A REPRINT FROMJudaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought

Vol. 11, No.2, Spring Issue, 1962

THE NATIONAL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONSOF AMERICAN jEWR Y

AMIT AI ETZIONI

THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMUNITY isoften analyzed by distinguishing the

theological or social or economic dif-ferences of the groups that go to makeit up. But the religious institutions ofthis community have been examinedless frequently. Investigators have usu-ally assumed that Jewish religious lifeis more or less "congregational" and thatcontrol of it rests in the hands of localleaders. Over the last eighty years, how-ever, each of the three branches of Juda-ism has developed-as have the Baptistsand even the Congregationalists-a rath-er extensive national structure of insti-tutions. It is a commonplace to note thatstrongly hierarchic religions can controland affect the religious life of their mem-bers in many ways; and though Jewishinstitutions are very far indeed from be-ing neatly ordered parts of one hierar-chic structure, yet the institutions do ex-ist, and it is worth examining them tounderstand the ways in which they affectthe religious life of their members.

Superficially, the organizational make-up of the Reform, Conservative, andOrthodox movements are quite similar.Each has a so-called lay organization ofcongregations; each has a professionalassociation of rabbis; and each has arabbinical school which serves as a spiri-tual and, to some degree, organizational

center of the movement. But the influ-ence exerted by these institutions variesquite considerably within each of thethree groups.

In the examination of the influence ofthese institutions on Jewish religious life,an inquiry which deserves many volumes,we choose to focus on one central issue:the degree to which the national institu-tions support more traditional as againstmore innovative forms of religious ex-pression and ritual. Following the Jew-ish tradition, we see in the continuousobservance of the various Jewish rites acentral indicator of the degree to whicheach movement is "traditional," what-ever its theology may be.

Rabbis and laity often use the term"right" to refer to what we call heretraditional, and "left" to what we referto as innovative. But since "left" and"right" are used also to designate dif-ferences in theology, and since a personwho is, let us say, "left" in ritual mightbe "right" in theology, these terms seemto add more confusion than clarity andhence will be avoided. We will charac-terize groups as more or less traditional,or innovating, keeping "traditionalistic"to refer to the most traditional groups.Of course, there are in all three move-ments individuals whose religious be-havior varies a great deal; our concernhere is with the effects national Jewishinstitutions have on general trends tow-ard traditionalism or religious innova-tion. Hence we will necessarily have tomake generalizations, not doing full jus-tice to the special position of Rabbi X

Dr. Etzioni is a graduate (1954) of the He-brew University, Jerusalem. He obtained hisMaster's degree there in 1956 and his doctorateat the University of California at Berkeley in1958. He is presently Associate Professor ofSociology at Columbia and a research associatein the university's Institute of War and Peace.

NATIONAL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF AMERICAN JEWRY 113

in movement Y, or even to this or thatgroup of three to six congregationswhich follow a course different from therest of their movement.

OF ALL the national religious Jewishinstitutions, the Conservative insti-

tutions are the most elaborate and mostcentralized; their effect is somewhat sim-ilar to the effect that is often attributedto a hierarchical religion: the institu-tions support the traditional elements ofthe religious movement, countering thesecular pressures of the laity; they gener-ate a traditional "party line"; they tendto support the rabbi in conflicts with thecongregations when the issue is one oftradition versus change. Conservative in-stitutions are succeeding increasinglyin their endeavor to make the rabbi themovement's representative; he is en-couraged if he successfully supports itstraditions and is himself supported if-while serving the cause prudently andwisely-he clashes with the laity. Ofcourse even religious organizations arenot composed of saints: personal loyal-ties, sympathies, and cliques playa role.But since, as we shall see, the "higherups" tend to be more traditional in theirposition toward religious behavior thanthose lower down the scale, and sincethey have a personal commitment to thesuccess of their view, these personal tiesand cliques often lend support to thepolicy which they favor.

