conduct by congregations to their rabbis is recommended.

215 Resolution Adopted By Board of Directors United Synagogue of America on December 6,1970

The United Synagogue of America reaffirms its distaste for and condem- nation of bingo, and similar games of chance, as means of raising funds for congregational purposes. Such modes of financing Jewish activities, most espe- daily the activity pattern of a congregation, are diametrically opposed to the standards and program of the Bet Haknesset.

The United Synagogue of America will continue to urge and encourage its constituent congregations to exert every effort to avoid the playing of or the sponsorship of bingo. It will continue to offer guidance and fiscal direction as to alternate means of providing needed fiscal resources.

In the event that a congregation should sponsor bingo, in spite of the avowed position of the United Synagogue of America, certain penalties may be incurred by that congregation, as follows:

a. Such congregation shall not be eligible to designate delegates to regional or national conventions, although, at the discretion of the National Board of Directors and the various Regional Boards, they could conceivably send observers to all such gatherings. b. Members of such a congregation shall not be eligible to hold either national office or regional office. c. Such congregation shall not be eligible for Solomon Schechter Awards.

The right to impose penalties upon congregations for violation of standards will continue to be exercised by the national organization. However, such action shall follow the recommendation of the region in which a given congregation is located, as to which penalties shall be imposed.

A congregation playing bingo shall be subject to periodic consultation with financial experts, as designated by the region in which it is located, to ascertain if it is fiscally necessary for the congregation to continue this practice.

216 RESOLUTIONS I. THE UNITED SYNAGOGUE COMMISSION ON JEWISH EDUCATION

a. Federation Support To Jewish Education It has long been evident that the organized Jewish community has not afforded adequate support for Jewish education. This is particularly the case in the instance of the day school, but it is equally true where the afternoon congregational school is concerned. The needs of all Jewish schools in the area of personnel, materials, in-service training, and a full galaxy of unmet requirements mandate no further delay in Federations providing the necessary fiscal support. Thus, the United Synagogue of America calls upon Jewish Federations to:

a...Provide subventions for Solomon Schechter day schools. b... Provide subventions for afternoon congregational schools. c... Provide subventions to motivate young people on the secondary level to continue their studies, via scholarships for Israel trips and Ramah Camp experiences. d... Provide subventions for Professional Growth programs, to improve the level of instruction. e... Provide subventions for a massive campaign to reverse the decline in enrollment, which is endemic throughout the Jewish school system in North America.

Congregations and educational institutions of our Movement, in turn, should make the necessary effort to become thoroughly familiar with the subvention patterns already made available by various Federations and community agencies in various parts of North America. The failure of Federations to articulate a subvention pattern to the degree which educators feel necessary does not change the fact that in a number of limited instances, such programs, however modest, are under way. We commend those Federations which have already instituted funding and support programs for Jewish education, and it is incum- bent upon our congregations to become familiar with these programs so that they may be fully utilized as need develops.

b. Raising Standards of Jewish Education The United Synagogue of America calls upon its constituent congregations to intensify their educational standards by increasing the number of hours of afternoon congregational school instruction from six to seven, and to increase the number of years required for pre-Bar (or Bat) Mitzvah from five to six, so that every child of our Movement, boy or girl, will begin weekday religious instruction no later than the age of seven, and will spend seven hours a week

217 in the afternoon congregational school. The Convention calls upon its congre- gâtions, as well, to make every effort to provide for continuation education beyond the age of thirteen, by way of assigning the proper faculty, allocating the appropriate budget, launching the necessary public relations campaign, and working diligently with parents to assure that every youngster will continue his weekday Jewish education through the age of seventeen.

c. Parent Education Program

The school cannot function with effectiveness unless the parent cooperates fully. To this end, the United Synagogue Commission on Jewish Education has launched its Parent Education Program. This program, which provides for co-curricular mandatory parallel education for at least one parent of each child enrolled in the first grade of the weekday religious school, should become normative throughout our entire Movement. Every congregation is urged to introduce the Parent Education Program as a regular adjunct of its religious school, starting with September of 1972.

d. New Developments in Jewish Education

The United Synagogue of America commends the United Synagogue Com- mission on Jewish Education and the Department of Education for a series of new departures programmed during the past two years; especially noted are the Parent Education Program, the Family Kallah of August 1971, the launching of the Solomon Schechter High School in Israel, the development for the first time in two decades of new curricular materials on the elementary, secondary, and day school level, and the expansion of the Solomon Schechter Day School Association into secondary education. The work of the Commission in developing a proposed Code for Teachers, and in guiding congregations engaged in negotiation with teachers' unions, represents a true service to our synagogue constituency.

