"
22'//\67
'
AGUDDAH ACHAT
\
Gin-13::o~zz
1 dmw.
:7.-
‘47
The place where Jacob had his famous dream on his way to
Mesopotamia was called Bet—E1, which means 'House of God'.
According
to tradition, it is identical with the place which he passed on his
return journey, where he divided his party into two companies for
greater security.
In that context, however, it is referred to by
another name, Mechanayim, which means 'Two Camps'.
Machanayim could also describe the Progressive Jewish community
of Britain, divided as it is into two camps, Liberal and Reform,
a division peculiar to this country and often a source of puzzlement
to Progressive Jewish visitors from other countries.
Recently, however, it has been proposed that this state of affairs
should be ended; that the two camps should unite to form one camp. It
is a proposal which deserves serious consideration.
What is behind it?
I think there are two motives, of
first is purely practical.
which the
It could be expressed in the words of
Ecclesiastes, tovim ha-sh'nayim min ha—echad, "Twaare better than
one" (4:9). Together wé could accomplish so much more than singly.
Indeed, this motive has already led us to co—operate suécessfully
in many fields. We have long worked together in the World Uhion for
Frogressive Judaism.
More recently we have established a joint college
for the training of rabbis and teachers, a joint Chaplaincy Commission
to the Universities, a joint Standing Committee on Relationships in
Anglo-Jewry, and a joint Council of Reform and Liberal Rabbis. If,
were now to go one step further and amalgamate or confederate our two organisations, the advantages to be gained would be
it is said, we
even greater.
Such a step would enable us to avoid duplication and
competition, to pool experience and expertise, to use more economically
LEO BAECK COLLEGE
‘xllJBRARX
_ 2 _
our limited human and material resources, to deploy our forces more
strategically, to make a greater impact on Anglo—Jewry.
That unity makes.for strength is indeed a truism which requires
little proof.
It is
well expressed in the Apocrypha: "Observe the
waters: when they flow together, they sweep along stones, trees, earth
and other things; but if they are divided into many streams, the earth
swallows them up; and they vafinish. So shall you be if you are divided"
(Testaments, Zebulun 9:1—5).
Likewise it is said in the Midrash: "A
bundle of reeds cannot be broken by a man; but taken singly, even a
Tanchuma,
child can break them” QNitzavim 4).
But apart from considerations of expediency, there is also a
deeper motive, namely the desirability of unity as such, a motive which
could be expressed in the words of the 155rd Ibalm, Hinneh gég £2! Ezggg
na—im shevet achim Egg yacbad, "Behold, how good and pleasant it is when
brothers dwell in unity!"
This View, that unity is not only a source of strength, but that
it is
good and pleasant in itself, is at the basis of the Christian
oecumenical movement.
Christian writers and speakers constantly stress
the point, which they regard as axiomatic, that the division of the Church
"is a scandal and a disgrace" (Hans Kueng,
be rectified.
Egg Church,
p. 284) which must
‘
Can the same be said of the dh/isdon of Jewry, and should there
consequently be a Jewish oecumenical movement? Certainly the unity of
the Hogée of Israel, either as a reality or as an ideal, receives con—
stand emphasis in our tradifi.on.
As king David said in the beautiful
prayer which formed our Haftarab, g; k'amm'cha lisrael
521 echad ba—ars,
"who is like Your people Israel, one nation in the earth?"
(I Chron. 17:
21).
-3-
This ideal of 523 ggggg, of one nation, could not always be main—
tained in practice. Affier the death of David's son Solomon, the Jewish
kingdom split into two.
ued long after.
Yet the yearning for its re—unification contin—
The prophet EZekiel expressed it by taking two sticks,
writing 'Judah' on one and 'Joseph' on the other, and proclaiming in
God's name, "Behold, I am about to take the stick of Joseph...and I will
join it with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, that they may
be one in My hand...I will take the people of Israel from the nations
among which they have gone, and will gather them from all sides, and bring
them to their own land; and I will make them 32; Egggg, one nation in the
land...and they shall be no longer two nationF, and no longer divided
33%
two kingdoms" (37:19-22).
I
Later, the unity of the House of Israel Qas broken pp still further:l‘
politically, geographically and ideologically. Divisions appeared between
Palestinian Jewry and Babylonian Jewry, between Sefardim and Ashkenazim,
between Pharisees and Sedducees, between Rabbanites and KBraites, between
Chasidim and Mitnaggedim, between Orthddoxy and Reform.
But the ideal
of unity, even wheh it could not be attained, was nevertheless remembered.
principle of Judaism, a principle epitomised in one
phrase, gaggggg gggg§,£2a single band'.
That phrase is taken from the book of Amos, where the prophet says
It is, indeed, a
that God "builds His upper chwmbers in the heavens, and founds his vault
upon the earth" (9:6). The word for 'vault' is aguddab, which really
means 'sométhing bound together' and hence a bundle.
example, of a bundle of twigs, such as the Lulav.
It is used, for
On the basis of this
the Rabbis said that God is exalted only when the Jews are united in
gguddah Egggg, a single band (Lev.R. 50:12) and that they will be redeemed
only when this is the case (Men. 27a). Another Rabbinic saying
in this
_ 4 _
vein refers to a verse in Deuteronomy which says that God "became
King in Jeahurun when the fieads of the people gathered together, when
the tribes of Israel were united" (35:5).
Here the comment is that
the kingship of God will become a reality only KLEEEZQEQ gggzig ggggggg
achat v'lo k'she-hem aguddbt aguddot, "when the Israelites form a single
band, and not many bands" (Sifre Deut. 546).