The Conservative institutional frame-work has three tiers: at the top is acharismatic leader who also serves as theorganizational head, Rabbi Louis Fin-kelstein, the chancellor of the JewishTheological Seminary; the second levelconsists of the faculty of the Seminary;and the third, of two national organiza-tions, the professional association of Con-servative Rabbis (the Rabbinical As-

sembly) and the lay organization of thecongregations (the United Synagogue ofAmerica). Formally, these three organiza-tions-the Seminary, the Assembly, andthe United Synagogue-are autonomous,equal in standing and rights. But formalrelationships have a way of adjustingthemselves to the needs of particularsituations. In practice, it is clear that theSeminary is the dominant institution ofthe Conservative movement.

Rabbis, board members, and worship-pers in Conservative synagogues arequick to tell you, with an admirationthat is mixed with a trace of annoyance,that the Seminary is actually Orthodox.Members of the Rabbinical Assemblypoint out that to all intents and pur-poses the service in the Seminary is Or-thodox (while there is no mechizah,men and women are not seated to-gether); that the Seminary chapel usesan Orthodox and not the Conservativeprayerbook; and that the rabbi of thechapel and the pattern of his serviceare both Orthodox. Finally, while thereare "all kinds" of faculty in the Semi-nary (even the head of the "innovative"Reconstructionists), the majority, and incontrolling authority, are quite Ortho-dox in their personal religious life. Thisgenerally traditional orientation of theSeminary affects the outlook and activi-ties of the other two organizations andso comes to color the quality of the en-tire Conservative movement in various

ways.The first of these is through the per-

sonal influence of its leader, which goesmuch beyond the boundaries of theSeminary. Secondly, the Seminary has amonopoly on the training of Conserva-tive rabbis; as a higWy effective educa-tional institution, it often succeeds ininstilling its spirit into its graduates.Moreover the leaders of both the Rab-

JUDAISM: A QUARTERLY JOURNAL114

binical Assembly and the United Syna-gogue are also Seminary graduates andhence have the usual indebtedness andrespect students feel for their masters.But not less important than these factorsand more frequently overlooked is the"institutional" influence the Seminarywields over the other Conservative or-ganizations. The fact that the head-quarters of both the Assembly and theUnited Synagogue are in the buildingsof the Seminary (which is not the casewith either the Reform or the Orthodoxmovements) illustrates this informalsubordination.

This is not to imply that the Rabbini-Qal Assembly is without influence in"higher circles" or never "talks back toauthority." There is constant grumblingamong the Assembly's membership, therabbis, about what some of them con-sider excessive control from above. Ayoung rabbi, who examined the minutesof the national meetings of the Assemb-ly, found that at every single meetingof the Assembly this complaint was ex-pressed in one covert way or another,frequently in the argument over some"verdict" laid down by the Seminaryauthorities in matters of Jewish rites.But never did the grumbling amount tomore than a decision to appoint a com-mittee to study the relationships betweenthe Assembly and the Seminary. Rabbisare even reluctant to mention, muchless to use, the big club they hold overthe Seminary: the fact that they headthe local drive for funds by which theactivities of the whole movement arefinanced. The money goes to the Semi-nary, which then grants a small part ofit to the Assembly. Thus the informalsubordination of the Rabbinical Assemb.ly is even better illustrated in its subduedgrumbling than in its overt acceptanceof the Seminary leadership and guidance.

OF THE Rabbinical Assembly and theUnited Synagogue the former is the

more powerful. It is, in fact, the mostpowerful professional association of rab-bis in America; many of its membersfondly refer to it as "our labor union,"for in addition to enforcing an ethicalcode, the association maintains a wel-fare program for its members and, tosome degree, also controls the allocationof pulpits among them. Congregationsare free to choose any rabbi who fulfilstheir special needs, but they are expectedto do so through a placement commis-sion. The commission is composed ofrepresentatives from the Seminary, theAssembly, and the United SY1:tagogue,and is situated in the Seminary. 1£ theslate of available rabbis it provides isrejected, another one is supplied; buteach slate is accompanied by efforts toconvince the congregational representa-tives of the necessity of retaining rabbisthe commission believes are both suit-able for the congregation and withinthe movement's tradition. These effortsoften result in sending the congregationa somewhat more traditional rabbi thanthe congregation would have itself se-lected. The single most important mem-ber of the commission is the executivedirector of the Rabbinical Assembly-currently Rabbi Wolfe Kelman, a gradu-ate of the Seminary who works in closecooperation with it.

