Jewish Life August 1960 by Jewish Action

« M

Israeli Aspects of the Eichmann Case

Religion and Today’s Collegian

Far'Rockaway: Torah-Suburb By-the-Sea

Séx Questions and Tz’niuth

Babbi Kook — ■ Consecrator o f Jewish Nation* hood

e d ito ria l Indian Jewry Unites

Announcing

62ndc National OF

Anniv ^Biennial(Convention .

THE

Union of Orthodox Jewish (Congregations of oAmerica NOVEMBER 9-13, I960 CHESHVAN 19-23, 5721 C helsea

H otel

Atlantic City, New Jersey General Chairman H arold M. Jacobs

President M oses I. Feuerstein

UNION OF ORTHODOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS OF AMERICA 84 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK 11, N. Y.

Vol. XXVII, No. 6 / August, 1960/Av, 5720

n "n

EDITORIALS Saul B ernstein., Editor

INDIAN JEWRY UNITES ................................

M. M orton R ubenstein Reuben E. G ross Rabbi S. J. Sharfman Libby K laperman Editorial Associates

ARTICLES

T hea O dem , Editorial Assistant

JEWISH LIFE is published bi monthly. Subscription two years $4.00, three years $5.50, four years $7.00, Supporter $10.00, Patron $25.00.

ISRAELI ASPECTS OF THE EICHMANN CASE/ I. Halevy-Levin .........................................

RELIGIOUS ATTITUDES OF TODAY’S COLLEGIAN/ Zvi Gitelman............................................. 12 FAR ROCKAWAY - TORAH-SUBURB BY-THE-SEA/ Michael Kaufman .................... 20 SEX QUESTIONS AND TZ’NIUTH/Joseph Grunblatt. 33

Editorial and Publication Office: 84 Fifth Avenue . N ew York 11, N . Y . ALgonquin 5-4100

Published by U n io n of O rthodox J ew ish Congregations of A merica

M oses I. F euerstein President Benjamin Koenigsberg, Nathan K. Gross, Samuel L. Brennglass, M. Morton Rubenstein, Vice Presidents; Edward A. Teplow, Treasurer; Herbert Berman, Secretary.

THE MAKING OF A MODERN SIDDUR/Morris M a x .. 39 RABBI K00K — C0NSECRAT0R OF JEWISH NATIONHOOD/Aryeh Newman ......................

REVIEWS JEWISH LAW, JEWISH STATE/Emanuel Rackman.. 49 CREATION, COPY, AND COUNTERFEIT/Ward Moore 51 THE MOLDING OF A BIASED RECORD OF JEWISH HISTORY/Samuel I. Cohen ......................... 54

DEPARTMENTS AMONG OUR CONTRIBUTORS..........................

Dr. Samson R. Weiss Executive Vice President

HASHKOFAH: A Letter of the Chazon I s h ........... 18

Second Class postage paid at New York. N . Y.

Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America

MICHAEL KAUFMAN, a young sales executive, recently moved to Far Rockaway. He received his Jewish education at Yeshiva Torah Vodaath and the Telshe Yeshiva. Mr. Kauf man is editor of “The Approach,” a weekly newsletter for lay and rabbinic leaders in the American orthodox Jewish community. ARYEH NEWMAN is a frequent contributor to these pages. He is assistant editor of the Torah Education Department of the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem. RABBI MORRIS MAX is the spiritual leader of the Queens Jewish Center, Forest Hills, New York, and is the author of “The Jewish Concept of Marriage.”

among our contributors

ZVI GUELMAN is about to enter his junior year at Colum bia College, where he plans to major in philosophy or govern ment. He received his primary and secondary education at the Ramaz day school and Yeshiva University High School in Manhattan. Mr. Gitelman is a member of the Yavneh chapter at Columbia and served as its secretary. RABBI JOSEPH GRUNBLATT is the rabbi of Congregation Shevet Achim, Montreal, Canada. He is a musmach of Mesivta Torah Vodaath, received his B.A. from the City College of New York, and did post-graduate work at the New School For Social Research. I. HALEVY-LEVIN, J e w i s h L i f e ’s Israel correspondent, con tinues to provide our readers with discerning insights into developments on the Israel scene.

A family of Indian Jews at Ma’abara Tira, Israel. They are among a group of Indian Jews who, after having migrated to Israel, returned to India and then came back to Israel. Thousands of their brethren remain in India and are attempting to maintain their religious and cultural heritage (see editorial). (Photo by Herbert S. Sonnenfeld.)

Cover:

JEWISH LIFE

Indian Jew ry Unites HE FOUNDING in July of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of India is an event whose significance is not confined to the isolated outposts of Jewish life in that distant land. By this action, India’s 2,000-year-old Bene Israel com munity in alliance with the Indian congregations of “Iraqi” origin have reaffirmed their dedication to Torah-true Judaism and have proclaimed their intent to march forward in unity to overcome the grave dangers which threaten their spiritual life. The undertaking brings inspiration to loyal Jews everywhere. The development was brought about when the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America responded to a call for aid and guidance. In a letter to UOJCA president Moses I. Feuerstein, a spokesman of the Bene Israel, Saul S. Penkar, at once demonstrates the meaningfulness of this aid and the spirit of mesirath nefesh animating the leaders of Indian orthodox Jewry: “It was G-d who directed me to write you the first letter and it is He who guided us in all our endeavors.” A decisive chapter in the story was the visit to India in behalf of UOJCA and the Rabbinical Council of America by the recently elected president of the latter body, Rabbi Charles Weinberg. The impact of this first official mission to India in Mission behalf of American Orthodoxy can be judged by another pas to sage from the letter of the Bene Israel leader: “I can say with India firm conviction that Rabbi Weinberg has created a stir in the minds and hearts of all who heard him . . . some of them are prepared to undergo anything to maintain and strengthen the ancient traditions of orthodox Torah-true Judaism.”

HE FORCE of this statement reflects the intensity of the situation which confronts India’s Jewish communities. Num bering but a few thousand among the country’s hundreds of millions, far from the mainstreams of Jewish life, lacking rabbis and teachers and ill-equipped to cope with the revolutionary changes affecting modem India, these communities are in dire straits. Especially critical has been the situation of the ancient Bene Israel community. Steadfastly loyal to orthodox Judaism

August, 1960

throughout its long span of history, this group in recent years has been torn from its social moorings; deep poverty has been coupled with spiritual confusion. But the worst trials with which the Bene Israel have been beset were induced by external factors rather than local condi tions. When, in the period preceding the establishment of the Indian Orthodox Union, the need for such a central body became widely realized, a sordid campaign was set afoot to exploit the need for the benefit of the Conservative movement, heretofore totally unknown in India. The methods used to swing the Bene Israel from their age-old loyalties were markedly reminiscent of those used by some Christian missionary circles seeking Jewish Deceit converts. Use of the term “Conservative” was avoided as long and as possible, the non-orthodox character and theological premises Exploitation of the American Conservative agencies sponsoring the campaign were carefully dissembled, and in fact the impression was conveyed that these are agencies of orthodox Judaism. Re sistance being encountered and the misrepresentation chal lenged, the local advocate of Conservatism asserted that “all orthodox Jews in America do not walk more than ten yards on Saturday” and “keep long beards,” this being the substance of their differentiation from the Conservatives. The planners of Conservative strategy then hastened to call a convention to form the United Synagogue of India.” A constitution was presented containing clauses which, in that context and juxta position, form what surely must be the most brazen fraud in contemporary Jewish history. One clause specified the first objective of the organization as “the advancement of orthodox Judaism in India,” (italics added); another provided that the organization shall be guided by “the expert opinion of the ‘•[Conservative] Jewish Theological Seminary of America,” shall keep close liaison with the [Conservative] United Synagogue of America,” and shall be “affiliated with the [Conservative] World Council of Synagogues.” Some of the principal Bene Israel congregations did not per mit themselves to be ensnared into participating in the assem blage, while others which did — in the hope that they could free it from heterodox ties — blocked the passage of the clause providing for Conservative affiliation. At a subsequent meeting, the trick clause was jammed through, with the result that the congregations of standing withdrew, leaving the United Syna gogue of India with a rump constituency of a few small prayer halls. ' \ ‘ "■ 1 HE HAVOC wrought by this unconscionable exploitation made mandatory the resumption of the original plan for the formation of a union of congregations true to the faith cherished by the Bene Israel and their fellow Jews of other Indian com-

JEWISH LIFE

Beacon to World Unity

munities. The joining of hands with American Orthodoxy brought new hope, the visit of Rabbi Weinberg brought new inspiration. From England too came the message of brother hood, with Chief Rabbi Israel Brody and Haham Gaon giving invaluable cooperation in the preparation of Rabbi Weinberg’s mission. Soon the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of India was launched -— a small vessel to be set amidst stormy waters, yet one which, with the help of the Almighty, will steer a true Jewish course. A graphic demonstration of both the need for and the value °f living ties among orthodox Jewish forces in different lands, the India development marks a step towards world orthodox unity. Without an agency for this purpose the thrust of Orthodoxy is deflected and fragmentized and predatory groups feel free to prey with impunity upon its outposts, yes, and upon its inner ramparts too. On the other hand, an instrument equipped to plan, speak, and act in behalf of orthodox Jews throughout the world could many times multiply the example of fraternal community-to-community assistance found in the relationships between the respective Orthodox Unions of America and India. Mr. Penkar’s words, “It was He who guided us in all our en deavors,” must be held aloft as a beacon pointing to a wider horizon.