II. THE NATIONAL ACADEMY FOR ADULT JEWISH STUDIES

a. Curriculum of Jewish Learning

The United Synagogue notes with pleasure the growing number of congre- gâtions shaping their adult education offerings in accordance with the mandate of the National Academy for Adult Jewish Studies, set forth in Objectives, Education In The Congregation. This־ For Adult Jewish־ Standards And Program model program provides a minimum of 160 hours of classroom studies over a four-year period and reflects a curriculum which is representative of the total

218 Jewish historical experience. We urge every congregation to review its own adult studies program and to assure its full participation in this national campaign to meet appropriate standards in adult Jewish education.

b. The Study of Talmud We are deeply gratified to note the upsurge of interest in Rabbinic literature engendered by the publication of the El-Am Talmud, sponsored by the United Synagogue. This convention hails the El-Am Series and strongly urges the formation of Talmud Study groups in each congregation in order to introduce adults and young people alike to the world of Rabbinic thought.

c. Financing the Adult Education Program

The United Synagogue calls upon its constituent congregations to intensify their financial support of adult education programming. While several studies indicate that a growing portion of the congregational budget is being allocated to this basic area, the actual sums expended are still far too small to do justice to the need. We request each congregation to re-examine its own budget so as to assure adequate provision for the educational needs of its adult membership.

d. Inter-Congregational Planning

The United Synagogue urges its constituent congregations to give considéra- tion to the form of sponsorship of its adult education program. Each individual congregation is responsible for making adequate provision for the educational needs of its adult membership. In many instances this can best be accomplished by a pooling of resources and a joint sponsorship of lectures and, where possible, classes as well. We also invite each region similarly to consider how it can best assist such cooperative efforts.

III. YOUTH ACTIVITIES

a. College-Age Youth

We have long recognized the need to involve college-age youth (generally, ages 18-25) in the mainstream of synagogue life. We must make every effort to create an atmosphere of understanding conducive to attracting and interesting college age youth to become more involved in congregational activities; to provide opportunities and occasions to share their opinions and views in making policy and charting directions; to encourage their active participation in the spectrum of Jewish life. Toward this objective, we urge that 1 ) a committee on college age youth be forthwith established as a standing committee in every synagogue,

219 2) every congregational board have at least one member from college age youth, 3 ) congregational committees immediately recruit representatives of college age youth for direct involvement in the day to day work of synagogue activities, 4) every congregation provides scholarships for at least one collegian to attend ATID functions, and 5) every congregation enroll their collegians in the ATID Subscription Program.

b. Survey on USY Advisors

The United Synagogue Youth program has grown and expanded over the years and provided program, inspiration and leadership in the development of our teenagers into committed and knowledgeable Jews. Recently, an urgent need has arisen to provide training facilities, salary guidelines and standards for USY advisors. The National Youth Commission should conduct a survey, evaluate the need and propose recommendations for action as to training facilities, salary guidelines and standards for USY advisors.

c. Kadimah We note that the Department of Youth Activities has broadened its scope of Youth Activities by the establishment of a pre-teenage group, Kadimah. We urge all congregations to establish and develop Kadimah groups in their congregations providing qualified advisors to conduct and supervise this important activity.

IV. OTHER ACTIVITIES

a. National Enrollment Plan

The National Enrollment Plan is a major factor providing for the sound fiscal development of our Movement in general, and the United Synagogue of America in particular. It provides a direct personal contact on the part of the individual synagogue member with the programs and activities of the United Synagogue of America and The Jewish Theological Seminary. Over the years, an increasing number of congregational members have identified with the National Enrollment Plan. In view of the fact that the United Synagogue of America shares, on an equal basis, in the growth of the National Enrollment Plan, this Convention feels that the time is at hand for each congregation to make it mandatory for its

220 members to become part of the National Enrollment Plan. Accordingly, the United Synagogue of America calls upon its constituent congregations to take appropriate action so that mandatory National Enrollment Plan for their members will be effected in each congregation.

b. United Synagogue Achievements

The United Synagogue of America takes note of the growth in the work of the various departments, commissions and committees within the United Synagogue. We particularly note: a) the 20th anniversary of the Eternal Light Film Library, the largest of its kind in the field of adult Judaica materials; b) the appearance of the tenth title in the Jewish Tract series, a popular exposition of ideas and values in the Judaic tradition; c) the expanding program of publication of text books and other materials for our congregational and Solomon Schechter schools; d) the pioneering work of Tikvah, at Camp Ramah in Glen Spey, in full- season camping for children with learning disabilities; e) the growth of the various educational summer study programs in the United States, Europe and Israel under the auspices of the United Synagogue Youth; f) the work of the Committee on Congregational Standards in revising the Guide to Congregational Standards and in developing a series of guides to personnel practices; g) the regular publication, in printed form, of Judaism in Social Action which guides congregations on our approach to the issues facing all of America; h) the establishment of a permanent Committee on Soviet Jewry to give direction to our congregations in this area of major concern; i) the commitment of the Conservative Movement to the concept of Klal Yisrael and its expression through the United Synagogue's active participation in the Synagogue Council of America.

c. Israel Affairs

We commend the Israel Affairs Committee formed at our 1969 Conven- tion for vigorously implementing its mandate. We voice our firm support for a unified city of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. We commend the government of Israel for its fulfilled guarantees providing free access to all holy places for members of all faiths. We take note of the aid given to Israel by the governments of the United

221 States and Canada and urge them to continue to support and strengthen the economic and defensive capability of the State of Israel, so that peace and stability will ultimately be achieved in the Middle East. We urge all our congregations and individual members to continue to respond to the economic and emergency needs of the State of Israel, by wholehearted participation in fund drives and bond purchases, for Israel, and to strengthen the ties between the Jews of Israel and the Jews of the United States and Canada by encouraging visits, studies and Aliyah to Israel, We urge all congregations to begin planning immediately for the 25th anniversary celebrations of the State of Israel, utilizing the Israel Affairs Committee's program and recommendations.

d. Soviet Jewry

Congregations affiliated with the United Synagogue of America have in the past years continued to grow increasingly aware of the problems facing our brothers in the Soviet Union. Time and again, they have spoken out in sharp protest against discrimination in the Soviet Union, and, time and again, they have greeted with admiration the courage of the thousands of Russian Jews who have dared to speak out in defense of the rights guaranteed them by the Soviet constitution.