The Assembly's influence lies in thecontrol it can exert over its own mem-bers, the rabbis: the majority of Con-servative rabbis will not accept invita-tions from congregations without theapproval of the placement commission.For rabbis who are in great demand,getting approval is mainly a matter ofgood form; they know it is very likelyto be granted. Asking for it is in con.formity with the rules and habits of

NATIONAL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF AMERICAN JEWRY 115

their association. For young or less pop-ular rabbis the gaining of approval ismore significant. To move from one con.gregation to another without such ap-proval-and rabbis often move from fiveto eight times in the course of theircareers-means that a rabbi loses thecommission's support for his next move.

IT IS TRUE, of course, that at presentthere is a general scarcity of rabbis,

and among the Conservatives in particu-lar (this is documented in a fine study ofthe "rabbinical labor force" by Eli Ginz-berg). Thus, practically every rabbi,with or without the Assembly's or thecommision's support, can find a pulpit,at worse a small pulpit in the South, orbecome a chaplain in the armed forces,in a prison, or in county hospitals. Butrabbis, like ministers and other profes-sionals, prefer to serve large congrega-tions in big cities close to centers of Jew-ish and cultural life. Appointments tothese pulpits, to the degree that the As-sembly controls them, provide the in-formal sanctions and rewards which helpthe Assembly to enforce its "line" anddiscipline. This is not to imply that allthe "plum" pulpits are controlled by thecommission. The older, larger, richercongregations of the bigger cities tendto be independent in spirit and to carryconsiderable weight in the movement.Hence, when they want to get a cer-tain rabbi, let us say a rabbi whowould build some national reputationfor himself by writing articles in Jew-ish magazines and delivering speechesat national conventions, they are likelyto get him. Moreover, the rabbi whobuilds up such a reputation, by virtue ofit, gains considerable independence ofthe various sanctions and controls. Still,the majority of the rabbis, and it seemsan ever increasing number, "play it safe"

by getting at least the approval-if notthe assignment -of the Assembly; andmany congregations, it seems in growingnumbers, go through the placementcommission, hence the Seminary andthe Assembly, in their search for a rabbi.

Like many associations which controlattractive positions, the Rabbinical As-sembly is a rather exclusive organization.Only graduates of the Seminary, advoc-ates of the proper mixture of traditionand innovation, are assured automaticmembership. Though quite a few grad-uates of the rabbinical school of Ye-shiva University (Orthodox) serve Con-servative congregations, only a limitednumber of them have been accepted bythe Assembly. Non-Seminary graduatesare now requested to take some coursesin the Seminary before applying formembership, and when they are inter-viewed about their religious positionsthey cannot appear too Orthodox (theyare embarrassed if they wear a head-cover during the interview), nor too un-Orthodox (recently a rabbi was rejectedbecause he said that his wife shoppedon Saturday). In general, however, tobe accepted they must hew closer to theline of the Seminary than even theaverage Conservative rabbi.

The Assembly has a code which itsmembers are required to follow, a codesupported by such formal sanctions assuspension of placement privilege andeven expulsion. Two items of the coderead as follows: "Members of the Rab-binical Assembly may negotiate onlythrough the offices of the placementcommission." "At no time will a memberof the Rabbinical Assembly submit hisname, or even indirectly cause his nameto be submitted, as a candidate withoutthe prior approval of the commission."Some additional ten items spell out theother "don'ts" which are intended to

116 JUDAISM: A QUARTERLY JOURNAL

strengthen its influence over the rabbis,the pulpits, and, through both, over thereligious tendencies of the movement.

