The embrace of Rosenzweig’s philosophy led to new conclusions about Torah study and observance, for as the commentary continues, “if God is in dialogue with us, perhaps we hear God’s commands as though God were calling out to us… awaiting our response.” Hence, the rabbis declared on behalf of their movement that:

In embracing the study of all mitzvot, the Pittsburgh Principles opened up the possibility of a far more traditional form of Jewish observance, and the official commentary specifically mentions kashrut, talit, tefilin, and mikveh (ritual immersion) “to demonstrate the principle that there is no mitzva barred to Reform Jews….” Lest there be any error regarding the magnitude of this change, the commentary declares: “This paragraph reflects the most significant break from the Pittsburgh Platform. By committing ourselves to study the whole array of mitzvot, Reform Jews affirm that all the mitzvot of the Tora can call to us as they call to all Jews….”

 

While the shift in the Reform movement has principally affected the diaspora, Israeli Jews of differing religious outlooks have also begun coming together in ways that seemed unimaginable only a decade ago. None of the changes in the Jewish state has been as fundamental as the philosophical transformation within Reform, but the steps that have been taken, viewed collectively, are quite significant. In January 1999, the Israeli army received the tacit support of leading rabbis from the yeshiva community to establish the Nahal Haredi, a military unit that caters to the needs of ultra-Orthodox inductees; more than a thousand young men have already served in this unit, and the numbers continue to grow. In the spring of 2000, the Tal Commission, appointed by then Prime Minister Ehud Barak, received the backing of prominent haredi rabbis for its recommendation to ease the path of yeshiva students into the work force by granting them a “year of decision,” during which they could leave their studies and get jobs without immediately being drafted into the army; significantly, those former yeshiva students choosing to continue working after that year were to be drafted into the army or national service. Coupled with diminished government subsidies for yeshiva study, this has led growing numbers of haredi men to join the work force in areas ranging from law and accounting to high tech. Since the haredi community has long been resented in mainstream Israeli society for carrying too small a share of the country’s military and economic burdens, these steps have the potential to bring the Jews of Israel closer together.

A consensus has also begun to emerge on the public character of the Jewish state, a source of conflict since the founding of Israel. One sign of the change was the Kineret Declaration, which was promulgated in October 2001 after being ratified by prominent representatives of Israel’s humanist Left, the Israeli branch of Reform, traditionalists, the “national-religious” camp, and the haredim. They united behind a ten-point document that explicitly recognized the contributions of the various groups to a common Jewish cause, and pointed the way to a peaceable resolution of central issues under contention:

In 2002, a more detailed covenant was drafted by religious-Zionist educator Ya’akov Medan and liberal legal scholar Ruth Gavison, setting forth agreed-upon principles and proposed arrangements for the most contentious issues of religion and state, including public observance of the Sabbath, the role of the Orthodox rabbinate in marriage and divorce, the government’s relationship to Reform and Conservative institutions, and the definition of who is a Jew. Such initiatives have gone a long way to debunking the claim that Israeli Jews are so deeply divided that no meaningful platform can unite them.

None of these developments, whether in the Jewish state or the diaspora, erase the sharp differences that remain on issues such as patrilineal descent or the granting of legitimacy to gay marriages. Likewise, the growing convergence on the level of ideas does not automatically reduce tensions. But what the recent changes suggest is that far from auguring the dissolution of the Jewish people, the last several years have seen a bridging of differences on some of the most significant issues—and with it, the creation of new opportunities for unity.

 

What, then, can be done to build on these trends? First and foremost, it is essential to recognize that the Jewish tradition is not only about shared culture and customs, but is based on a distinctive set of Jewish ideas—including belief in one God, the possibility of discovering moral truth, individual dignity, the centrality of the family, private initiative, communal responsibility, the rule of law, national independence, and the ideal of universal peace. Such ideas, which find their origin in the Hebrew Bible, have served to hold the Jewish people together through history, even as they exercised a decisive influence on the civilizations around us. And it is these same ideas that are reflected in various ways in all the leading Jewish streams today, giving them a strong “family resemblance” despite differences of opinion in major areas of doctrine and practice.

These ideas are our common heritage, and the time has come to set about defining for ourselves a common Judaism,which can serve as a core of ideas upon which the great majority of Jews can and do agree. By focusing on this core, it is possible for scholars, rabbis, and laymen to strengthen the widely-felt intuition that Jewish unity reflects a reality that goes well beyond a tribal sense of brotherhood.

This kind of approach will, of necessity, mean a diminished focus on denominationalism. For several generations now, Jews have become accustomed to defining themselves primarily with reference to the issues on which they disagree: The mehitza separating men from women in synagogue, the ordination of gays and lesbians as rabbis, the use of guitars on the Sabbath, and so on. Such issues will continue to provoke debate, and a focus on ideas that unite Jews does not require anyone to give up his or her beliefs on such matters, nor does it suggest the demise of the existing denominations. What is needed, though, is a change in paradigm along the lines suggested a century ago by the scholar and educator Solomon Schechter, who in “His Majesty’s Opposition” called on Jews holding different viewpoints to see themselves as belonging to competing political parties within a single, great republic: Though opposed to one another on some issues, they should regard themselves first as citizens of the Jewish people, advancing the interests of the nation and the common creed for which it stands; and only secondarily as partisans seeking to move the nation towards a particular understanding of that creed.

Such an approach does not negate the role of comparison, but shifts its focus. Instead of highlighting differences among the movements of Judaism, it suggests that it is more revealing to consider how Judaism as a whole differs from the leading civilizations, philosophies, and religions with which it is in competition, whether these be Christianity, Buddhism, or the main streams of Enlightenment thought. This is not a kind of discourse that is very familiar these days, but this does not mean that there are no models for it. One can consider, for example, The Jews: Their History, Culture, and Religion (1955), edited by Louis Finkelstein, chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary; Where Judaism Differs (1956), by Abba Hillel Silver, a leading Reform thinker and activist; or Radical Then, Radical Now (1991) by Jonathan Sacks, the Orthodox Chief Rabbi of Britain.

Such comparisons must be made fairly and honestly, with humility and a respect for the truths contained in the teachings and practices of other peoples. At the same time, however, a great deal can be gained by considering the real differences between Judaism and its competitors in the realm of ideas, demonstrating with balanced scholarship where our tradition has made a major contribution, and showcasing areas in which it has the potential to make further contributions to humanity.

Indeed, at the heart of a common Judaism is the belief that the ideas that unite Jews can benefit mankind as a whole, and that the age-old vision of improving the world is one in which all Jews can share. Though uniting Jews around the great ideas of our tradition is no small task, the prospects for success are greater today than at any time in recent memory.

Daniel Polisar, for the Editors
March 15, 2004