TEN MITZVOTH W hen you e a t your p iece of b re a d , b e thankful th a t in addition to o b ta in in g su ste n a n c e , you a re perform ing ten Mitzvoth: The field w a s not p lo u g h ed w ith two different sp ecie s of a n im als yoked to g eth er ("Lo T h acharosh"); the field w a s not sow ed w ith tw o different kinds of se e d sim u ltan eo u sly ("Bal Thizrah"); the ox w a s not m uzzled w hile th resh in g ("Bal T hachasom "); the left over stalk s w ere not g a th e re d ("Leket"); nor w ere the forgotten sh e a v e s ("S h ik 'ch ah "); the corners of the field w ere not re a p e d ("P eah "); "T eru m ah " w a s given; a s w a s the first tithe ("M aaser R ishon"); a n d the second a s w ell ("M aaser S hey n i"); "C h a lla h " (se p a ra tio n a n d settin g a sid e of piece of the dough) w a s taken. Talm ud Y erushalm i, C h allah I, 6 Mitzvoth req u ire d u a l perform ance: m en tally "K av an ah ") a s w ell a s physically.

August .1960

(w ith Zohar 5

Israeli Aspects of the Eichmann Case By i. HALEVY-LEVIN

Jerusalem

T CAN surprise no one that Israelis regard the abduction of Adolf Eichmann by Israel agents in Buenos Aires in a totally different light from that in which it is seen, not only by Argentinians, but by other nations of the world. For Israelis and for Jews generally Eichmann is a self-confessed monster, who said of himself in 1944, “I shall jump into my grave laughing because the fact that I have five mil lion Jews on my conscience gives me extraordinary satisfaction.” It is diffi cult for the Israeli man-in-the-street to conceive that for Eichmann normal canons of law and legal procedure continue to apply. This is the crux of the judicial quandary in which the State of Israel finds itself now that he is safely under lock and key. The weight of evidence is so overwhelm ing—Eichmann, unlike other Nazis, does not seem to have made any at tempt to cover up the traces of his crimes, probably because of their magnitude, but also because of his conviction of ultimate Nazi victory— that his arraignment before an ordi nary court of law seems an unneces sary formality. Out-of-hand assassina tion, there is no doubt, would have been regarded far more sympathet

ically by world opinion, as an act of justice and not merely of revenge, than to make him stand trial before a properly constituted court of law. Indeed because of the inevitability of the verdict Israel’s determination to observe the forms of law is being spoken of as exploitation of the occa sion to stage a show trial. Israel’s jurists, needless to say, are resolved that all legal proprieties shall be observed in the case of Eichmann and that not only shall justice be done, but that it shall be seen to be done by the whole world. Pinchas Rosen, Minister of Justice, is waging a valiant though unequal battle against prejudgment of the case in the press, but his pleas that the issue is sub judice and that certain press comment con stitutes contempt of court have proved unavailing. There have even been re ports of a quarrel in the Cabinet be tween Mr. Rosen and the Prime Minister over the statement made in the Knesseth on the seizure of Eich mann. Mr. Rosen is said to have pro tested against Mr. Ben-Gurion’s use of the phrase, “one of the greatest Nazi war criminals . . . who was responsible together with other Nazi leaders for what they called the final solution of the Jewish problem.” This, JEWISH LIFE

Mr. Rosen insisted, is precisely what the Israel courts will have to decide. HE Israel law under which Eichmann will be tried, The Nazi and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law, legislated in 1950, is one of the two in the Israel legal code—the other is treason in time of war—for which the death penalty has been retained de spite the abolition of capital punish ment. The first paragraph of this law says that persons who during the period of the Nazi regime committed crimes against the Jewish people, or against humanity in general, or who during the Second World War com mitted war crimes, shall be liable to the death penalty. A crime against the Jewish people is defined as the commission of any of the following acts with the intent of destroying the Jewish people in whole or in part:

—killing Jews —causing serious bodily or mental harm to Jews —placing Jews in living conditions calculated to bring about their phys ical destruction —institution of measures to prevent births among Jews —forcibly transferring Jewish children to another national or religious group —destroying or desecrating Jewish re ligious or cultural assets or values —inciting to hatred against the Jews. Under this law a number of per sons, mainly Jews who served as Kapos in the concentration camps or former members of the Jewish police in the ghettos, were brought to trial and sentenced to terms of imprison ment. Legalists in other countries have questioned the right of Israel to try Eichmann not only because of the manner of his arrest, but because the August, 1960

crimes with which he is being charged were committed outside Israel at a time when the State of Israel was not yet in existence. International jurists are having a field day discussing the finer legal points of the case, but it is already clear that adequate legal precedents were established in the war criminals trials—if, indeed, this ques tion should be relevant in the present instance. LOSELY integrated in all this legalistic argument is the sugges tion that Eichmann should be tried by an international court, highlighted by the angry exchange of letters be tween David Ben-Gurion and Dr. Nachum Goldmann on this point.

Dr. Goldmann’s position as president of both the World Zionist Organiza tion and the World Jewish Congress make him far more sensitive to world opinion than Israelis normally are. His suggestion that Eichmann should be tried by an international court, in Israel and presided over by an Israeli, to which all countries, including the USSR, which suffered under the Nazis, should appoint judges, stems from a closer rapport with feeling outside Israel and a desire to forestall sneers about “Old Testament justice.” The appointment of such a court, he has said, would be a laudable and useful gesture, stressing the bond between all those, Jews and non-Jews, who suf fered under the Hitler regime. Osten sibly Ben-Gurion’s protest was against publication of the suggestion without prior consultation with the Israel Gov ernment, but of course the main cause of his resentment was the force it lends to the considerable body of interna tional opinion that is still pressing for the trial of Eichmann by non-Israelis. Insisting that historic justice and the 7

Eichmann will finally be brought to book, has induced carelessness in such secondary aspects as procedure and publicity. HE TRACING and arrest of Eich T mann constitute by all standards a brilliant exploit, but if the official

This is the first official p h o to g rap h of Adolf E ichm ann w hich w a s re le a se d b y the Israel governm ent.

honor of the Jewish people make it imperative that Eichmann should be tried by an Israel court, Mr. BenGurion has declared that it is not thè guilt of Eichmann and the penalty to be imposed that is the main thing, for no penalty can be commensurate with the crimes he has committed. What is supremely important is the full ex posure of the Nazi regime’s atrocities against the Jewish people. It is precisely because Nazism and not only Eichmann will be in the dock that the trial is being awaited with some apprehension. The probity of Israel justice, even where the highest placed personalities are involved, can not be challenged, but the tendency among many Israelis—fortunately not shared by official circles—to brush aside the insistence upon proper legal procedure as so much hair-splitting must give rise to concern. An obsessive sense of justice, as a result of which 8

statement made in the Knesseth had been a little more carefully worded much unnecessary embarrassment and tension might have been avoided. It seems to have been based upon a peculiar dual assumption that the world press and public opinion would leave the matter rest where the state ment left it and that Israel’s extralegal methods in seizing Eichmann would be excused because of the enormity of his crime. There are a number of parallels with the U-2 in cident which officially at least tor pedoed the Summit Conference in Paris. There was a similar infringe ment of territorial sovereignty on the plea of overriding national interest and the same candor of the heads of gov ernment in acceptance of full respon sibility for the incident. It is, of course, not customary for a prime minister to acknowledge the operations of his secret agents and there was no reason for Mr. Ben-Gurion to be so frank in doing so. Then again some one among the Prime Minister’s ad visors has a low opinion of newspaper men and their ability to get the information they are after. Less than a week after an official Israel statement that the country in which Eichmann was taken and the circumstances of his arrest would never be known, an account clearly correct in all essentials was published in Time magazine. The scope of the case and the wide spread interest it has aroused through out the world indicate certain pitfalls JEWISH LIFE

which Israel must avoid. The Prime Minister has said that it will expose the extent of Nazi crimes against the Jewish people. From the 06 Bureau in charge of the investigation has come a statement that preparation of the case will take at least six months. But if the trial is to have the proper his-

the trial, Jerusalem’s largest hall, the Binyaney Ha-umah, will be taken over. Taking all this into account every precaution must be adopted to keep out any theatrical note. Not only Eichmann but Israel’s justice will be on trial.