THE UNITED SYNAGOGUE OF AMERICA is

the weaker sister of the Assembly,and the second arm of the Seminary. Itis, presumably, an organization of thecongregations. More accurately, however,it is an organization tor the congrega-tions that was founded by the Seminaryand is run by a rabbi according to rulesand standards formulated under the ac-tive leadership of the Seminary faculty.In part its function is to increase laycooperation in maintaining the properreligious orientation. (A congregationwas recently suspended for not followingthe ruling against Bingo in the synago-gue; and another was not accepted asa member because its members' childrenwrite in its school on Saturday.)

The relatively weak position of thecongregational organization is reflectedin its "Standards for Synagogue Practice"-the code to direct lay leaders.Consider-ably influenced by the "employees," therabbis, and their representatives in theSeminary court, these "standards" expli-citly recognize the superior authority ofthe rabbis in all "spiritual" matters-and there seem to be no others. The firstarticle of the "Standards," which wereadopted in 1957, reads: "The UnitedSynagogue of America recognizes theCommittee of Jewish Law and Standardsof the Rabbinical Assembly of Americaas its authority on Jewish Law:' (Aswe shall see, the parallel article in theconstitution of the Reform congrega-tions stresses the autonomy of these con-gregations.) The second reads: "Eachcongregation shall look to its rabbi, byvirtue of his election as spiritual leader

of the congregation, as its authority onall matters of Jewish law and prac-

tice ..." One function of this item, ithas been suggested to the author by aleading authority in the field, is to as-sure the rabbi that whatever he decidesto do about Halachah in his own con-gregation shall not be questioned by theRabbinical Assembly or the Seminary.In other words, it assures each rabbi thathe will not be censured for siding withthe laity in such matters as organs, mixedseating, and driving to the synagogue onthe Sabbath. At the same time this item,strongly supported by the Assembly andactually formulated by one of its leaderswhen the Standards were drawn up, de-fends the rabbi who wishes to adhereto the line he internalized while a stu-dent at the Seminary, within the limitslocal circumstances and prudence allow,against undue pressure of the laity, thecongregation. Whatever power and im-pact the laity might have in real life, itis one indicator of the power of themovement that the whole Standards donot contain a single word about the au-thority of the laity or its representatives.

In short, then, of the three Conserva-tive institutions, the most powerful isthe Seminary. Through its head, its for-mer students, and its control of certainkey positions in the Rabbinical Assemb-ly and the United Synagogue of America,it manages to exert a rather constant"traditional" pressure upon the Con-servative movement.

But this pattern is not typical ofJewish religious organizations in Amer-ica. In the Reform movement the in-stitutions of rabbis, laity, and school areless centralized; and the movement ingeneral concerns itself somewhat lesswith the struggle of tradition and in-novation and considerably more witha commitment to "social action" and astruggle over Zionism.

NATIONAL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF AMERICAN JEWRY 117

UNLIKE the Conservative movement,one building does not house all three

Reform organizations: the Hebrew Uni-on College-Jewish Institute of Religion(its rabbinical school, otherwise knownas the College); the Central Conferenceof American Rabbis (otherwise knownas the Conference); and the Union ofAmerican Hebrew Congregations (itsorganization of congregations, otherwiseknown as the Union). Moreover, theReform movement not only does notconsider its rabbinical school its centralauthority but operates under the dualauthority of the rabbinical and the layinstitutions. The stronger of these two,again unlike the Conservative movement,is the lay one.

Historically, the Conservative Semi-nary developed long before the Conser-vative movement. It served as the basisof the Conservative expansion that camewith the Americanizing of the East Eu-ropean Jews at the turn of the century,and it has always been the single sourceof Conservative rabbis. But the ReformCollege is the result of a recent mergerof two schools (the Hebrew Union Col-lege of Cincinnati and the Jewish In-stitute of Religion in New York), anduntil this merger rabbis could receivetheir training in either institution. Re-form lacks, in other words, the centraliz-ing strength of a common training placeof all its spiritual leaders and hence asource of common tradition. (It remainsto be seen whether the recent mergerwill change this.)

