June 5, 2026
Over the past week, there has been significant debate sparked by a gathering of Reform Jewish leaders in New York City at a conference called Re‑Charging Reform. Hosted by the Stephen S. Wise Free Synagogue, the gathering ignited controversy around the ordination of anti‑Zionist rabbis at Hebrew Union College. Participants adopted a resolution calling on the College not to ordain anti‑Zionist rabbis, while HUC President Andrew Rehfeld defended the institution’s commitment to inquiry, discussion, and engagement with contemporary issues.
In this brief reflection, I will not attempt to offer an opinion on that question. Instead, over the coming weeks, I will explore the history of Reform Judaism, examining the foundational documents that have shaped Reform Jewish thought and values in America over the past 140 years. These documents and platforms can be found on the website of the Central Conference of American Rabbis. Through this exploration, we may better understand the roots of today’s debates and, perhaps, be better equipped to form our own perspectives. We will return to the current question after our dive into history.
Much of the discussion about Zionism in Reform Judaism can be traced back to its earliest platform, adopted in Pittsburgh in November 1885. Known as the Pittsburgh Platform, it sought to articulate guiding principles for an emerging movement in the United States. Regarding Zionism, the document famously states: “We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community, and therefore expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning the Jewish state.” Controversy surrounding this position contributed to the development of the Columbus Platform some fifty years later.
It is important to note that the Pittsburgh Platform was never formally adopted by the Central Conference of American Rabbis, which was established in 1889, four years after the gathering. The document emphasized the ethical foundations of Judaism while rejecting certain ritual practices, such as kashrut and laws of priestly purity and dress. Its call to “participate in the great task of modern times…to solve, on the basis of justice and righteousness, the problems presented by the contrasts and evils of the present organization of society” had a lasting impact on Reform Jewish life.
Questions remain regarding what inspired the Pittsburgh gathering and why the final document was adopted by the rabbis in attendance. Scholars argue that a debate between Rabbi Alexander Kohut, a recent immigrant to the United States and leader of Congregation Ahawath Chesed, and Rabbi Dr. Kaufman Kohler played a role. While this debate focused on the purpose of religious practice—similar to distinctions we might draw today between Reform and Orthodox Judaism—the motivations for the gathering may have been broader. Some suggest that the rise of the Ethical Culture movement, founded by Felix Adler in 1876, influenced the conference, as it appealed to many of the same people drawn to Reform Judaism. Others point to concerns about assimilation and the fear that many Reform Jews might disengage from Jewish life—an ongoing challenge for Diaspora communities.
Questions also remain about whether the principles were widely adopted by American Jews at the time. Historian Jonathan Sarna notes that little documentation of the discussions was preserved, and the “Authentic Report” published afterward did not include dissenting voices. Rabbi Michael Machol of Cleveland remarked in 1890, “I was opposed to some of them, and am still opposed to them.” A century later, Rabbi Walter Jacob described the document as a defining text of the early twentieth century, while also noting that its influence may have been somewhat exaggerated. Some argue that its stance on Zionism led to a reversal in the 1937 Columbus Platform, while others, such as Maxmillian Heller, suggested as early as 1903 that its views were already outdated. Jacob ultimately wrote that the platform “represented a radical reform which was almost immediately modified.”
While its immediate impact may be debated, the Pittsburgh Platform clearly left a lasting mark on Reform Judaism, serving as a point of reference for later developments. It has sometimes been used to suggest anti‑Zionist or non‑Zionist origins within Reform Judaism, though that may not fully reflect the diversity of views at the time. What is clear is that the Platform sought to respond to the pressing concern of assimilation—a question that has shaped Jewish life for centuries and continues to resonate today.
Next week, we will take a closer look at the Columbus Platform of 1937.
Shabbat Shalom,
Rabbi Rick Kellner