We urge every congregation and every region in the United Synagogue to create a Committee on Soviet Jewry in order that each synagogue member will be constantly aware of all developments. Such a committee should include representatives from all arms of the synagogue, especially from ATID or other college age groups. We further recommend that our congregations and regions establish liaison with the United Synagogue Committee on Soviet Jewry with a view to proper coordination of actions on behalf of Russian Jews. We caution our congregations that when acting on their own or in concert with other groups, certain guidelines must be considered: a. Acts which only seek publicity but have no other redeeming value should not be supported. b. Violence and threats of violence, in America, are totally inconsistent with our aims and objectives. We live neither under a totalitarian state nor in an oppressed society. c. The political and economic system of the Soviet Union is not our concern, except insofar as it denies to Jewish citizens their appropriate rights within the context of Soviet society.

e. Yom Hashoa and Yom Haatzmaut

The United Synagogue of America calls upon all affiliated congregations

222 to commemorate Yom Hashoa, in remembrance of the Six Million, on the 27th day of Nisan and to celebrate Yom Haatzmaut, Israeli Independence Day, on the 5 th day of Iyar, in an appropriate manner. The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly has taken official cognizance of these dates and has prohibited weddings on Yom Hashoa and has declared Yom Haatzmaut a holiday. At our last convention we adopted a resolution asking that Nisan 27 be devoted to memorialization, not only of the destruction, but also of the courage and spiritual resources of the martyred. The United Synagogue of America asks for the development of appropriate program materials for these two dates in order to give these days greater significance in the synagogue calendar. At the same time, we also urge all our affiliated synagogues to plan an active role in central community observances of both these days.

f. Regional Adoption of Conservative Synagogues in Israel

The United Synagogue of America has in many ways, and especially through the World Council of Synagogues, expressed its interest in the Conservative Movement in Israel. We acknowledge with satisfaction the steady growth of the Conservative Movement and the increasing number of congregations affiliated with the United Synagogue of Israel. We are happy to note that a number of regions of the United Synagogue of America, in order to forge a direct spiritual link with Israel, have "adopted" a Conservative congregation in Israel. We endorse this principle of adoption of sister congregations in Israel and recommend it to all regions within the United Synagogue.

g. The World Council of Synagogues The United Synagogue of America salutes the World Council of Synagogues on its steady progress in furthering the cause of Conservative Judaism throughout the world. The United Synagogue of America extends its greetings to the World Council of Synagogues on its forthcoming ninth biennial convention which will convene on November 20-23, 1972 in Israel and urges its congregations to participate in this important gathering of synagogue leaders from more than a score of countries throughout the world.

V. SOCIAL ACTION

a. Vietnam Once again we are saddened by the fact that our Convention meets while the war in Vietnam still goes on. TTie Vietnam casualties have brought misery to hundreds of thousands of homes in our country, and to millions of homes in

223 Vietnam. It is true that ground fighting has diminished, but the bombing phase of the war goes on unabated. More bombs have been showered upon Southeast Asia that have been used in all of World War II. Various plans have been proposed, but all have failed in ending the war. Cessation of the war by us is essential now. Especially is this so after the one-man election in Vietnam violated principles of democracy for which we presumably had entered into this war.

Professor Abraham J. Heschel has said, "Some are guilty, all are responsible." The Jewish tradition teaches that admission of an error is considered not loss of face but an indication of sound character and good sense. In fact, our tradition goes even further. Maimonides instructs that wedded to the expression of regret must be firm action of redress. There can be no redress for those who have been killed, but there can be redress for those who are still alive. We therefore urge our government to accelerate its time table of withdrawal, to inform the Amer- ican people in all candor as to what is happening in Vietnam, to take firm steps to prevent a repetition of atrocities, to stop the spreading of the war into other areas of Southeast Asia, and to prepare a program for prompt rehabilitation and rebuilding af war-torn Southeast Asia. Toward this end, we urge the Joint Com- mission on Social Action to prepare appropriate regional and congregational guidelines for implementation of the objectives of this resolution.

b. Disarmament Talks The United Synagogue of America greets with satisfaction our Govern- ment's continued concern with the problem of disarmament and the progress of the disarmament talks in various international forums of which the United States is a part. We hail the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), the hope for a rapprochement between the United States and China, the continuation of disarmament discussions between the United States and the Soviet Union and all other interested parties. Reducing arms expenditures will help in increasing the necessary budgetary allocations for domestic concerns and will go a long way towards a national reordering of the priorities facing our country.

c. Recent Governmental Positions On Israel and Soviet Jewry We express our very deep concern over the statements of our State Depart- ment with respect to the plight of our brethren in both Israel and the Soviet Union, who together constitute almost 40% of the world's Jewish population. The delaying tactics of our Government in providing Israel with phantom jet aircraft are threatening Israel's security by further aggravating the present arms imbalance caused by continued Soviet arms shipments to Egypt. Additional delay can only give aid and comfort to those who would weaken our only ally in the Middle East.