Tuvia F riedm an, Director of H istorical D ocum entation, in his H aifa office, w ith docum ents concerning Nazi w a r crim inals. F riedm an w a s resp o n sib le for the collection of evidence w hich led to the ch arg e s of gen o cid e b ein g brought a g a in s t E ichm ann.

toric impact, if public interest not only among the Jews, but in the world generally, is to be sustained it must not be too long drawn-out. The pro ceedings, it can be foreseen, will be dramatic enough, the interest keen and attendance large, and passions will run high. To allow the public to follow August, 1960

OR THESE reasons jurists here are opposed to the appointment of any special court to try the case. Eich mann will most probably be tried by an ordinary District Court composed of three judges, though it is reported that the Minister of Justice is consider ing the appointment of a judge of the

Supreme Court to preside—which he underlined the well-known fact that has the power to do in keeping with many Nazi war criminals are still at regulations dating back to the Manda large and filling top-level positions in tory administration. Germany and elsewhere. The OberOne difficulty will have to be sur lander case has proved that active mounted: the appointment of defense participation in the slaughter of Jews counsel, to which even Eichmann is does not constitute a moral obstacle entitled. No Israel lawyer is likely to to political advancement in post-Hitler undertake so obnoxious a task. Special Germany. legislation will be necessary to allow Another sidelight is that the Argen non-Israeli lawyers to accept the brief. tine and the United Arab Republic are Several offers to undertake Eichmann’s the twin termini of a Nazi escape defense have been received from for route. In Egypt Dr. Von Leers, for eign lawyers, most but not all of merly on Goebbels’ staff, is Nasser’s whom are Germans. The choice will expert on anti-Jewish propaganda. Dr. be left to the accused man himself. Eisele, wanted for “medical experi The only restriction that the Israel ments” conducted in the Buchenwald authorities will impose is that counsel death camp, has found a refuge in must not have committed war crimes Egypt as has Dr. Ludwig Zind, a or crimes against the Jewish people schoolmaster of Hesse, who was found or humanity, though no legal objec guilty of making Antisemitic remarks tion will be raised if he is a former in front of his pupils, but somehow Nazi. The Eichmann family is retain managed to escape before he was sent ing Dr. Robert Servatius, a Cologne to jail. And of course there is a large lawyer, who defended a number of contingent of former Nazi officers Nazis at the Nuremberg trials. Dr. training the United Arab Republic Servatius has served in the German army. There is an affinity of many army but has stated that he was never years standing in the approach of the a member of the Nazi Party and that Germans and the Arabs towards the his interest in the case is legal and not Jews. The former Grand Mufti, Haj political. Amin al Husseini, it is known, urged Another difficulty that may arise is Hitler to accelerate his plans for the in regard to defense witnesses, if the “final solution of the Jewish problem.” same prohibition on persons guilty of Rashid al Gilani (today under sentence crimes against Jews or humanity of death in an Iraqui prison, this time applies. for trying to assassinate the dictator Should Eichmann be found guilty General Karim Kassem) celebrated there is only one possible sentence— his overthrow of Nuri e-Said during death. But in neither of the two crimes the Second World War by a massacre on the Israel legal code for which of Baghdad’s Jews. And judging from capital punishment has been retained, the repeated pronouncements of re has any provision been made for the sponsible Arab leaders, genocide is manner of execution or for the office never far from their minds. of executioner. There is no contradiction between the fairly cordial relations which have HE ARREST of Eichmann and subsisted between Israel and the Ar especially the international com gentine—now restored by the settle plications which have resulted have ment of the dispute as to the infringeR JEWISH LIFE

ment of Argentine sovereignty—and the fact that a large number of Nazis have found a refuge in that country. International relations often present these paradoxical situations. German and Antisemitic influences are strong in the Argentine and it was largely due to pressure of such a group, exploiting the absence of President Frondizi in Europe, that the tension between the two countries was blown up to unwarranted proportions. Cer tainly if the Argentine authorities had been interested in apprehending Eichmann it would never have devel oped. Argentina has a simple policy in regard to the war criminals resident within its borders. Requests for extra dition, even where agreements cover this category of crime, are either pigeonholed and ignored, or met with a statement that no person of the name specified is to be found— as in the case of Adolf Eichmann alias Ricardo Cle ment—or given so much publicity by the police that the wanted man has adequate warning to move on to some other accommodating country—as in the case of Dr. Josef Mengele, who as “medical officer” of Auschwitz, decided which of the incoming prisoners was capable of manual labor and which must be sent straight away to the gas chambers, and who, it was reported recently, had moved hurriedly to Chile. rr^ H E EICHMANN trial will bring JL much of this sort of information to light, especially if he decides to talk. There are already reports of new arrests in Germany, including the

August, 1960

re-detention of persons previously brought to trial but released for “lack of evidence.” In the Arab countries, too, the possibility of revelations at the trial is not relished. A rehearsal of the close collaboration between Arab leaders and the Axis powers dur ing the Second World War can prove uncomfortable. With the exception of the extraor dinary precautions taken in guard ing Eichmann, both against the possibility of escape and an attempt by some revenge-crazed victim of his who has somehow survived to settle accounts with him personally, his conditions in prison do not differ materially from those of other prison ers. He is kept in a cell nine meters square. Three squads of warders have been detailed to guard him—one, un armed, inside the cell together with the prisoner, another, armed, outside the cell, and the third, in charge of supplies for the prisoner and the warders—for Eichmann gets the same rations as his guards. Precautions have been taken against poisoning and suicide. Eichmann is permitted to shave with an electric razor, while each of his four daily cigarettes is lit for him by his guard inside the cell, who then hands the matches to the guard outside. None of his guards knows German and all are under strict orders not to communicate with him. Eichmann is being treated accord ing to the rule laid down by Judge Jackson during the trial of war crimi nals by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, namely that the accused must benefit from the presumption of innocence.

■

Religious Attitudes of Today’s Collegian By ZVI GITELMAN

HE MANY soul-searching ap praisals and re-appraisals of Amer ican education and students which filled magazines and newspapers after the dramatic flight of a Soviet satellite into space emphasized the comfortable conformity and cynical materialism of the contemporary collegian. Uni versity students were accused by their guilt-burdened elders of being con cerned only with finding their way into the “success strata” while failing to pay sufficient attention to ideologi cal matters. While these criticisms are doubtless somewhat exaggerated it cannot be denied that there is at least a grain of truth in them. The university has always been regarded, sometimes de risively, as a place where men face up to the broader problems of life, where they explore theoretical and “imprac tical” matters. Americans have usually adopted a condescending toleration of these “meaningless” meanderings of the mind, expecting these speculations to be forgotten in the humdrum of the daily life which envelops the col lege student as soon as he is graduated. Despite the fact that the “egghead” is being accorded more respect since the advent of Sputnik, an examination of this purported change of public

attitude reveals that intellection is valued, not for itself¿1 but for the material advantages it can produce. The scientist is commended in the public mind because he can provide great amounts of luxuries, a measure of military security, and a seven-hour working day. Basic research is still not regarded as an end in itself. This attitude, prevalent on the American scene for many years and only super ficially altered by the events of the last few years, has had a profound effect on the values and attitudes of college students. Philosophical specu lation, especially in areas unrelated to science, has come to be considered by many an academic luxury and amusement rather than an important factor in the shaping of one’s char acter. Coupled with downright mental laziness, this attitude has prevented many collegians from honestly con fronting the ultimate and eternal prob lems of life, problems Which demand careful and intensive study. HIS intellectual climate has suc ceeded in relegating religion, once the foundation stone of universities, to a minor role in student life. As Gordon Allport of Harvard Univer sity has written, “Among modem

JEWISH LIFE

intellectuals—especially in the univer sities—the subject of religion seems to have gone into hiding.5' Protessor Allport points out, however, that “The subjective (personal) religious senti ments of mankind—whatever the fate of institutional religion may be-—are very much alive and will perhaps always remain alive, for their roots are many and deep.” However, even among students who evince an interest in religion their commitment is often no more than a purely academic in terest, with the emphasis being on the social, psychological, and cultural im portance of the great religions. Although other studies have dis placed religion as the prime interest of university students, it still occupies at least a noticeable part of the stu dent’s intellectual journey. After all, intellectual inquiry, which cannot avoid; the “question” of religion, is the main facet of life for the college student, and a sort of intellectual “salvation” is usually the goal of the sensitive collegian. Because of this, any religious study in which the stu dent engages is in the nature of an analysis of G-d as a philosophical idea. G-d is something to be studied, not to be prayed to, not to be heeded. G-d is a cultural phenomenon rather than a moral imperator. When; the college student “ studies religion” he studies Spinoza, Kant, Freud, et al rather than the scriptures and other sacred works of the major religions. Thus, the Jewish student may accept or reject his faith on the basis of having studied Hegel or Jung rather than the Bible and the Talmud, about which he usually knows very little. As Professor Allport points out, “One may read student autobiographies dealing with personal religious history without finding the slightest compre hension of the theological position August, 1960