Partly as a result of this lack and alsoin part because the College is not led byas strong a personality as heads the Semi-nary, and because the organization ofcongregations (the Union) has separateheadquarters, the staff members of theUnion, though many of them are rabbis,are more inclined to give their allegiance

to the Union's "line" and to its leader,Rabbi Maurice Eisendrath, than to therabbinical association or to the College.The fact that the president of the Union,the many heads of its divisions, and manymembers of its commissions and com.mittees are rabbis, does not mean thatthe Union is strongly affected by theConference (the Reform rabbinical as-sociation) the way the ConservativeUnited Synagogue is affected by the Rab-binical Assembly, or that the Union isnot predominantly "lay" in outlook andline. Because of the rapid turnover ofthe leadership in the Conference, andthe continued leadership and stabilityof career in the Union, because of theconsiderable lay interests of the Reformrabbis in general (human rather thannarrowly religious matters, and someother factors too complicated to be pur-sued here), the Union-staffed with rab-bis as it may be-is still an organizationof the laity, responsive to its positionsand needs, not an organization for thecongregations by rabbis. Yet the Union'sinfluence in itself is comparatively small,in part because of its constitution anddue to the formal structure of its con-stitution whose preamble reads:

Nothing contained in this Constitu-tion or the By-Laws shall be construedso as to interfere in any manner what-soever with the mode of worship, theschool, the freedom of expression andopinion, or any of the other congre-gational activities of the constituentcongregations of the Union.

This clearly limits the Union's abilityto control the congregations.

Article VIII is now under criticism bythe Union leadership precisely becauseit obstructs the development of a guidefor the congregations. Without takingany position regarding an innovation-tradition issue, Rabbi Eisendrath, speak-

118 JUDAISM: A QUARTERLY JOURNAL

ing for the Union, has made a strongappeal for the guide:

Hats on, hats off: rabbis robed, rabbisunrobed; avec Atorah, sans Atorah;one day Rosh Ha-Shana and two dayslikewise; Ashkenazic pronunciationand Sephardi likewise; kosher kitchensin Reform social halls-all this andham and bacon too. ..some may callthis the "free development of the re-ligious idea" and bless it with thesacrosanct shibboleth of "autonomy,autonomy, autonomy" -but with acandor borrowed from and a courageinspired by [Isaac Mayer] Wise, I toocall it "anarchy, and utter chaos."

Any such guide would require a changein Article VIII so as to increase the roleof the national organization in the localorganization's life.

have been established since World WarII. Since these newer congregations arein many cases more to the "right" thanthe older ones, strictly speaking thereare only fifty to one hundred that canproperly be called classical Reform, ex-treme "innovators," over against newReform, or neo-traditionals. (That thenew laity seems to be "on the side ofhistory," that is, the general trend tothe right, may be one of thedeeper reasons why the Union, the layorganization of congregations, has gainedin influence since World War II, thatis, since the beginning of the generalreligious revival).

All the Reform institutions, however,present a middle-of-the-road religiousposition; moreover, in matters of tradi-tion vs. innovation they playa less activerole than the Conservative Seminarydoes. The Reform institutions exert theirfull influence and leadership on ques-tions of social action and Zionism.

Social action has continued to be oneof the most important issues of Reformfrom its very first days. ("The heart ofreligion concerns itself with man's rela-tion to man," Rabbi Eisendrath has re-cently said.) The Reform leadershiphas only recently opened a bureau inWashington from which it could supportpolitical legislation concerning desegre-gation, anti-discrimination, and fair em-ployment. Some of the more powerfulolder congregations objected violently.They argued that a Jew who joins asynagogue does not give it a mandate torepresent him politically; that actionshould be taken by individuals or singlecongregations but not by the movementas such. (Others suggest that these con-gregations-which include many of Ame-rica's richest Jews-are politically con.servative and their real objection is tothe strong liberal bent of some of the

DESPITE THE ABSENCE of a central au-thority in the Reform movement,

there is an influential source of tradi-tional or neo-traditional tendencies inthe local congregations and their leaders.There is, in fact, a long tradition amongsome Reform congregations to be more"right" than the Reform national or-ganizations; The rightist tendency ofthese congregations is reflected in theirinducing rabbis to re-introduce such "rit-uals" as Bar Mitzvah and the observanceof the second day of Rosh Ha-Shanah(in some cases under the explicit threat

to go Conservative "otherwise") andtheir attempt to return to more tradi-tional American Jewish patterns, suchas having the main service on Friday,using Hebrew instead of English, andso on.