Every report from observers, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, for the past

224 fifteen years, has attested to the great disabilities under which our brethren in tha Soviet Union live, only because they are Jews. Current attempts to minimize the perils of Soviet Jews, both those who wish to leave and the majority who wish to remain as Soviet citizens, can only cause harm to their cause by tempering the voice of responsible protest. Para- doxically, it enhances the position of those who believe violent protest is the only solution. We also express our dismay at the failure of the State Department and our Ambassador to the United Nations to respond to the virulent anti- Semitic remarks of the Soviet representative to the United Nations.

d. Jews in Syria and Iraq

Jews in Syria and Iraq daily face physical extermination as well as deprivation of their basic civil and religious rights. They are under constant surveillance, subject to imprisonment on whim, and almost completely prevented from pursuing their normal livelihoods or obtaining compensation for their property. Their movement is greatly restricted and emigration has become almost impossible. We call upon the governments of the United States and Canada to do everything in their power, through the United Nations and otherwise, to protest this persecution and to influence the governments of Syria and Iraq to observe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to restore the basic rights of the Jews living in their countries. We urge every congregation to focus attention on this issue and to encourage its membership to protest the actions of the Syrian and Iraqi governments.

e. Genocide Convention

Although 75 nations have ratified the Genocide Convention, including the major powers, the United States has not yet done so. This year, after 23 years of effort, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has recommended ratification to the full Senate. Failure of the Senate to ratify will be incomprehensible to the rest of the world and will constitute a mockery of the Holocaust. We reaffirm our support of the Genocide Convention, and urge our congregations to call upon their Senators to support ratification, particularly since this may be the final opportunity to do so.

f. Department of Peace The United Synagogue of America urges that a Department of Peace be established with cabinet rank in our national government. This Department is to devote itself to research, planning, training and education for the peaceful resolution of international conflicts. We urge that it be adequately budgeted so that the newly established De- partment of Peace can assume its proper place as an active branch of our govern-

225 ment in the advocacy of peace. We ask our congregations to support legislation for the establishment of a Department of Peace.

g. Urban Crisis and the Jewish Poor

The crisis facing the cities continues apace. The Conference of Mayors, in the spring of 1971, warned that the danger of the city is not that of détériora- tion but of death. The urban tax base is continually shrinking, necessitating cuts in service in the face of growing need. The movement out of the city goes on, affecting both the city and the suburbs. For the first time according to the 1970 census, the population of the United States is neither urban or rural, but pre- ponderantly suburban. Cities cannot save themselves from the dilemma of rising costs and diminishing tax resources. The dilemma is not theirs alone, but that of the entire nation. We recommend that our congregations give urgent consideration to the urban cities. Among the problems to be studied are the reordering of priorities, the necessity for new budgetary federal involvement in financing the city, the responsibility of suburbs and exurbia to the city, and the need for regional development plans as opposed to purely urban plans.

Of special concern is the problem of the Jewish poor. Reports emanating from New York City and large metropolitan areas and confirmed by the federal government indicate that there have been instances where the Jewish poor have been excluded from the cities' anti-poverty programs. This report is but a symp- torn of a problem which, in the growing affluence of our society and of the Jewish community, we have tended to overlook. It is estimated that there are between 700,000 and 800,000 Jewish poor in the United States, two-thirds of them elderly. We urge our congregations to give immediate attention to the needs of the Jewish poor and to join with other interested congregations, organizations and local community councils to alleviate the plight of the Jewish poor wherever they may be. Toward this end, guidelines should be prepared by the Joint Com- mission on Social Action for our regions and congregations.

h. Welfare Reform

Welfare reform has occupied local, state and national legislative bodies in the last few years. This is no longer a local problem, but one involving the entire nation. The Congress is presently engaged in drafting legislation to meet the needs of persons who must be on welfare.

We recommend to our congregations that they oppose unwarranted retro- gressive actions in cutting back existing welfare programs, and that they urge the Congress to establish a unified federally administered and federally financed system based solely on need to establish benefit levels that will insure individual and family incomes not less than government defined poverty levels, to make provisions for protection concerning both suitability and wage standards on all

226 jobs and training programs, to exempt mothers of pre-school and dependent children from job or training requirements, and to establish day care centers with adequate standards and other supplementary services to enable mothers who choose to accept employment to do so. We also recommend to our congregations to urge Representatives and Sen- ators to vote for welfare reform legislation this year. Any delay on the heels of the new economic program will hurt people already hit hardest by inflation and unemployment. Passage of welfare reform legislation this year is a priority which should not be by-passed. We further urge that appropriate government agencies institute programs designed to create opportunities for employment to those on welfare rolls, with the aim of reducing not only unemployment, but also of alleviating the serious financial crises arising from welfare payments and the heavy tax burden imposed thereby on the public.