which they, more likely than not, are in the process of rejecting.’’ ECAUSE G-d is generally treated as an object of philosophical speculation, religious observance, a concomitant of the belief in the G-d of religion rather than of the accept ance of G-d as a cosmological theory, is confined to a very small percentage of students, especially Jewish students. A study recently conducted by the Harvard Crimson showed that only 23 per cent of “believing” Harvard stu dents consider “active connection with a church or synagogue as essential to my religious life.'5 ihis is in keeping with the highly theoretical and often vague concept that the average uni versity student has about G-d. To them, G-d is not the Creator, nor is He the source of morality and the norm by which all conduct is to be judged. He is a vague, totally un knowable entity, bearing little rela tion to the everyday world. This igno rance of traditional theology has caused students to depart from tra ditional institutions. Allport claims that “a bare quarter are in essential matters orthodox and historically faithful to theological dogma . . . the majority are clearly dissatisfied with institutional religion as it exists . . .” This, then, is, in general, the view of G-d and religion of the “believer’ —and it is questionable whether he is in the majority—-who has made an intellectual jouriiey to G-d, without having been positively influenced by previous religious training. However, in recent years there has been a gen eral increase in the number of Jewish students who have received varying degrees of religious education before entering college. This is probably true also of Roman Catholic students, al though most of them attend Catholic

rather than secular institutions. With the growth of yeshivah education in the United States there has developed a significant number of collegians who have received at least a yeshivah ketanah education. Furthermore, many students of higher yeshivoth are now attending college, coming to college with a very intensive Jewish educa tion. What has been the impact of these students upon the campus scene? HERE seems to be no single gen eral attitude taken by yeshivah graduates toward the religious feelings and education—or lack of them—of their fellow collegians. All too often, the religious student with a fine back ground will consciously or uncon sciously write off the non-observant and non-educated student, who evinces at least some interest in religion, as a lost cause. Too many observant students display little or no interest in giving the benefit of their education and insights to others. Furthermore, they see no place on the campus for furthering their religious education or helping others to do so. They also see no value in their secular education as far as deepening their appreciation of their religious learning. Such an attitude may be caused by a mild cynicism, or a distrust of their fellow students and the college curriculum. It may also stem from a mental di vorcement of Torah and secular knowledge and the inability to enrich the one with the other. Sometimes, a student may feel timid about his de votion to the study of religious sources, sources which may have al ready been “scientifically” analyzed and disposed of by the philosophy, sociology, psychology, philology, and anthropology departments of the uni versity. A more encouraging attitude and

perhaps a more prevalent one taken by yeshivah students attending col leges and universities is manifested in the high quality of the religious pro grams at several major universities. Many students have the opportunity to pursue their Biblical and Talmudic studies within the confines of the uni versity. At Columbia, Harvard, Mas sachusetts Institute of Technology, and Cornell—to cite a few outstand ing examples—regular Chumosh and Talmud shiurim are held on campus. These shiurim are conducted by vari ous collegiate organizations, them selves a manifestation of the desire to make the presence of religion felt on the campus. Orthodox Jewish or ganizations have sprung up only in very recent years on college campuses and they are taking a leading role in promoting religious education among collegians. These organizations are meeting a need which every student of yeshivah background has, a need not satisfied adequately by existing Jewish organizations on campus. The need for such organizations is height ened by the new situations and ideas which every student encounters at college. HEN the yeshivah-trained stu dent enters college he is faced with an intellectual challenge to his beliefs posed by college professors and curricula. Unless the student has an unusually mature, intellectually sophisticated and well-developed for mulation of his ideas and beliefs, he often finds himself utterly bewildered by the analytical and critical approach of the universities. There are a num ber of responses that such a student can make to this challenge. The men tally lazy student passively accepts the new ideas to which he has been intro duced, without bothering to inves-

JEWISH LIFE

tigate more deeply his previous con victions. The intellectually dishonest student will choose whichever path is emotionally, socially, and intellec tually more convenient for him and will follow it without being guided by any deep-seated convictions. An inquisitive, honest, and sincere student will attempt to re-examine his pro fessed beliefs and perhaps re-orient his religious education on a more mature level. It is to the needs of this latter type of student that Jewish campus organi zations are responding. The Hillel F oundation, a pioneer in Jewish activity on the campus, provides a kosher kitchen for observant students at a number of universities. Since Hillel is designed to serve all Jewish students of all backgrounds, the qual ity and level of its cultural programs vary from campus to campus* Hillel Foundation directors also vary in background and approach to Judaism and they play a large role in deter mining the Hillel program. Thus, in many schools the Hillel program meets the requirements of students from very weak Jewish backgrounds and can do no more than give these students a glimpse into the Jewish world. In other schools numbers of students have good Jewish educations and the Hillel director is sympathetic to their needs and so the program is designed for them. Thus, at M.I.T., Hillel sponsors a regular Talmud Shiur, a kosher kitchen and a highlevel lecture series. Unfortunately, this is the exception rather than the rule. On most campuses, the orthodox stu dent finds the Hillel program geared to students with rather poor Jewish educations, and almost always directed by non-orthodox clergy. August, 1960

N RECENT years a number of orthodox Jewish student organiza tions have been founded on campuses, mainly in the East. Young Israel has established a chapter at Cornell Uni versity where about thirty students live in a “ fraternity” house. Other members live elsewhere on campus. The Young Israel of Cornell provides its members with kosher dining facili ties, a lecture and study program, daily minyonim, and social activities. The members of the Young Israel work in close cooperation with the Hillel at Cornell and substantially en rich its program. Young Israel also sponsors kosher dining clubs, run by local Young Israel branches, at Yale and Ohio State Universities. At Columbia and Barnard an ortho dox Jewish organization, the Yeshurun Society, was founded four years ago*. Its cultural program includes lectures, informal luncheon discus sions, classes in Mishnah and Chumosh and social activities. The So ciety, which has membership of over 150, also runs a kosher sandwich machine in the dormitories and spon sors a morning minyon for dormitory residents and a minchah minyon. A similar organization, Taryag, includes members from schools in the Boston area, and the University of Illinois has a kosher dining club for orthodox students. Last February representatives of six teen colleges met in Lakewood, N. J., to discuss the problems of religious Jewish students in various colleges. An entire weekend was spent in ana lyzing the needs of observant Jewish students and determining what could be done to fill them. Out of these

* See “ Orthodoxy on the Campus,” by Esriel M agnus Oppenheim, J ewish L ife , December, 1958.

discussions came the idea for a na tional organization which would pro mote high-level Jewish programs on various campuses. The idea was en thusiastically endorsed and Yavneh, as the new organization was named, was born. The Yeshurun Society, the Young Israel of Cornell, and the Taryag organization became the initial constituents of the organization. Yav neh chapter have subsequently been established at Brooklyn College, Brook lyn Polytech, City College, Hunter College, New York University, Prince ton University, and Yeshiva Univer sity. The organization aims to unite orthodox Jewish college students so that they can mutually improve the Jewish programs on their respective campuses and so that the interest of these students will be adequately represented to university administra tions and the Jewish community. Yavneh has received the support of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Con gregations of America, the Rabbinical Council of America, the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, and prominent rabbis and laymen. Mem bers of Yavneh’s advisory board, who aid in determining Yavneh’s program, include Professor Marvin Fox, Rabbi Norman Lamm, Professor A. Leo Levin, Rabbi Emanual Rackman and Rabbi Pinchas Teitz. Rabbi Dr. Yitzchak Greenberg, former Hillel direc tor at Brandeis University and cur rently assistant professor of history at Yeshiva University, is Chairman of the Advisory Board. Yavneh pub lishes a newspaper, informing its members of campus activities and of important events in the Jewish com munity. The organization also pub lishes a magazine to which college students contribute articles on Jewish thought, history, and culture. 16

X7"AVNEH’S establishment demonX strates that the increase in the number of informed Jewish students attending colleges has succeeded in gaining a new respect on the campus for traditional Judaism. While the impact of these students upon campus attitudes is certainly recognizable, the colleges seem to have exerted a more profound influence on the orthodox Jewish collegian than he has had on the college. Except for that minority which has inherited a distrust for the universities and regards them only as a necessary means of entering a certain profession and nothing more, traditional students have found that a college education can make meaning ful contributions to their religious weltanshauung. The social and intel lectual challenges presented to them in college have caused them to investi gate the philosophical foundations of Judaism more intensely than they had done previously. As a musmach study ing philosophy at Columbia remarked, “I really thought that this would be just intellectual amusement—but now I appreciate my Yiddishkeit as I could not two years ago.” Or as a senior at Princeton said, “With each passing day I become more appreciative of my yeshivah training. I am regarded as the ‘authority’ on Judaism here and I really have to keep on my toes to answer all the questions.” By forcing students to examine and re-examine the teachings of Judaism the college community has produced, in growing numbers, a group of young men and women who have acquired a good foundation in Jewish studies and who are able to apply the insights gained from psychology, philosophy, history, or science to a deepening of their understanding of Torah and Jewish culture. The colleges have also impressed upon them the need for JEWISH LIFE

continual study, be it the study of Torah or the study of “secular” sub jects. HE well-educated orthodox Jew has made a deep impression on the younger generation. When we heard in high school that there is a professor in Harvard who wears a yarmulka in class we felt that this was one of the seven wonders of the world and we wondered why some consid ered colleges hotbeds of “apikorsus.” Older people are often astonished to hear that Talmud shiurim “are per mitted in such a university as Colum bia.” While it is true that many stu dents succumb to the social pressure, especially heavy in schools which are located far from a metropolis, which creates the desire to be a “regular guy,” and that still others are won over to philosophies alien to tradi tional Judaism, Jewish students have often increased their religious observ ance and study as a result of college experiences. This is rarely the result of a “regression to the security of previously held ideas and dogmas” as some social scientists would have it. This intensification of conscious ness is, admittedly, limited to students from observant homes for whom re ligion has always been a major factor in life and cannot easily be cast off. Students from non-observant homes usually find it inconvenient and un reasonable to take an interest in Jew ish campus affairs, though a success