The Reform movement has about sixhundred congregations, of which half

1 Nathan Glazer suggested that the develop-ment of the Conservative movement can betraced to a protest of rightist Reform membersagainst the leftist leadership concentrated aroundthe College in the I 880's.

NATIONAL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF AMERICAN JEWRY 119

Reform rabbis and leaders.) Despite suchobjection, Union leadership wields itsinfluence and guidance on questions ofsocial action with the full support of therabbinical association-and the institu-tional leadership will probably putthrough a strong social action programsuch as, by now, is traditional in theReform movement. In the other twomovements, social action stirs relativelylittle interest, among other reasons be-cause it is felt to be "Reform business."

Zionism is another major issue in theReform movement. Rabbis, board mem-bers, and other leaders all talk withconsiderable pride of Reform's internalstruggles concerning the American Coun-cil for judaism, an anti-Zionist organiza-tion that drew most of its members fromthe Reform. "They cannot get any moreanti-Zionist rabbis," a major Reformleader said. "All they can do is checkthat the rabbi we send them is not anadherent Zionist who will talk aboutIsrael all the time." To Conservativesand to the Modern Orthodox, on theother hand, Zionism is not such a centralissue; both movements take a practical-ly unanimous (and basically positive)position. Thus, in summary, the Reformleadership is less centralized than theConservative leadership and somewhatless active in regard to the religious is-sues of "right" and "left," exerting itsinfluences more clearly on the secularissues of social action and Zionism.

thodox have difficulty holding both con-gregations and rabbis: less than a thirdof the rabbinical graduates of YeshivaUniversity hold pulpits; many of thosewho do not, become businessmen or scien-tists (there is an association of Orthodoxscientists, many of whom have graduatedfrom the Yeshiva rabbinical school); andsome become teachers or take other non-

pulpit-though acceptably "Jewish"-po-sitions.2 Even a number of those whobecome rabbis, however, eventually endup serving Conservative congregations-out of conviction or because of economic

pressures.The framework of the Orthodox or-

ganization is also very different. In thefirst place, it offers almost no centraliza-tion at all. There are four main rabbi-nical organizations (many rabbis are"free lancers"); many more Yeshivot,all of which train rabbis; and no onecentral organization of congregations.Finally, there is no central authority thatregulates these institutions and associa-tions.

Modern Orthodoxy (which representsthe more innovating part of OrthodoxJewry) offers the most centralized ele-ments of the Orthodox movement andresembles somewhat the Conservativeorganization. Yeshiva University serves asits spiritual and organizational center.The majority of the members of its rab-binical association (the RabbinicalCouncil) and most of the association'sleaders are graduates of Yeshiva andwork in close contact with its masters.The Union of Jewish Congregations ofAmerica, however, Modern Orthodoxy'sparallel to the United Synagogue, is less

TE ORTHODOX MOVEMENT is againquite different from the other two.

Most importantly, it is no longer grow-ing. Both the Conservative and the Re-form membership have tripled in the lastfifteen years, and each is hard pressedto find enough rabbis to staff their con-gregations, the number of which havedoubled during that time. But the Or-

2 It should be noted that many of the stu-dents at the rabbinical school of Yeshiva Uni-versity never intended to become practicingrabbis in the first place, like their predecessorsin European Yeshivot.

JUDAISM:

A QUARTERLY JOURNAL120

because of its limited power -cannotblock the leftist trend of Modern Or-thodoxy; it can only slow it down.