i. Hand Gun Control

One of the root causes of increased murders, especially that of policemen, is the prevalence of hand guns. It is estimated that in the United States there are about 24 million hand guns in private hands. The number is growing by several million a year. The present gun control law has proved to be ineffectual because it is unenforceable and easily evaded. We urge our congregations to give increased attention to the area of state and federal gun control with a view to making the controls as strict as possible so that all hand guns must be registered pursuant to local and federal legislation.

j. Health

The United States of America faces a national health problem which can be solved only by a comprehensive health policy. The cuts in medicare and medi- caid as well as other budgetary strictures in institutional care, both on a federal and state basis, point to the massive proportions of the crisis in health. We urge our congregations to study thè problem with a view to the establishment of a national policy under which every person in the United States would be entitled to medical care as of right, the effectual financing of such care from public and private sources, and the reorganization and restructuring of medical services in our country to deal with the enormous escalation in costs of medical service. Minority groups should be encouraged and aided by government to assume their share of the responsibility for medical training and care.

k. Governmental Interference With Basic Rights

Jewish security is inextricably linked to freedom in the broadest sense. We have become increasingly concerned over —• unwarranted criticism of the media from government sources,

227 — the Attorney General's claim of the right of government to engage in electronic eavesdropping without court order or legislative sanction for the purpose of uncovering domestic "subversion," — the disclosure that the United States Army has been engaged in unwarranted surveillance of the civilian population and of political activity, — the expanded no-knock entry laws, — the infiltration of political groups by police operatives who sometimes act as agents provocateurs, — the indiscriminate gathering of personal information by government agencies about vast numbers of people and its computerization, — and the enactment of legislation to permit pre-trial detention. All of these are somber indications of an unwarranted intrusion of govern-s ment into the private lives of its citizens contrary to the spirit of the First Amendment. We therefore urge upon our congregations to oppose all forms of ha- rassment or suppression of peaceful dissent and to make their opposition known in the strongest possible terms to their legislators.

I. Crime and the Administration of Justice

Crime continues to increase in our nation and with it, danger not only to our peace and security but to the vitality of our cities and political processes. Demagogues exploit fear of crime to promote racial polarization and repressive programs, yet pose as apostles of "law and order." We are deeply concerned about the widespread incidence of crime and violence in our society, especially the criminality which includes among its victims the many Jews living in urban centers. At the same time we agree with The Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence when it points out that the elimination of poverty and deprivation would make crime "both unnecessary and unrewarding." We seek effective programs to check crime and endorse constructive measures to eliminate the breeding grounds of crime—including poverty, drug abuse, unequal justice, and the neglect of our cities. We recommend to our congregations that they become involved in programs to: a) foster the understanding of the problems of crime and the administration of criminal justice; b) enlist public support for proposals to improve our courts and penal institutions, assuring the basic human rights of those arrested, as well as those actually convicted of crime; c) improve the training of local police in community relations as well as in the modern techniques of fighting crime;

228 m. On A Note of Thanks

The delegates to this Convention are cognizant of the diligent, creative efforts of all those involved in the planning and preparation of our Biennial meeting. These efforts have resulted in a meaningful and memorable event. We especially commend Mr. Stubenhaus, chairman of the Convention Committee and Mr. Jack Mittleman, Convention Director, for their unflagging attempts to provide a balanced and significant program. We extend to them and to their co-workers our warm appreciation.

229 COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTIONS, 1971

Chairman: JERRY WAGNER, Bîoomfield, Conn.

Charles Abramovitz Dayton, Ohio Harry Aron Chicago, Illinois Dr. Robert Coblens Granada Hills, California Martin D. Cohn Hazelton, Pennsylvania Judge Joshua V. Davidow Bridgeton, New Jersey Jerome Farber Salt Lake City, Utah Franklin J. Feder Vineland, New Jersey Rabbi Myron Fenster Roslyn, New York Ralph Fistel Miami, Florida Clarence S. Freedman Salem, Massachusetts S. Harry Galfand Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Paul Gelbard Yonkers, New York Dr. Morris Geller Pittsfield, Massachusetts Norman Glikin Hillside, New Jersey J. M. Goldenberg Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada Isodore Goodman Pittsfield, Massachusetts Robert Greenberg Minneapolis, Minnesota Manuel Grife Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Harold L. Groh Niorfolk, Virginia Mrs. Sarah Harwick Beverly Hills, California Murray E. Kempler Newark, New Jersey Emanuel Laster Scranton, Pennsylvania Jules L. Levenstein Chicago, Illinois Jesse Levin San Francisco, California Edwin M. Levy Spring Valley, New York Charles L. Lippitt Van Nuys, California Francis Mintz Beverly Hills, California Hyman B. Pave Milton, Massachusetts Paul Perman Rockville Centre, New York Dr. Joseph Peyser Hillside, New Jersey Albert Price St. Louis, Missouri Dr. Harold C. Rivkind St. Petersburg, Florida Edward B. Rosenberg Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Moses K. Rosenberg Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Simon Schwartz Toms River, New Jersey Leonard W. Segall Youngstown, Ohio Leon Steiff Peabody, Massachusetts Joseph H. Tudor Washington, D.C. Louis Weiland Cincinnati, Ohio Ralph Wolff Fairlawn, New Jersey

