The question of what is the responsibility of leadership in the American Orthodox community has engaged and fascinated and worried me for a long time. And my conclusion can be summed up by saying that above all else, leadership requires the taking of risks – not only political and financial and social and psychological risks, but also moral risks. There is a remarkable statement by our rabbis which is quoted by Maimonides: “One who is appointed to a position of leadership by the community here below, is regarded as wicked up above.” A similar thought occurs in the Zohar. To the verse, “if a prince (i.e., a leader) sins,” the Zohar adds these words: He most certainly will sin! You cannot be a community leader without being considered an evil-doer or a sinner. What a strange thing to say – and what a deterrent to public service on behalf of the community! Granted, some leaders abuse their positions and others may be neglectful of their duties; but is that a reason to say all leaders are regarded by Heaven as evil or sinful? Do we not bear enough burdens? Is there not enough to discourage us without this added onus placed upon us? What the rabbis meant, I believe, is this: leadership involves making hard decisions – or better – dirty decisions, choosing between alternatives, neither of which is perfect or clean or pure or desirable or even acceptable, but is the least evil and the least harmful. For Israeli leaders, there is no easy way out of the “Who is a Jew” issue. Clean decisions between good and evil, right and wrong, helpful or injurious – these are risk-free decisions and do not require leadership. Any intelligent and reasonable person endowed with a modicum of moral judgment can make such decisions. A leader must be willing to embrace the risk of being an evil-doer in the eyes of heaven, of being less than perfect in the abstract, of being accused of ideological error or moral truancy, if by so doing he carries out his mission of protecting the interests of …

The Reform decision conceiving patrilineal descent, in effect validating it as a legitimate form of Jewish identity, and the recent Conservative flirtation with the same idea (the suggestion by the head of the JTS that the Rabbinical Assembly should “study” the issue is a disingenuous means of fleating a trial balloon), will unquestionably have a profoundly negative impact upon the attempts to secure the unity of the Jewish people.There are a number of features that have characterized Centrist Orthodoxy in the past decades. Among these features are the commitment to the State of Israel and the positive rather than reluctant validation of higher secular studies. In addition to these, and of no less equal import, is the effort to secure the inviolable integrity of Kelal Yisrael. From this flow a number of practical communal consequences, such as: membership in the Synagogue Council; an ambiguous, but at least not clearly negative, attitude towards membership of individual rabbis in mixed rabbinical bodies; working together at national levels such as the JWB, UJA, Federations, etc. Those of us who identify with this Centrist approach have always felt that, saddened and angered though we were by successive departures from Halakhah and tradition by the dissenting groups, we affirm their Jewish identity and hence their legitimate membership inKelal YisraelWe felt that with the majority of the Jewish people today not being identified with Orthodoxy, and certainly not as meticulous shomrei mitzvot, it was a national imperative for our people to stay together if at all possible. The price we have paid has been religiously, culturally, andpsychologically high. The Reform abrogation of Halakhah, especially of the laws of marriage and divorce and the consequent proliferation of mamzerim, and the chipping away at the whole halakhic structure by the Conservative movement in areas as diverse as kashrut, Shabbat, the nature of the Bet Haknesset, the unspoken abandonment of taharat…

A jubilee anniversary for an institution no less than for an individual is an occasion for brooding reflection. It is a time for both retrospective and prospective assessment, for pulling out of the hurly‑burly of daily events and viewing one's life from a wider perspective than is usually given to us. I shall therefore take this opportunity of the fiftieth birthday of the RCA to reflect on our current situation according to the paradigm of the three tenses – Past, Present, and Future. I intend to speak not about the R.C.A in these three time segments, but rather to analyze how we have gone about handling these tenses themselves. Let us begin with our host culture – the U.S.A. In its politics, its technology, and especially its psychology, America is a Future‑oriented culture. Hence, its emphasis on youth – even in a period when its population is aging and should be more concerned with geriatrics than pediatrics. Its greatest strength is: the Present. The mightiest (and most benevolent) power in the world, it is thoroughly immersed in the here‑and‑now. It is pragmatic, empirical, and business‑like.However, its great weakness is — the Past. Because of its relatively brief history — a mere 210 years — America's valuation of its past as a factor in the Present, its historical consciousness, is remarkably tenuous and deficient. In a sense, it is still a pioneer country eager to throw off the shackles of the Old World and build a new one. Consider this: What for an ordinary American child is early history — the 1770's — is for a Jewish school-child late Jewish history, the period of the Acharonim!2The most poignant and painful illustration of this characteristic American insensitivity to history is the incredible brouhaha of the Reagan administration — not of one man, an honorable and decent President, but a whole team of so-called experts — because they did not appreciate events of only 40 years ago, events of the most recent past. The President wanted to forget the P…