August, 1960

ful Hillel program may arouse interest in some aspect of Judaism, however passing that interest may be. It is interesting to note that many nonobservant students find the Student Zionist Organization, which includes many observant students, a satisfying outlet for any feelings which they have toward Judaism. Because SZO has no religious policy and deals with a very real and yet romantic subject, it attracts a wide variety of Jews and plays and important part in introduc ing at least some Hebrew culture to the campus. While it would be presumptuous to say that a “new type of orthodox Jew” is being produced by the colleges and universities, there is no doubt that a significant number of young people are entering the traditional Jewish community with a deepened appreci ation for religious and secular learn ing. Today’s orthodox college grad uates are, for the most part, equipped with a fine understanding of the funda mentals of traditional Judaism and are committed to its furtherance in the community, especially among the youth. An organization such as Yavneh offers striking evidence that secu lar universities can be fertile ground for the planting of the Jewish seed. As more young men and women, com bining a good Torah education with a secular one, emerge from our uni versities, the orthodox Jewish com munity will be enriched by an in creased intellectual appreciation of traditional Judaism.

H u s h h o St»h A Letter of the Chazon Ish Translated by SAM SO N R. W EISS

When 1 behold Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers, moon and stars which Thou hast established; What is man, that Thou shouldst remember him, and the son of Adam that Thou shouldst consider him? Yet, Thou hast distanced him but little from G-d and with honor and glory Thou hast crowned him. Thou gavest him dominion over the works of Thy hands; all didst Thou place beneath his feet. (T ’hillim 8:4-7)

abbi a v ra h a m y esh a y a h u

KARELiTZ, of sainted memory, known throughout the Jewish world by the title of his major halachic work on the Talmud as the “Chazon Ish,” left a legacy of letters, the Igroth Cha zon Ish, posthumously published by his brother-in-law Rabbi Shemuel Greiniman, of blessed memory. These letters are moving documents of the deep and personal concern of this Sage of our people with the yochid and the k’lal, the individual and the entire congregation of Israel. His spe cial affection was given to the young students of Torah, the bachurëy hayeshivoth. Like all the great of the To rah, he saw in them the inner core and the future guardians of the Jewish es sence, and many of his letters reveal the depth of his inner participation in their struggle for intellectual and moral ascent. Almost invariably, he lays the foun dation for his counsel and admonish ment in sweeping terms, scanning the totality of life and, within it, the hu man potential as it is extended be 18

tween the two poles of good and evil. The above-quoted verses from T’hillim may well serve as the motto of the Chazon Ish’s grandiose definition of existence and of man’s place in the Divine order. The present letter is found on page 40 of the first volume of the Igroth Chazon Ish (Letter 14). It may ap propriately be read and reflected upon in the Elul days. i i n P H E difference between those whose hearts are secure in the knowledge that the system of the uni verse is supervised by an eternal Overseer and those whose hearts are restless in doubt, is enormous. They are as apart in person, in kind, and in species, and there is no comparison between them. A man who has lived by the concept that this is a world full of insufficiency and pain and that the host of days rushes past in anguish in a process called life, and that the bitter end is the return to dust in a finale called death . . . and suddenly this person is made aware of all the JEWISH LIFE

wealth which is man’s portion on this earth, for his soul has eternal endur ance, and that there is a Being above all human perception, and that this Being reigns over all creatures and metes out punishment and reward, and that there exists the power of prophecy and that through it there were days of communion between man and his Maker, blessed be He, and that through this power of prophecy were commu nicated to us the laws of life and the statutes of the world, and similarly this person becomes aware of other con cepts equally full of light and of a preciousness without compare—such a man would stand astonished in won der and be shaken to the core by the tremendous upheaval in the aspect of the universe and the relevance of life and by the cognition of what is man’s duty in his world. “My constant habit to assess the values of existence from the vantage point of the certainty of the Thirteen Principles of Faith in which the peo ple of Yisroel are rooted, has gained for me a limitless love of the Torah. I have thereby also become enriched by love for my fellow man and in par ticular for a youth equipped with gifts of intellect and an understanding heart. A youth dedicatedly immersed in the study of Torah captivates my heart and enthralls my soul. His re membrance fills my entire world and

August, 1960

my soul is bound up with him by ties of love which can never be torn asunder. “Having seen in you a sudden turn which by my definition signifies your preference of the life of the market place over the life of Torah which reigns supreme in Yeshurun, I was confronted with a calamity. Day after day, I had to overcome my great pain and could not free myself from a deep anguish persisting through all my wak ing hours. On one hand, I was praying for your T’shuvah, and on the other hand I was overwhelmed by despair. And because of man’s self-love, I was in doubt whether I should not en deavor to forget all the past and say, ‘All hope is lost.’ Still, my love for you gave me no rest. But the length of time during which you had forsaken me so completely and had evidenced no de sire to have contact with me, deter mined me to cease remembrance and thus to seek succor in my suffering. “How heavy, then, weighs upon me that you come to reawaken the old love which urges me to believe and to nurture joyous hopes. And yet, my de spair still persists. Much more that moves my heart remains unsaid—but possibly you can understand my feel ings. “Writing with heavy heart, I re main, desiring your true happiness, Ish.”

Far Rockaway — Torah-Suburb By-the-Sea By MICHAEL KAUFMAN

AR ROCKAWAY, as viewed metropolis, whose residents earn their from the window of one of the livelihoods in the city—and who, be hundreds of airliners landing daily at ing imbued with the spirit of Torah, neighboring Idlewild International cheerfully and zestfully relish the pure Airport, looks a lot like a typical joy of Torah living. They are Ameri suburban New York community on can-born Jews, most of them, educated Long Island’s South Shore. Looking in American yeshivoth; they study down at the Far Rockaway corner of Torah constantly and use it as the the Rockaway Peninsula, that long, guide to complete, “shlaimusdik” JeWr thin stiver of land jutting out from ish living. In short, the American residents of Long Island into the Atlantic Ocean, one can readily appreciate why its a Torah-Suburb freely enclose them sandy beaches and cool ocean breezes, selves in a distinctive community in as well as its accessibility to “the city’’ order to live where most of their by subway, makes it an ideal New neighbors share their common interest —Torah Judaism. This is a TorahYork City “dormitory.” As the plane descends one may view Suburb— and this is Far Rockaway, the community’s denizens as busy New York. ants on the well-cared-for lawns of HERE ARE 4,000 to 5,000 ob ground-hugging ranches, split-level ex servant Jews in the orthodox Jew ercisers, and staid, porticoed colonials. But underprivileged is the word for ish community of Far Rockaway. the air traveler; for in his quick Most of the adults are in the 35-45 glimpses he sees only the superficial age range, and they are part and accoutrements, and misses the best parcel of the American milieu. And view of all—a view of Far Rockaway most of them migrated to Far Rock as a unique Jewish community in away from such nurturing grounds of American Jewish Orthodoxy—urban America— a Torah-Suburb. In the absence of an acceptable sub-com m unities them selves — as definition by Webster, “Torah-Suburb,” Manhattan’s Lower East Side and for the purpose of this discussion, is Washington Heights, and Brooklyn’s a community adjacent to a major Williamsburg and Boro Park.

JEWISH LIFE

Success in their businesses and pro fessions (although most of Far Rockaway’s orthodox citizens are in the upper-middle class, its residents range from lower-middle .class salaried em ployees to lower-upper class manu facturing tycoons) -prompted them to leave their city apartments for “coun try” homes, and to try—frequently unsuccessfully—to doff their city ways and to don “country” mannerisms. They immediately adopt such uni versal American middle class sub urban practices as sports coat and cap, the outdoor patio barbecue, and keep ing up with the Joneses. Because Far Rockaway is basically a homey shtetl, far different from the cold, impersonal urban communities most of its resi dents have been inured to, newcomers soon learn that gossip and loshon

horah are peculiar to the suburban community— and that Far Rockaway is no exception to the rule. It is in his love and devotion for Torah, and his joyful observance of Mitzvoth Maasiyoth that the orthodox Jew of Far Rockaway differs from other Jewish suburbanites. Far Rock away Torah Jews do not build “Jewish” hospitals, “Jewish” community centers, and “Jewish” country clubs. Instead they devote their spare energies to building a Torah community and all its components—yeshivoth, mikvaoth, shools (which are filled on Shabboth as well as on Yom Kippur). They are intensely interested in developments in the world at large, and in the Jewish world in particular. They work hard to aid Torah institutions throughout the world.