Consultant—MORRIS LAUB

230 Convention Committee HAROLD STUBENHAUS, CHAIRMAN JACK MITTLEMAN, DIRECTOR

Ex Officio Members Jacob Stein, President, United Synagogue of America Rabbi Bernard Segal, Executive Vice-President, United Synagogue of America Dr. Morton Siegel, Executive Director, United Synagogue of America

Committee Members

Harry Aron, Chicago, Illinois Hillel Aronson, Beverly ,Hills, California Mrs. A. David Arzt, South Baldwin, ?Jew york Jack Bash, Miami Beach, Florida Joseph Berlin, Montreal, Canada Gerrard Berman, Paterson, ?Jew Jersey Horace Bier, Livingston, ?Jew Jersey Abe Birenbaum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Arthur Brand, Kansas City, Missouri Arthur S. Bruckman, Bronx, ?Jew york Morris Bufferd, Bridgeport, Connecticut Monte Daniels, White Plains, ?Jew york Nathan Dimond, Cleveland, Ohio Franklin Feder, Vineland, ?Jew Jersey Fred R. Fine, £05 Angeles, California Dr. Bernard Flanz, Houston, Jexas Dr. Morris Fond, Roslyn, ?Jew york Herman Freidson, Minneapolis, Minnesota Seymour Goldberg, Linden, ?Jew Jersey Morton Grebelsky, Miami, !Florida Philip Greene, Jamaica, ?Jew york Manuel Grife, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Harold Groh, !Norfolk, Virginia Jules Gutin, Paterson, New Jersey Victor Horwitz, Burlingame, California B. L. Jacobs, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Dr. Sheldon Kamin, Highland Park, Illinois Joseph Kaplan, St. Paul, Minnesota Dr. Maxwell Kaye, Newark, New Jersey Sam Kieffer, Old Westbury, New york Dr. Sheldon Kriegel, Amsterdam, New york Sam Krupnick, St. Louis, Missouri Royston Lee, Alberton, California Harvey B. Levin, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Arthur J. Levine, New york, New york Elliott Lipitz, flushing, New york Isadore Marder, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania George Maislen, freeport, New york

231 Francis Mintz, Cos Angeles, California Ed Moskowitz, Portland, Oregon Hyman Pave, Milton, Massachusetts Dr. Samuel Perrin, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Mrs. Milton Perry, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Abram Piwosky, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Albert Price, St. Louis, Missouri Henry Rapaport, Scarsdale, New york Max Ratner, Cleveland, Ohio Max Rittenbaum, Atlanta, Qeorgia Dr. Harold Rivkin, St. Petersburg, Tlorida Meyer Robinson, Lawrence, New york Harold Rosen, Longmeadow, Massachusetts Edward B. Rosenberg, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania *Charles Rosengarten, Waterbury, Connecticut Samuel Rothstein, Brooklyn, New york Phillip Schiff, Miami, Tlorida Harry Schwartz, Malverne, New york Simon Schwartz, 70ms River, New Jersey Leonard Segall, youngstown, Ohio Arthur Siggner, Toronto, Canada Dr. Solomon Soloflf, Toms River, New Jersey Martin Unger, Lake Hiawatha, New Jersey Jerry Wagner, Bloomfield, Connecticut Louis Weiland, Cincinnati, Ohio Victor Zager, North Bellmore, New york Norton Zavon, Qreat Neck, New york David Zucker, Qreat Neck, New york *Deceased

Convention Subcommittees

committee on arrangements Arthur S. Bruckman, Chairman

committee on convention attendance Seymour Goldberg, Chairman

committee on credentials Simon Schwartz Abram Piwosky, Co-Chairmen

committee on resolutions Jerry Wagner, Chairman

committee on solomon schechter awards Dr. Morris Ford, Chairman

exhibit ׳committee on synagogue suppliers Philip Greene, Chairman

convention parliamentarians Francis Mintz Henry N. Rapapart Max Chill

232 committee on united synagogue exhibit Morton Grebelsky, Chairman committee on 1972 yearbook directory and buyer's guide David Zucker, Chairman