In speaking to you of this vexing problem that has so exercised the world Jewish community, I am reminded of the Viennese proverb that was prevalent during the waning days of the Austro-Hungarian empire: “the situation is hopeless but not serious." While our preoccupation with the "Who is a Jew?" issue seems to fall into that category, I am a bit more sanguine and believe that it is quite serious, but not at all hopeless--provided, that is, that leaders will exercise leadership and do so with perseverance, sensitivity, and a great deal of intelligence. Let me begin by laying my prejudices on the table. I am an Orthodox Jew who holds that the Halakhah is minimal Judaism. Hence my answer to the question "Who is a Jew?" is quite simple and straightforward: one is who is born to a Jewish mother or who has been converted according to standard halakhic procedures. Because this is the historic definition of Jewishness, one that has served us well for at least a couple of thousand years, the onus for divisiveness as well as the burden of proof rests on those who diverge from this time-honored principle. Many years ago, even before Ben Gurion sent his famous query on the "Who is a Jew?" problem to a number of distinguished Jews, I wrote an article on the subject which was distributed in the thousands by my friends of the Lubavitch movement. However, I also am aware of the realities of the Jewish situation, and recognize that not everything that is desirable is achievable and not all that is worthy is worth making an issue of. Hence, I opposed the effort of the religious parties in Israel to amend the present Law of Return to read that to be permitted to enter Israel under the Law of Return, one must not only be "converted to Judaism," but "converted according to the Halakhah." This would effectively limit the benefits of the Law of Return to those converted by qualified Orthodox rabbis. I opposed, and do now oppose, this amendment, and made this opposition known publicly, f…

I. History. Resume of 1985, lessons learned therefrom and application to present issue: a) Any real working solution will leave both sides unhappy – and open to heavy criticism. So, try for consensus of more reasonable of both groups, and ignore extremes on both sides, if at all possible politically. No party should expect that all elements on its side will subscribe to a practical accommodation that emerges. We should aim for maximum, not total agreement. Unconditional surrender is for mortal enemies, not for אחינו בני ישראל. b) Line up support in advance from the real opinion-makers. c) Give credit to everybody generously. d) But core of plan may well be adaptable today! Even though it failed in USA, that was because there it was all a question of symbols, not reality. Here you have the pressure of real facts, e.g., 200,000 Russians! e) Keep the press at bay until you’re ready for them. II. Current issues. The situation in the USA: a) Since I started in public life (1951) I’ve never experienced such rabid, open anti-Orthodox sentiment! Results in Orthodox community: further introversion, self-isolation. b) Reform, by their massive anti-Orthodox propaganda which threatens Israel if no pluralism, are cutting off strongest limb connecting their people to Judaism, namely, Israel. Conservatives in dilemma: pro-Reform in current polemics, yet they claim to be halakhic and thus not recognize Reform conversions, etc. Schorch vs. Wertheim. It goes without saying that this committee should plead with all parties should agree that henceforth a certain degree of civility will prevail: a) The non-Orthodox will refrain from castigating the Orthodox as anti-democratic simply because they refuse to adopt American practice. The American paradigm of “church-state” relationships should not be viewed as an absolute. Israeli practice and forms of relationships in other democracies should be considered at least on par with those of the U.S. Tradition, convention, and custom in Israel…