The implication of all this is that unity, when it can be attained,
is religiously desirable; and therefore, to come back to the two camps
of Progressive Jewry, the onus of proof rests, not on those who wish to
end the pfesent division; but on those who want to perpetuate it. It
is up to
Show cause why reunion should not be attempted.
Are they able to do so? It must certainly be admitted that unity
is not possible, or even desirable, in
El} circumstances; for there is
Eggg
to
something even more important than unity, and that is integrity. We
Erogressive Jews broke away from Orthodoxy because we could not with
integrity continue to subscribe to some of its teachings and practices.
Even then we broke away reluctantly. The German Reformers did
all they
cduld to maintain the system of the Einheitsggmeinde, of the
united
the UnitEE"§E§EEs __—_—_
community. Isaac Meyer Wise, in Kmaxina, made valiant but
unsuccessful
efforts to evolve a unified American Judaism. The English
Reformers
wanted at first to establish only a branch of the Spanish
and Pbrtuguese
Synagogue. And the same desire to maintain the unity of the
community
characterised the beginnings of our own movement. When in
1899, that is,
70 years ago this year; Lily Montagu published her
famous article, an
The §piritual Possibilities
g: ggggigg Egggz, in the ggyigé Quarterlz
Review, it was a plea, not for the formation of a
splinter group, but
for a Spiritual revival in Anglo—Jewry
as a whole. And when, three
_ 5 _
years later, the Jewish Religious Union was founded, it was not a
sectarian move.
It
made a point of holding its services on Saturday
afternoons, so that they might be regarded as supplementary to the
Sabbath Eve and Sabbath Morning seryibes in the various existing
synagogues, and its membership was drawn from a wide spectrum of the
community including at one extreme the Ethical Societies and at the
-ofiher the United Synagogue.
Ministers,
In fact, for a time, three United Synagogue
A.A. G§een, Simeon Singer and J.F. Stern, served on the
Committee of the J.R.U.
What then caused the split?
First, the hostility which was en—
countered, amohnting sometimes, as in the case of the English Reformers
in the 1840'st to actual excommugication.
Secondly, the refusal of the
majority to folldw our lead or indeed to make EEK any concessions to the
principles which we sought to establish.
For there comes a time when
the vanguard can no longer allow itself to be held back by the rearguard,
when the-pioneers, for all their love of unity, must go ahead and hope
that sooner or later the rest will follow.
That moment came for the J.R.U. in 1903, when it sought permission
to hold its Saturday afternoon services at the West London Synagogue.
The Council of the West London Synagogue agreed, but on conditions which
ttJ.R.U. decided, after much heart-searching, it could not accept; for
example, that men and women did not sit together. This, then, was the
partigg of the ways. Six years later, exactly 60 years ago this year,
the J.R.U} decided to estabmish a synagogue of its own and to add to
its title the words "for the Advancement of Liberal Judaism".
Since then, however, many things have happened. The Reform
movement
has become in many ways more liberal. It has
introduced mixed seating,
_ 5 _
revised its prayerbook, made more abundant use of the vernacular,
and come to accept modern views of the Bible.
At the same time the
Liberal movement has become less radical, more responsive to tradiméonal
sentiments and practices. As a result, the gap which now divides the
two movements from one another is quite narrow.
I
could name a hundred
respects in which both differ from Orthodoxyg but only half—a-dozen in
which they differ from one another.
On the face of it, therefore, reunification should now be possible.
It Would require only some quite minor compromises in matters, such as
marriage law, in which it would be necessary to have a common policy,
and to extend only marginally the large measure of freedom, of toleration of differances between person and person and between synagogue and
synagogue, which prevails now in both movements.‘
But in Spite of that, it does not look as if re—unification will
take place in the near future. Why not? What is holding it back? Not
the difficulties of achieving it; these could easily be overcome; but
an insufficiency of desire to achieve it — chiefly, I am bound to
on the Reform side.
is as
say,
The yearning for unity — the spirit of oecumenism —
yet too weak.
And therefore, before unification can be successfulL
attempted, there has tb be a change of heart. We have to learn again
that divisions in the House of Israel, if they can be avoided with
integrity, are something to be ashamed of, not sofiething to be proud
of;
that they are to be deplored, not applauded; that they are to be overcome, not perpetuated.
We have to learn again to tolerate and to
respect and even to welcome diversity witfifin one—and—tbe—same
organisat—
ional structure; to be Willing to learn from those
who differ from us;
to recognise that both movements, Liberal and
Reform, have their strong
points as well as their weaknesses, and that,
combined, they would
_ 7 _
enrich one another.
We have to learn again that reconciliation, quite
apart from its practical benefits, is itself a giritual good.
It is
KKfiKXHXKE positive, constructive, healing, life—giving, redeeming.
Organised religion must sometimes practise separatism for the
sake of integrity.
But to ma_ntain divisions when they are no longer
neceSFary is to deny the spirit of religion, which should be unifying,
not divisive.
Before Jacob lay down to sleep, he took, so the Bible says, "some
of the stones of the place" and with them made a pillow for his head.
But when he woke up, it says that he took "the stone" and set it up as
a shrine. A Midrash, noting this discrepancy, tells kgik that all the
.stones gathered together and merged into one so that they might support
the head of this righteous man (Chullin 91b). So, too, let us hope,
the time will come when we, the Liberal and Reform Jews of thés country,
will join together, and instead of remaining Machanayim, two camps, xx
KKKXX build Bet-E1, a single House of God.