Regional Convention Committee Chairmen Seymour Goldberg, Coordinator empire: Bernard Goldberg, Syracuse, New york Dr. Max E. Fishelson, Pittsfield, !Massachusetts central states : Joseph Kaplan, St. Paul, Minnesota Connecticut valley: Harold Rosen, Longmeadow, Massachusetts eastern Pennsylvania : David Brumberg, Williamsport, Pennsylvania midwest! Harold Dray, Chicago, Illinois Dr. Sheldon Kamin, Highland Park, Illinois new England: William Morgan, Sharon, Massachusetts new york metropolitan : Edwin M. Levy, New york, New york northeast: Nat A. Horovitch, Montreal, Quebec, Canada northern California : Arthur Zimmerman, San Francisco, California northern new jersey: Ronald Landau, Union, New Jersey northern ohio: Nathan I. Dimond, Cleveland Heights, Ohio David A. Katz, Toledo, Ohio Robert Rusnak, youngstown, Ohio David Schwebel, youngstown, Ohio Charles H. Mendel,Akron, Ohio ontario—canada : Sidney I. Starkman, Downsview, Ontario, Canada pacific northwest : Norman Rosenzweig, Seattle, Washington pacific southwest: Jordan Grinker, Los Angeles, California Philadelphia: Morton Tabas, Elkins Park, Pennsylvania seaboard: Leonard Sattler, Arlington, Virginia Ernest Greenwald, Oxon Hill, Maryland southeast : Ralph Fistel, Miami, Florida southern new jersey: Charles B. Tolin, Atlantic City, New Jersey southern ohio : Farrell E. Salzman, Louisville, Kentucky southwest: Mike Kavy, S

Staff Consultants Available for individual consultation, Appointments arranged at Convention Office—Room A224 Adult Education Rabbi Marvin S. Wiener Director, National Academy for Adult Jewish Studies United Synagogue of America Synagogue Art Rabbi Reuben R. Levine Temple Beth Ahm, Springfield, New Jersey

233 Board and Leadership Development Morris Berger Executive Director, Jeaneck Jewish Community Center 7eaneck, New Jersey Charles Parmet Executive Director, Hillcrest Jewish Center flushing, New york WilburS. Stein Executive Director, Temple B'nai Sholom Rockville Centre, New york Budgets: Preparation and Analysis Joseph Abrahams Executive Director, !Miskan 7 e fila Chestnut Hill, !Massachusetts Burton D. Shanker Executive Director, Temple Beth Sholom Haddon Heights, New Jersey Hans Weinberg Executive Director, Beth Shalom Roslyn Heights, New york Building Committee Raphael Ellenbogen Executive Director, 7 em pie Beth-El Cedarhurst, £. 1, New york Bernard Feinberg Executive Director, 7emple B'nai Abraham of Essex County South Orange, New Jersey David I. Siegel Executive Director, Tairlaum, Jewish Center Tairlawn, New Jersey Building Maintenance Max Rothenberg Executive Director, Beth 70rak Congregation North !Miami Beach, Tlorida Seymour Myerson Executive Director, Congregation Beth El-Xeser Israel New Haven, Connecticut Cantorial Placement Hazzan Kurt Silbermann, Chairman Joint Commission for the Placement of Hazzanim Hazzan Paul Kavon, Secretary Joint Commission for the Placement of Hazzanim Hazzan David J. Leon, Consultant Capital Funds Howard Danzig Executive Director, Congregation Shaarey Zedek Southfield, !Michigan

234 Raphael EUenbogen Director, Jemple Beth El־ Executive Cedarhurst, £.1,N. y. Wilbur S. Stein Executive Director, Jemple B'nai Sholom Rockville Centre, New york Camps Ramah Rabbi David Mogilner, Director of ,National Ramah

Teachers Institute Rabbi David Gordis Dean of Students JeachersJnstitute — Seminary College

Community Center Aspects of Synagogues Jesse Abels Executive Director, Jewish Community Center of Harrison "Harrison, New 3'ork Max D. Weinles Executive Director, Congregation Shaare J or ah ofJlathush Brooklyn, New york Martin Lerner Executive Director, Brooklyn Jewish Center Brooklyn, New york Morris Berger Executive Director, Jeaneck Jewish Community Center Jeaneck, New Jersey

Elementary and High School Education Dr. Morton Siegel, Director Pesach Schindler, Assistant Director United Synagogue Commission on Jewish Education Abraham Spack, Coordinator, Department of Education United Synagogue of America

Solomon Schechter Day Schools Horace Bier, President Dr. Morton Siegel, Consultant Pesach Schindler, Consultant Solomon Schechter Day School Association

Dues Robert Fox Executive Director, Hewlett-East Rockaway Jewish Community Center East Rockaway, New york

235 Irving M. Galanty Executive Director, Ahavatb Achim Congregation Atlanta, Georgia Mrs. Larry Jaffe Executive Director, Clifton Jewish Center Clifton, New Jersey Max P. Rothenberg Executive Director, Beth Torah Congregation North !Miami Beach, Tlorida Burton D. Shanker Executive Director, Temple Beth Sholom ,Haddon Heights, New Jersey Educator Placement Dr. Herbert K. Lerman, Chairman Hazzan "Paul Xavon, Executive Secretary Joint Committee on Educator Placement Abraham Spack, Coordinator Department of Education United Synagogue of America Endowments Howard Danzig Executive. Director, Congregation Shaarey Zedek Southfield, !Michigan WilburS. Stein Executive Director, Temple B'nai Sholom Rockville Centre, New york Fund Raising Joseph Elgart Executive Director, Temple Beth El Springfield, !Massachusetts Raphael Ellenbogen Executive Director, Temple Beth Et Cedarhurst, L. J.,N. y. Ben L. Katz Executive Director, Beth yeshurun Houston, Texas High Holy Day Administration RobertFox Executive Director, Hewlett-East Rockaway Jewish Community Center East Rockaway, New york Mrs. Larry Jaffe Executive Director, Clifton Jewish Center Clifton, New Jersey Israel Affairs Committee David Zucker, Chairman Rabbi Paul Freedman, Director Israel Affairs Committee United Synagogue of America