The emphasis which the leaders ofModern Orthodoxy, the Yeshiva headsand faculty, place upon Day Schools re-flects both the weaknesses of the move-ment and the tenor of its efforts. To anincreasing extent, Hebrew Day Schoolshave become the core of the "conserva-tion" and restoration activities of Mod-ern Orthodoxy. Parents are oftenthought of as lost-a desert generation-but with the Day School Modern Ortho-doxy attempts to save the children. TheOrthodox movement has learned thatchildren who go to the Day Schools notonly tend to accept and maintain theOrthodox tradition but sometimes bringtheir parents back to that tradition aswell. (The parents first participate inthe children's services, then develop theirown Orthodox shul.) The head of acentral Yeshiva pointed out that he as-sesses his graduates first of all accordingto their ability to run Day Schools. Thisemphasis upon the younger generationwould seem to be a perfectly understand-able reaction of a movement understrong leftist pressures, a movement,moreover, doing less well than eitherof its two counterparts.

ONE MEASURE of the institutional dif-ferences I have been discussing is

the role of the rabbi in each of themovements. Rabbis constitute, so tospeak, the middle rang of the contempo-rary Jewish religious community, stand-ing somewhere between the nationalsuperstructure and the congregations andtheir members. J. Carlin and S. Medlo-vitI have shown, in their outstandingstudy, "The American Rabbi: A Reli-gious Specialist Responds to Loss of Au-

tied to this spiritual center than its Con-servative counterpart and draws rabbisand leadership from sources other thanYeshiva. The most striking difference be-tween this segment of the Orthodoxmovement and the Conservative move-ment lies in the degree of control theirrespective rabbinical associations can im-pose. A Modern Orthodox rabbi canreadily attain a gratifying pulpit with-out the support or consent of his rabbi-nical association or the Yeshivot. Be-cause of the strong tendency to leave thepulpit for non-rabbinical positions, fewsanctions can be applied. Hence, what-ever "line" the Yeshiva supports, itbrings to that "line" much less influencethan do its counterparts in Conservativeor even in Reform judaism.3

To what effect, then, is the limitedinstitutional power of the Modern Or-thodox movement used? Yeshiva Uni-versity, like the Seminary, is more tra.ditional than the rabbis, and the rabbisthat it produces are more traditionalthan their congregations. It is a com-monplace among the Modern Orthodoxrabbis that most of them cannot eat inthe homes of the presidents of theircongregations, or even of the more de-voted members, because the latter donot observe Kashruth to a degree theirrabbis consider satisfactory.

While the Yeshiva, like the Seminary,serves to counter lay pressures, there isa crucial difference in that, while theSeminary is instrumental in moving theConservatives to the right, the Yeshiva-

11 To some degree, Modern Orthodoxy, againunlike the Conservative movement, also con-tains a separation of spiritual and administra-tive leadership under the respective guidanceof Rabbi J. B. Soloveitchik, a professor at Ye-shiva University, and Dr. Samuel Belkin, its

president.

NATIONAL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF AMERICAN JEWRY 121

servative rabbis are under different kindsof pressures. Each of them must be asuper-administrator in order to run ef-ficiently the various activities, institu-tions, and associations which make upmost modern congregations; in addition,each must direct, or at least participatein, a large number of "social" activitiesthat have little or no religious meaning.The strains that these requirements im-pose on the rabbis are sometimes exag-gerated-the new generation of rabbis inparticular is much more aware of theseproblems and much more able to dealwith them. Nevertheless, most of thegraduates of the College, the Seminary,and the Yeshiva tend to identify withtheir teachers and masters. Many, atleast for a few years, hope to be religi-ous scholars, or "intellectuals" (quite afew try to remain affiliated with theireducational institutions in order to re-alize these aspirations). Rabbinical edu-cation as often as not rather deliberatelyprepares its students for the pulpit asit was or ought to be and so increasesthe crisis that ensues upon graduatingand getting out into the congregationalworld.

thority,"4 that the trend among all thesemovements is toward the "Protestantiza-tion" of the rabbi. Sometimes deliberate-ly, sometimes unwittingly, contemporaryrabbis tend to emulate the Protestantminister. The traditional Jewish con-ception of the rabbi is in decline; thestress today is not upon the roles ofjudge, scholar, or teacher of one's "gen-eration," but those of preacher, congre-gational organizer, and administrator.This much can be said in common forall American rabbis (short of those be-longing to the right Orthodox); even so,there are enormous differences amongthe three movements in the degree towhich the traditional elements have beenlost.

