|
The Orthodox Union Story Chapter 8: The Zion Vista The permanence of the Mendes impression on the outlook of the national congregational union as manifest through the years is to be seen, among other ways, in his positive attitude toward Zionism. It was expressed forcibly, at a time when the Reform forces then riding so high were in rabid opposition to the Zionist movement. Always, Dr. Mendes made it plain that what he stood for was a "Torah-centered Zionism." As noted by Dr. Eugene Markovitz in his essay, "Henry Pereira Mendes, Architect of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America":
Markovitz also cites, from American Hebrew, January 4, 1901, a statement by Henry Pereira Mendes that bears enduring force:
The 1914 convention hailed "with great pleasure and approval the various Jewish movements for the resettlement and upbuilding of the ancient fatherland of the Jewish people," and called upon "all Jews to give their support to these movements insofar as they are in keeping with the principles of Orthodox Judaism." At the same time, the convention resolved:
The resolution was obviously designed to complement the positive support of religious Zionism-the original, pre-Herzlian Torah Zionism of which the Mizrachi organization was the banner-bearer-with even-handed approval of the newly launched (1912) independent movement of Agudath Israel. In the years that followed, Orthodox Union leaderships sought, unsuccessfully, to bring together the American wings of the two movements. The gap between the two Orthodox world movements added to divisive rather than cohesive trends within the traditional fold. Since Agudath Israel gained relatively few supporters in the United States up to mid-century, however, the rivalry was more a matter of potential clash than of felt public dispute. A more serious bar to communal cohesion was the separateness between the ranks of the rabbis of eastern European background and the Orthodox Union. With the organization in 1902 of the Agudath Harabbanim, the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada, its members -products of the great yeshivoth of Lithuania, Poland, and elsewhere in eastern Europe-had gained an instrument for their collective interests. Their numbers had increased with the continuing influx of immigrants, but the status and vocational conditions of these rabbis had been sadly impaired amid the rampant disorders of the immigrant scene. It was hoped that now, through organization, better standards would be maintained, abuses would be curbed, and the dignity and material welfare of the rabbinate would be upheld. All the leadership and ranks of the congregational Union were in strong accord with these aims, and efforts were repeatedly made to establish a tie between the two organizations. Intermittently, the negotiations showed promise, culminating in acceptance by both organizations of an agreement, drawn up by a joint committee, that (as reported and approved at the Seventh Convention of the UOJCA, held in Arverne, New York, on June 20-21, 1914) read:
Quickly thereafter, however, the Agudath Harabbanim. retracted its agreement. The negotiations then lapsed and were never renewed, each organization pursuing its separate course ever since. After the close of the Mendes presidential era, the pace of American Jewish Orthodoxy's cohesive' movement flagged. Not until a later era was the UOJCA to regain the measure of elan and prestige it had initially acquired. The organization's role had been established, however. Its functioning existence, even within a restricted range, strengthened the morale of those who remained steadfast in Judaic loyalty amid the New-World maelstrom. As never before since the onset, in the 1840s, of the larger Jewish presence in America, Orthodox Jewry in this strange new setting had found itself as an articulate force. Thus buttressed, the institutions of traditional Jewish life gained assurance and became progressively better attuned to American conditions. The collective status of Torah Jewry rose. Footnotes1. In American Jewish Historical Quarterly, Vol. LV, No. 3, March 1966; also in Dr. Markovitz's fuller, unpublished study of Dr. Mendes, based on his doctoral dissertation.
|