Simchah Shel M itzvah

OR the Torah Jew in Far Rock away, s’char mitzvah is truly mitzr vah—he asks nothing more, for ex ample, than the meaningful pleasure of building a sukkah along with hun dreds of other suburbanites * in the area, as his s’char for fulfilling the Mitzvah of Sukkah. Or, later in the Sukkoth week, during Sim chath Torah, he revels in allowing himself to be caught up completely in the excitement and hithlahavuth of singing and dancing—in shools and, after wards, in the streets and in private homes—before Hashem Yisborach. Here you have actual physical expres sions of love for G-d and the Torah He gave us, by those who devote their lives to living by His Torah. For Far Rockaway’s orthodox resi dents, the Torah and the bechirah of the Jewish people are not burdens—

4 f

August, 1960

¿jtirlVi

es is n\sht shver tsu zein a Yid. The soqgf and dance of the Torahs Suburbanites^—songs like “Olom haba is a gutte zach, lernen Torah is a bessere zach”—are those of thanks and praise to G-d for having been chosen to receive the Torah and to serve Him by observing His Mitzvoth. Similarly, during Shavuoth, z’man matan toratheynu, this feeling is mani fested in one shool, for example, by the more than one hundred baaleybatim and children who study Torah until midnight Shavuoth night, about half of whom remain learning through the night—as was traditional in Euro pean yeshivoth. A Torah-Suburb Shabboth may also illustrate the point. The most dra matic feature of Shabboth in Far Rockaway is the all-pervasive spirit of the Yom Menuchah. Whether it is 21

in the disappearance of moving vehi cles from many residential streets early Friday evening (many non-observant Jews frequently “observe” Shabboth by not transgressing on some “observ able” violations, such as car-riding and lawn-mowing, partly out of embarrass ment, and partly for fear of giving affront to their observant neighbors), or in the streams of worshippers walk ing to the area’s many shools, Shab both in Far Rockaway is a unique experience. INCE synagogue attendance in Far Rockaway is not limited to spe cial occasions such as Bar Mitzvah and Yomim Noraim, late shool-goers Shabboth morning may find their seats preempted. Especially in the community’s largest and most im portant synagogues, Shaaray Tefila and Kneseth Israel (popularly known as “the White Shool”), near-capacity Shabboth crowds—of Shomrey Shab both—are quite usual. Particularly in the White Shool (so called simply because it is painted white) the dearth of baby carriages outside the syna gogue on Shabboth morning signifies that extra difference of observance prevalent in Far Rockaway. This also helps to explain the in tense emphasis on religious education

in the community, which manifests itself in the Onegey Shabboth and Shiurim for young and old which are almost de rigeur every Shabboth after noon. Far Rockaway residents are on an unusually high level of Torah edu cation because—in the words of a local rabbi—-“Far Rockaway is the first community to reap the fruits of an American-born* Torah-trained gen eration.” Learning, for young and old, is considered fashionable in the com munity. Parents as well as children participate in scores of Shabboth after noon Shiurim. They learn in large groups, small groups, and singly; in private homes, large shools, battey-midrosh and shtibelach; and also in a private home’s finished basement, converted into a beth hamidrosh—Sefer Torah and all. Boys and girls walking in groups to their Shabboth afternoon rendezvous go with a rare confidence that is de lightful. This confidence abounds because the children live in a community where learning Torah and living the lives of Torah Jews is the norm, where the incentive to strive for excellence in Torah knowledge is the respect of one’s friends and stature in the com munity—as well as the s’char of the Mitzvah of limud Torah.

Community’s Evolution as a Torah-Suburb

AR ROCKAWAY’s development as a Torah-Suburb, as might be expected, was primarily a matter of evolution rather than of design. Al though actually part of New York City’s Borough of Queens, for years Far Rockaway’s separation from the rest of Queens and Brooklyn by Ja maica Bay— and its relative inaccessi-

bility from Manhattan, New York City’s island of business and com merce—as well as its seashore loca tion, helped create a wealthy summer community at the Far Rockaway root of the Rockaway Peninsula. Half a century ago, some of the area’s few Jewish residents organized Congrega tion Shaaray Tefila. JEWISH LIFE

Most of its early congregants were not particularly observant, as was the case too with the later-organized White Shool, which first held services in a dance hall—before business hours. Jewish summer residents continued to trickle in, and some liked it so much they decided to live in Far Rockaway year-round. Their decision to give their children an intensive religious education which was manifested by their organization of HI-LI, and then —twenty-five years ago—-instituting it on an estate in Far Rockaway, two hundred yards from the ocean, was the most important single factor in the religious development of the com munity. H.I.L.I. are the initials of Hebrew Institute of Long Island—a yeshivah. To New York Jews it’s just “HI-LI,”

A view of HI-LI's grounds: foreground, p la y in g field for sports activities; b a c k ground, four of the five b u ild in g s th a t house the school.

AUGUST, 196Q

pronounced “high-lye.” Without HI-LI Far Rockaway would not be a TorahSuburb today. With the acceleration of Far Rockaway’s religious growth as a result of HI-LI, more orthodox Jews began making their homes in the area. But it wasn’t until the postwar years of the late ’forties when, along with millions of other urban Americans, orthodox Jews began looking to the suburbs, that Far Rockaway’s real growth into a Torah-Suburb began. HIS development was triggered by HI-LI’s retention as its dean and principal of Rabbi Harold I. Leiman, a man who, together with two others, is most responsible for the develop ment of Far Rockaway as a TorahSuburb. The other two are Rabbi Ralph Pelcovitz of the White Shool and Rabbi Emanuel Rackman of Con gregation Shaaray Tefila. When Rabbi Leiman came to HI-LI in 1948, he brought to Far Rockaway a reputation as an outstanding re ligious personality and as one of the country’s leading orthodox Jewish educators— an extraordinary talmid of the late Reb Shraga Faivel Mendlowitz, the sainted founder of Yeshiva and Mesivta Torah Vodaath and of Torah Umesorah. Since a large portion of those mov ing to the suburbs were themselves products of intensive American yeshivah education, the important factors

in their decision on which suburb were, “what kind of a yeshivah ketanah?” and “who is running it?” rather than merely “is there a day school?” When, concurrent with the desire of orthodox Jews to move to the suburbs, Rabbi Leiman took the helm of HI-LI, they therefore decided on Far Rock away rather than any of the other suburban New York communities which had day schools. Today HI-LI has about 750 students in its elemen tary and high school divisions, and operates a highly successful summer day camp on its grounds and a fine sleep-in camp for children in the Catskill Mountains. In addition it derives income from a home for the aged which it established. As more and more orthodox Jews came to Far Rockaway, it passed from the nucleus stage of a Jewish com munity directly into the embryonic stage as a Torah-Suburb, and the move by Torah Jews to the community began to snowball. When the subway was put through to Far Rockaway, making it possible to travel to work in Manhattan at considerably less than the $500 a year commutation charged by the sometimes erratic Long Island Railroad, it was felt that only sky rocketing real estate prices could hold back the flood. Prices rose steeply, but the flood continued unabated, new comers turning to apartment houses when private homes became unavail able or were priced beyond reach.

The Synagogues in the Torah-Suburb

NE of the first suburban behavior almost everyone went to shool— almost O patterns adopted by the new no one belonged. The two leading comers was that of “belonging” to a synagogues, Shaaray Tefila and the shool rather than just “going.” In the large urban New York City orthodox communities such as Williamsburg, 24

White Shool, have been the major beneficiaries of the near-phenomenal growth of Far Rockaway as a religious JEWISH LIFE

community. Each has developed a special character all its own. In addition, other synagogues and minyonim are in existence and flourish ing. The most important of these are: a Young Israel synagogue in Far Rockaway’s Wavecrest section, which is so successful it is planning to build shortly; a HI-LI minyon of over one hundred families—led by Rabbi Mor ton Berkowitz—which boasts its own Talmud Torah; a minyon in a con valescent home; and a large Chasidic shtibl, whose rebbe, Rav Shmelke Rubin, is in the process of building a combination synagogue and school building to house the private nursery school, kindergarten, and day camp which he is conducting. Far Rockaway’s two leading rabbis —both of whom share major credit in the development of the religious com munity—-are among the most excep tionally gifted in the American rabbi nate today. Both are former presidents of their respective rabbinic organiza tions—Rabbi Ralph Pelcovitz of the Igud Harabonim, arid Rabbi Emanuel Rackman of the Rabbinical Council of America. Rabbi Pelcovitz, a dynamic expo nent of modern-day Orthodoxy, was ordained at Mesivta Torah Vodaath, and his entire outlook on life and Orthodoxy is a reflection of his Torah Vodaath-inspired kashkofah. Rabbi Rackman, articulate national spokes man for Orthodoxy, and dauntless fighter for unity in the American Jew ish community, was ordained at Yeshiva University. His approach to life reflects in great measure his Yeshiva University background. To a large extent both of their congregations—the friendly rivalry of which is a constant source of amused conversation in the community— dis play the rich diversity within OrthoAugust, 1960