23 6 Kashrut Rabbi Salamon Faber Kew Gardens Anshe Sholom Jewish Center Kew Gardens, !New york

Leaders Training Fellowship Donald Adelman, "Director Leaders Training fellowship

Long Range Planning Joseph Abrahams Executive Director, !Miskan 7 e fila Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts Martin Leichtling Executive Director, Park Avenue Synagogue New york, New york Stanley I. Minch Executive Director, Chizuk Amuno Congregation Baltimore, !Maryland Howard Danzig Executive Director, Shaarey Zedek Southfield, Michigan

Membership Integration and Retention Robert Abramson Executive Director, Temple Emetb Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts Stanley I. Minch Executive Director, Chizuk Amuno Congregation Baltimore, Maryland David I. Siegel Executive Director, Tair Lawn Jewish Center Tair Lawn, New Jersey

Melton Research Center Dr. Elaine Morris, Associate Melton !Research Center

Men's Clubs Max M. Goldberg, President Morton Tabas, Honorary President Abraham A. Silver, Vice President Rabbi Joel S. GefFen, Spiritual Advisor National federation of Jewish Men's Clubs

Music Hazzan Paul Kavon Director, Department of Music United Synagogue of America

237 Office Administration Bert Grossman Executive Director, Congregation B 'nai Amoona St. £ouis, !Missouri Arthur Tannenbaum Executive Director, Jemple Adath yesburun Syracuse, New york

Parent Education Rabbi Joel H. Zaiman, Chairman Parent Education Committee 'United Synagogue Commission on Education

Pensions and United Synagogue Insurance ״Leo J. Landes, C.£.V Jiockvilte Centre, New york

Placement of Synagogue Administrators Howard S. Danzig Executive Director, Congregation Shaarey Zedek Southfield, !Michigan David I. Siegel Executive Director, Jairlawn Jewish Center Jairlawn, New Jersey Max D. Weinles Executive Director, Congregation Shaare 7or ah of Jlatbush Brooklyn, New york Morris M. Berger, Chairman Hazzan Paul Kavon, Executive Secretary Joint Commission for the Placement of Synagogue Administrators

Congregational Programming Joseph Elgart Executive Director, Jemple Beth El Springfield, !Massachusetts Jesse Abels Executive Director, Jewish Community Center of Harrison Harrison, New york Mrs. Larry Jaffe Executive Director, Ctifton Jewish Center 4 Clifton, New Jersey Phillip Redelheim Executive Director, Jemple Sinai Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

238 Max D. Weinles Executive Director. Congregation Shaare Torah of Tlatbush Brooklyn, New york

Public Relations Martin Leichtling Executive Director, Park Avenue Synagogue New york, New york Max D. Weinles Executive Director, Congregation Shaare Torah of Tlatbush Brooklyn, New york

Regional Activities Dr. Max M. Rothschild Director, Department of Regional Activities United Synagogue of America Sisterhoods Mrs. Henry N. Rapaport, President Mrs. Sol Henkind, National Chairman Torah Tund Residence Hall Mrs. Harold Kamsler, Coordinator Public Relations and Publicity Mrs. M. Milton Perry, Coordinator of Educational Activities Mrs. Nathan Jacobson National Program Chairman National Women's League of the United Synagogue of America

Small Congregations Bernard Feinberg Executive Director, Temple B'nai Abraham of Essex County South Orange, New Jersey Abraham Gittelson Associate Director, Southeast Region United Synagogue of America Rabbi Nathan N. Reisner Director, Philadelphia Branch United Synagogue of America Rabbi Joseph W. Wiesenberg Director, Central States and Southwest Regions United Synagogue of America

Social Action Sidney R. Katz Executive Director, Xaren Homey Clinic New york, New york

239 Morris Laub Director, Joint Commission on Social Action of the United Synagogue of America, Rabbinical Assembly, National federation of Jewish Men's Clubs and National Women's League

Synagogue Finance Howard Danzig Executive Director, Shaarey Zedek Southfield, Michigan WilburS. Stein Executive Director, Jemple B'nai Sholom Rockville Centre, New york Hans Weinberg Executive Director, Jemple Beth Sholom Roslyn Heights, New york

Synagogue Publications Martin Leichtling Executive Director, Park Avenue Synagogue New york, New york WilburS. Stein Executive Director, Jemple B'nai Sholom Rockville Centre, New york United Synagogue Tour Service Mrs. Susan Nissim, Manager YoungMarrieds Howard Danzig Executive Director, Congregation Shaarey Zedek Southfield, Michigan Phillip Redelheim Executive Director, Jemple Sinai Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Youth Activities - U.S.Y. and ATID Paul Freedman, Director Barry Churchman, Assistant Director Robert Leifert, Program Co-ordinator, Jules Gutin, Activities Co-ordinator Department of youth Activities United Synagogue of America

240