The Modern Orthodox rabbi, "bydefinition," is the least affected; yet be-cause of the movement's constant "left-ward" trend, he too is under pressureto "adjust." Moreover, since the move-ment has few sanctions over its rabbis,since many leave the rabbinate, andsome choose to serve Conservative con-gregations, it can hardly offset such ad-justment under pressure from below.

The modern rabbi tends the sick,counsels the mentally ill, directs thosewho need relief, and above all-hepreaches. The quality of the sermon hasbecome a major criterion by which con-gregations elect rabbis and by whichpromotion is gained to more importantpulpits

and to national reputation. (Thisis less true of the Conservative but moretrue of the Reform rabbi; Reform rabbison the average spend about two daysa week working on their sermons, con.sidering this their major single chore.)

Because of the different institutionalarrangements, both Reform and Con.

ONE SHOULD NOT be too hasty in point-ing out the undesirable effects of

such training. Congregations pressurethe rabbi toward the direction of socialadministration; the educational institu-tions train him in the opposite direc-tion, toward scholarship and spiritualaspirations-with the result that betweenthese diametrically opposed approachesa rabbi often has to compromise. Ofcourse, if the gap is too large a compro-mise

cannot be reached; if the strain onthe rabbi is too great he may even leavethe rabbinate. (Training that is too farremoved

from .'reality" supplies onereason why about two-thirds of the

4 Published in The Jews, edited by MarshallSklare. The following comments are based inpart on this study.

JUDAISM: A QUARTERLY JOURNAL122

graduates of Yeshiva University's rabbi-nical school do not hold pulpits.)

Yet once the rabbi is "out there" inthe congregation, despite the officialpolicy of the Conservative and the Re-fonn bodies that he is the final authorityon Jewish law, the institutional leadersare more inclined to help him reach a"proper" compromise with the congrega-tions, that is, in line with the move-ment's tradition as interpreted by itsleadership and institutions-though theneed to reduce conflicts between therabbi and the congregation is also takeninto account. But even in the centralizedConservative movement, the support-which concerns not only questions oftradition versus innovation but those of"intellectual" rabbis versus administra-tive and "social" ones-is far weaker thanthat given by any church-like religion.

An analysis of the role of the rabbisuggests the same general conclusionwhich emerges from the analysis of theinterplay among the various institutionswhich constitute the national frameworkof the three movements: the generaltrend is toward a more traditional (orneo-traditional) pattern of Jewish religi-ous life, but not toward a traditionalisticone. The Reform movement, with the

exception of a hard core of "ClassicalReform" congregations, seems to bemoving in the more traditional direc-tion; the Conservatives in toto are be-coming still more traditional. ModernOrthodoxy, on the other hand, tends toaccept some of the innovative patternsintroduced by the other two movements,with only a small segment sticking to amilitant, traditionalistic line.

The role the national institutions ofthe three movements plays in this trendtoward a more traditional Jewish lifevaries from movement to movement. Inthe Reform the major driving forceseems to be at the moment a grass rootmovement, led by the young new Re-form congregations. Among the Ortho-dox, where the institutional structure isthe weakest, the grass-root movementis in the less traditionalistic direction.The institutional structure is playing alimited anchorage role, attempting to re-duce the drift in the innovative direc-tion. It is among the Conservatives thatthe institutional structure exerts itselfmost, in leading the movement, despitesome congregational resistance, in themore traditional, and in my book hencemore .T ewish, direction.