By the Grace of G-d27th of Sivan [5719]Brooklyn, N.Y.

Greeting and Blessing:

Inasmuch as you took the initiative to have a delegation meet with me, you will surely have received a report about this meeting.

Knowing of your interest in the subject matter of our conversation, I wish to give you herewith a brief outline of the suggestions I made to them. As our conversation was of a confidential nature, I am writing this to you also confidentially.

The head of the delegation opened the discussion by saying that the main purpose which he had in mind was to clear up some misinformation about the work of his organization and such charges as discrimination, etc.

In reply to this I suggested that it would be advisable to publish from time to time their own reports on their activities. My contention was that it is not sufficient to use the press alone, because, for one thing, the number of readers is limited and, secondly, because a newspaper is not the medium for serious reports, for a newspaper is treated lightly and discarded. Moreover, people do not always have confidence in a newspaper report, since reporters and journalists are known to take liberties and do not always faithfully report on all particulars in their proper perspectives. On the other hand, when an organization issues its own report and takes full responsibility for it, such a report is a permanent record and commands greater respect and confidence.

However, the above point is relatively of minor importance in comparison with the main issue revolving around that organization. It was on this issue that I dwelt at some length and made certain suggestions, as will be outlined below.

I prefaced my suggestions by the statement that my attitude towards this organization is well known and has not changed even after the declaration which the said Rabbi made concerning its policy.

As you no doubt know, the crux of the opposition to the one organization as well as to the other is based on the position of the Torah, namely, that an Orthodox Rabbi cannot in all conscience recognize the Conservative and Reform points of view, inasmuch as both of the latter do not accept the Written and Oral Law. Hence these movements and their representatives cannot be recognized as legitimately reflecting the Jewish religion, inasmuch as they reject it. This has been unequivocally ruled by the Rambam¹ and other authorities that followed him, who have established the laws and attitudes of the Shulchan Aruch, leaving no room for doubt or discussion on this basic issue.

From the above it follows immediately that the activities of such dissident groups cannot be recognized as Jewish religious activities within the definition of Jewish religion. Therefore, Orthodox Rabbis cannot, in all conscience, be members in a body or organization together with representatives of the non-Orthodox points of view, namely, of the Conservative and Reform movements, inasmuch as participation and affiliation in such a body or organization would ipso facto constitute a recognition of the Conservative and Reform interpretation of Judaism as being legitimate parts of the framework of the Jewish religion, in direct conflict with the unequivocal Psak Din of the Rambam and other authorities, as mentioned above.

Taking all the above into consideration and in order to preserve peace and harmony within the Jewish camp, and also provide a measure of cooperation in matters pertaining to the Jewish community at large, I suggested that the cooperative organization should not have a religious character. This, in fact, was the way Jewish communities were organized and operated overseas. It is well known, for example, that the Community Council of Warsaw seated side by side atheists together with Polish Rabbis, inasmuch as the Community Council had no religious character. An analogous case is the Jewish Welfare Board, or the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies, although the latter may also deal with such institutions as kosher public kitchens, and the Jewish Welfare Board deals with the problem of Jewish Chaplains, etc. However, it is well-known that these organizations are not specifically religious, which is not the case where the organization includes in its title such words as “Rabbis” or “Synagogue” and the like, thus immediately stamping it as a religious body.

At the same time I made the point that within such a non-religious organization as described above, there could not be a committee on religious questions of Orthodox representatives together with Conservative and Reform representatives, as this would be in conflict with the Shulchan Aruch. For this reason I object to the Joint Rabbinical Council of the JWB. On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent the Reform and Conservative representatives from having their own separate or joint committees, whose recommendations would not be binding, of course. However, actually this would not be a problem, since, as the delegates explained, all religious problems pertaining to the community at large are in any case resolved in accordance with the orthodox point of view, for the simple and logical reason that to build a synagogue with a mechitza, or to establish a strictly kosher kitchen in a hospital – by way of example – does not violate any principles on the part of the Conservative or Reform leadership, while if the situation were reversed, it would involve a discrimination against Orthodox Jews who could not benefit from any such facilities, if they were not strictly in accordance with the Shulchan Aruch.

It is clear from all that has been said above that the only way to establish a cooperative organization is to divest it from any religious connection. Such an organization would be open to representatives of all sections of Jewry, both Rabbis and laymen, with the only proviso that on the sub-committee dealing with religious problems there should be only religious Rabbis (and laymen, if necessary).

I made a further suggestion, with a view to avoiding other complications, that the name of such a lay organization should not include the word “United,” especially as even now the term is not included, because the inclusion of such a description would immediately raise questions.

Finally, I indicated that I could leave to their own discretion and initiative the technical aspects of reorganizing the existing organization, or creating a new one, which should embody the above principles, without raising problems of prestige and face-saving, and the like.

Needless to say, I clearly indicated that I spoke only in my own behalf and not in the name of any organization or group. However, I am quite confident that if my suggestions were implemented, it would provide ground for maximum opportunity to create peace and harmony within the Jewish camp. I further added that since I felt confident that the delegates, as everyone else, appreciated the vital need of peace and harmony, it was my fervent hope and confidence that they would make every effort on their part to bring this about.

Last but not least, one more point in reference to my basic position on this issue. It so happened that one of the visiting Rabbis asked me whether – in view of my statement made to him personally several years ago on the same issue, to the effect that there was no need at all for a joint representative body, but as the occasion arises there could be formed an ad hoc committee to deal with the matter – whether in view of the above I still maintained the same position. My answer was that I have not changed that view, as I could not change a view which is based on the Shulchan Aruch. I added that I would still prefer to see the complete dissolution of the said two organizations, which should be supplanted by an ad hoc committee as the occasion required; such committee, too, should be organized in a way that would not violate the Shulchan Aruch. However, having concluded from the tenor of our whole discussion that this idea had no chance of being realized, I suggested the next best solution, along the principles outlined above, as an emergency measure under the existing circumstances. I must emphasize, nevertheless, that since this is not the ideal solution, it will still leave room in the minds of the public at large for a measure of confusion as the cardinal distinction between the points of view of Orthodox Judaism and those of the Conservative and Reform movements.

I shall be glad to receive your comments,

With all good wishes, and

With blessing,