doxy available to Far Rockaway’s residents. rT iH E White Shool, for example, has JL developed primarily as a synagogue for the young layman who was once a yeshivah bochur, or whose orientation is intensely and personally orthodox. It is unique as an American synagogue in that it numbers among its congre gants about thirty-five ordained, non practicing rabbis. The congregation has no chazan, but instead uses a bat tery of its own unusually gifted baaleytefilah who “work” in rotation. The nature of the congregation can per haps best be seen from a typical sermon by Rabbi Pelcovitz. Contain ing many of the ingredients of a tra ditional droshah, his sermon is almost on a discussion level with his congre gants. It is in considerably greater depth than that of the average pulpit rabbi, whose congregation is far re moved from him in Torah knowledge because of the appalling “learning gap” existing today between rabbi and lay man. This form also helps create a satisfying personal rapport between rabbi and member. Rabbi Pelcovitz’s choice of sermon topics is also revealing. Shabboth, Kashruth, Taharath Hamishpochah, yeshivah education, subjects which should be—but too often are not—the “bread-and-butter” of an average rabbi’s sermon subjects—are fre quently touched upon, and the finer nuances of the observance of these Mitzvoth are stressed. A frequent ser mon topic also is the need for more and more limud Torah. As Rabbi Pelcovitz points out, the very high Torah-education level of his congre gation dictates both serm ons and shiurim of a very high order. He therefore not only gives more classes in such subjects as Chumosh and 25

R abbi R alph Pelcovitz

Rashi, Tehillim, Mishnayoth, Ge-, morah, Shulehon Oruch, and Pirkey Ovoth than the average rabbi, but he offers them on a generally much higher level. In some areas—such as Gemorah—he may give shiurim on the same subject to different groups at different levels. One Shabboth after noon Talmud shiur draws forty to fifty “regulars,” some of whom are talmidey chachomim in their own right. As a result, however, like the Euro pean Rav, the largest part of Rabbi Pelcovitz’s time is given over to learn ing Torah and preparing shiurim, classes, and sermons, while a relatively small portion is devoted to the social duties and obligations which take up ninety per cent of the average Ameri can rabbi’s time.

Exterior of the W hite Shool

26:

JEWISH LIFE

HAARAY TEFILA is tailored, S in the words of Rabbi Rackman, to serve the “total Jewish community,’’ rather than being primarily geared to the intensively Torah-educated Jew. Rabbi Rackman’s prime goal is to draw as many people to Orthodoxy as possible: “I want even the non observant Jew to feel at home in my synagogue,” and his synagogue and service are witnesses to this. Although Shaaray Tefila is designed in the tradition of New York’s famed Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue (many of Shaaray’s founders were members of that synagogue) and the services are punctiliously orthodox, a non-observant Jew or a Conservative or Reform Jew would not feel ill at ease in Shaaray Tefila. Frequent an nouncements and directions to the congregants given in English help ease

R abbi E m anuel R ackm an

A rtist's rendition of S h a a ra y Tefila

August, 1960

the path of those who may nave long been absent from a synagogue before coming to “Shaaray.” Rabbi Rackman’s sermons, eloquent expressions of warmth and love for his fellow Jew, have drawn scores of Jews to Shaaray Tefila who might otherwise have had little or no relationship to Judaism. Shaaray Tefila’s decorous, dignified service, led by a capable chazan, gives the synagogue and its divine worship an air of sacred reverence and respect for the Almighty that orthodox syna gogues everywhere could well emulate. Many W hite Shool’ers, however, whose own synagogue breathes the atmosphere of an informal camara derie prevalent in a “second home,” feel uncomfortable in the dignified atmosphere of Shaaray. They also find its special design—whereby congre gants face each other across a wide aisle, with women occupying the upper mechitzah-partitioned rows, dis concerting and not conducive to best concentration on tefilah. On the other hand, most Shaaray’-

ites would feel ill at ease in the White * Shool, where a considerable amount of conversation goes on during the service. The White Shool, to them, is an “overgrown shtibel” and far too undecorous. The rivalry is goodnatured, however, and both institu tions continue to grow in size. Shaaray recently renovated and en larged its synagogue quarters, and is now renovating its Center and School building. The White Shool, having outgrown its present facilities, is in the midst of a campaign for funds to construct a new synagogue only a few blocks away from its present building. Both synagogues participate jointly in an active Bikkur Cholim Society and each Shabboth afternoon several different members of Shaaray Tefila and the White Shool join in visiting the sick. The community’s well-func tioning Chevra Kadishah societies, marked by the dedicated spirit of their sponsors and participants, assure that the Mitzvah of Chesed Shel Emeth is properly observed in the care of the deceased.

Impact on Adjacent Communities

HE TREND which led to the development of Far Rockaway had its impact also on adjacent com munities, all of which benefited by the postwar move to suburbia. The Jewish populace of adjacent Rock away towns, Edgemere and Arverne, and of the neighboring, socially fash ionable “ Five Tow ns”—Law rence, Woodmere, Cedarhurst, Hewlett, and Inwood—began to wax as the influ ence of HI-LI yeshivah students in their communities began to be felt, and with this came the strengthening of traditional elements in these com munities. In particular, Congregation

Beth Sholom in Lawrence, the prin cipal orthodox synagogue in the Five Towns, under the spiritual leadership of Rabbi Gilbert Klaperman since 1950, entered on a period of signifi cant forward strides. With the growth of Far Rockaway and the adjoining Jewish communities, there arose a vital need for additional educational institutions to serve the area. This need was nurtured also by a desire on the part of many parents for yeshivoth which would express to a greater or lesser degree different nuances in Orthodoxy. This is re flected, to some extent, by the trends JEWISH LIFE

followed by the two schools which were established. Although all the area’s day schools are fully orthodox in ideology and curriculum, the em phases are somewhat different, reflect ing to a considerable extent the influ ences of their founders. The Yeshivah of South Shore, for example, was founded by W hite Shool’ers and members of Rav Rubin’s shtibel, and is marked by separate classes for boys and girls. Now four years old, it already boasts some 250 students. The school is located in Woodmere, and it is expected that its institution there will give added im petus towards the eventual develop ment of that community along the lines of a Torah-Suburb. The founding two years ago of the Hillel School received its impetus and support primarily from leaders of Beth Sholom and Shaaray Tefila. Beth Sholom in Lawrence has provided facilities for the school, half of whose approximately 125 children are from

the Five Towns. The Hillel School places a strong emphasis on the study of the Hebrew language. In addition to the foregoing, a mesivta high school, organized by the Mesivta Chaim Berlin, recently opened in Far Rockaway. It is of interest too that in Long Beach—another major South Shore community adjoining Far Rockaway where Orthodoxy has made notable progress in recent years—the Hebrew Academy is now dedicating its hand some new building. Founded six years ago with five pupils, the Hebrew Aca demy will begin its new semester with an enrollment of 250. (Since the present article is focused on Far Rockaway in its Torah-Suburb aspect, neither the rest of the Rockaways nor the Five Towns nor Long Beach properly come within its scope. The brevity of these references, there fore, should not be construed as under estimating the importance of Far Rockaway’s neighbors.)

A Community of “Young” People

ETWEEN the local yeshivoth and other New York City and “outof-town” yeshivoth, some twelve hun dred Far Rockaway youngsters receive an intensive Torah training, and virtu ally all attend their parents’ syna gogues. On occasions more frequent than even the rabbis are aware, how ever, it is the parents who attend synagogues because of their children. As has been the case with many American yeshivoth, HI-LI has been instrumental in drawing a considerable number of families to Torah Judaism through their children. As a community of primarily young people and children, Far Rockaway is

August, 1960

therefore not unlike other relatively new suburban communities. Far Rock away parents, however, are not troubled with the ordeals of juvenile delinquency, and little burdened with the problems of early dating, or of social dancing. It’s not that Far Rock away youngsters are not normal; they do participate in such typically uni versal pursuits as ball-playing, TVviewing, and music lessons. Only the emphases are somewhat different. They spend considerable time on Torah studies, for example. They are also active in such religious Zionist youth organizations as B’nei Akiva and Mizrachi Hatzair.

The difference is that in rearing their children, Far Rockaway’s parents are guided by the words in Midrosh Rabbah: “Your children are the best surety, better than patriarchs and prophets; for their sake I give you the Torah.” First visitors to Far Rockaway are cognizant of an indefinable quality that distinguishes the com munity’s children. It is manifested in such statements as, “They seem a little better behaved than other children.” Or, “They’re just a bit more respectful of their elders.” The main reason for this phenom enon is the yeshivoth and their teach

ers—frequently chosen for their per sonal midoth as well as for their erudition and pedagogic ability. Par ents, as well, enjoy credit for the behavior of their children. Both yeshivoth and parents take special pains to expound the Hirschian dictum of Torah im derech eretz until the principles of this philosophy are part and parcel of the youngsters’ motiva tion. Very important to the children, however, is the respect of their friends, whose approbation would not be forth coming if personal piety were not matched with respectful demeanor.

The Status Givers

IME is one commodity the su burban woman seems to have a lot of—and the Far Rockaway woman is no exception. If her children are at school, or if she has the services of a maid, she has plenty of leisure time on her hands. Like suburban women everywhere, she uses this time to educate herself, to putter around the garden, and to actively work for various organizations and causes—so cial, charitable, religious, and cultural. Three main causes occupy the spare time of the woman in the TorahSuburb: hen synagogue Sisterhood, her children’s school P.T.A., and a woman’s Zionist group — Mizrachi Women or Hadassah. Not infre quently the same woman is active in all three. Although she works hard to raise money for Mizrachi Women’s institutions in Israel, her activity for the Far Rockaway group is motivated to a large extent by social reasons. Activity in Mizrachi Women gives the Torah-Suburbanite woman status. Several years ago, the large and grow ing Mizrachi Women’s Organization

ZÙ

chapter in Far Rockaway decided to split itself into three groups---- and today the three are functioning sepa rately, divided along the lines of age and personal associations. INCE the move to the suburbs is a result of an upgrading of eco nomic status, and one automatically acquires prestige if he can afford to buy a house and live in a good, middle class suburban community, an inevi table result of the phenomenal growth of Far Rockaway as a Torah-Suburb during the past decade has been the creation of a status system, in some ways paralleling that of other suburbs, and in other ways quite different. As in other suburbs — but not to the same degree — an important sta tus-giving factor is money. Whether you rent an apartment or whether you own your own home; the kind of house you live in; the kind of car you drive — and whether you have more than one; the vacations you take; whether you send your children to camp; whether your wife has a mink coat; and whether or not you have a

JEWISH LIFE

maid — all these affect one’s status in Far Rockaway. Castes and classes based upon eco nomic difference are evidenced by the place of residence as well. (Houses in Far Rockaway cost more — ten to twenty per cent more because they are at a premium. Houses generally range from $20,000 to $40,000 in Far Rockaway, while in adjacent Law rence prices start at $35,000.) Peculiar to Far Rockaway, however, is that knowledge of Torah and the ability to ^learn” give status, since Torah study, as mentioned, is quite fashionable in the community. With the unusually large amount of non-practicing rabbis and learned lay men in Far Rockaway, and the profu sion of private shiurim, what is learned becomes important status-wise. A diffi cult mesechta of the Talmud, or the sheer amount of rishonim and acharonim (early and later commentaries) consulted in the course of study may give a particular study group status. TATUS is also achieved in Far Rockaway by assuming leadership of an important community project, program, or drive, or by being active in a synagogue or yeshivah. The area is gifted with an unusual amount of residents who have been presidents and leading officers in synagogues and yeshivoth in their former communities. Far Rockaway, incidentally, is unusu ally charitable as Jewish communities

go. In addition to the usual community drives, the White Shool, for example, sponsors about a dozen major open synagogue appeals a year — one a month, on the average — for yeshi voth and Torah institutions and causes, all of them quite successful. A major annual problem for the synagogue’s Appeals Committee is choosing recipiAugust, 1960

ents for the forthcoming year’s ap peals. Meshulochim have long ago learned the value of Sunday morning treks to Far Rockaway. Because Far Rockaway is so authen tically Jewish (an outstanding exam ple of this is the $100,000 the com munity—with a substantial assist from the smaller Lawrence community— recently spent to build a beautiful, modern mikvah building), Reform and Conservatism play but a minor role. The Conservatives have a congrega tion in Bayswater, the far corner of Far Rockaway, which has a substan tial enrolled membership but yet has little influence in the community; and lo and behold! the Reform “temple” is housed shtibel-like in a loft atop some stores in the “village”—the town’s shopping area. Non-religious Jews have felt uncom fortable with the influx of their ortho dox brethren, and many have moved out — taking advantage of the high real estate prices resulting from the demand of urban orthodox Jews for homes in the Far Rockaway area. Some non-observant Jews, however, have been strongly influenced in a positive fashion by the religious mi gration, and there have been instances where irreligious Jews have become shomrey mitzvoth and yirey shomayim because of their frum neighbors. Many visitors to the community like it so much they return to stay. A re cent example is a Minneapolis surgeon who had been thinking of moving to New York because he wanted his chil dren to grow up in a religious environ ment. A Shabboth spent in Far Rock away was the deciding factor. He returned home and brought his wife and four children to the community, giving up a good local practice in the process. 31

The Future

HERE Far Rockaway is head ing as a Torah-Suburb is difficult to say. The influx continues unabated. The non-observant Jews continue to move out and the orthodox take their places. Although it is as a Torah-Suburb that Far Rockaway is known, there are thousands of Jews in the área who are not religious ana oc casional accessions from the ranks of the non-observant to the observant notwithstanding, little is being done to bring the mass of irreligious Jews back to Torah. Will Far Rockaway’s rabbis and lay leaders make that con certed effort necessary to influence and to guide in the direction of Torah Judaism the non-religious section of the Far Rockaway community? Will the study of Torah eventually dominate the daily lives of its resi dents to the elimination of the omni present evils of suburbia — keeping up with the Joneses, idle gossip and divi sive politics? Will HI-LI, now that Rabbi Leiman is leaving, remain a source of Torah strength for the com munity? Most important, w ill. Far Rockaway’s many ordained, non-practicing rabbis, Torah-educated laymen, and

former synagogue and yeshivah lead ers be satisfied to remain ordinary citizens of suburbia, or will these “natural resources”—gifted men and women, capable exponents of a Torah way of life, who would like nothing better than to be given the opportunity to make lasting contributions to the growth of Torah Judaism in America during their lifetimes — will they be harnessed for the influence of the American Jewish community? With such national congregational and educational bodies as the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America and Torah Umesorah be come beneficiaries of the active par ticipation, guidance, and leadership of the Torah-true builders of the au thentic Jewish community of Far Rockaway? This, then, is the major challenge thrust upon the residents of Far Rock away: To organize themselves for the spread of Torah in their own com munity and for the strengthening of Torah Judaism in America, so that Far Rockaway, America’s outstanding Torah-Suburb, will become a source of inspiration and guidance to Jewish communities and Jewish men and women throughout America.

JEWISH LIFE

Sex Questions and Tz’niuth By JOSEPH GRUNBLATT

N SPITE of all the sophistication our age professes, it still takes a certain amount of daring to speak candidly on the subject of sex. This diffidence never existed in traditional Jewish thought. The subject was treated as naturally and as coolly as any other, and the Talmud and our codes of law com ment on the subject with scientific ob jectivity and sobriety. It has become widely recognized in educational cir cles that the subject must be dealt with openly and thoroughly so that an often confused and bewildered young gen eration may be guided to face itself, to face its biological make-up, and to correlate it to the requirements of so cial values and social stability.

HOST of problems have come to A the fore which plague the intelli gent and keen-minded youth. Young people today face greater uncertainties and are more thrown upon their own intellectual and moral resources than ever before. Years ago when values were pretty stable and social and pa rental controls were strong, opportu nities were limited and confusion less likely. Today is the age of the con vertible, of material indulgence for children, of relaxed controls, later cur fews. Daring questions are asked: “Maybe pre-marital sex activities are not harmful—maybe a -certain degree of sex activity is acceptable?” These questions; very often trail behind the actual practices. In actuality modern August, 1960

youngsters admit to pre-marital sex play in varying degrees. Officially so ciety is still adhering to the old moral codes upholding marriage as the only sanctioned arena of that kind of activ ity. Youngsters are often severely rep rimanded for their licentious behavior and duly penalized. Yet when we turn to the adults, the mature citizens of our continent, we find that the stand ards professed and propounded to the younger generation receive more lip service and verbal homage than prac tical adherence. The findings of the Kinsey Reports have shocked many. While the exact statistical accuracy of these studies may be questioned, they are still poignantly revealing as to how extensively the traditional code of morality is being violated and how the institution of marriage is being rocked at its foundations. This double stand ard is undoubtedly a severe strain on young people who seriously wish to hew out for themselves a consistent and steady road of life. What does Judaism have to say about all this? What is its attitude toward sex? How does it look upon it in the framework of its philosophy of life? How should it be handled? One cannot in our age of skepti cism and free play of the mind present a pattern of behavior other than on the authority of a sound ancTintelligent system of thought. Yet we must call upon the seeker of Jewish truth to approach the subject open-mindedly, 33

ready to accept and execute the vedict of the Torah even though it may grossly contrast with common practice. To those who are determined to accept the premise: “Well this is the kind of age we live in; these are the social patterns of our times; when you are in Rome do as the Romans,” etc., this article will not strike a receptive note. Tra ditional Judaism does not believe that what is is therefore right, or that prin

ciples are proven false or impracticable by being disregarded even by a ma jority. Truth is eternal and our con cepts of right and wrong are not ex tinguished by temporary upheavals of cynicism or indifference. In order to understand the role of sex according to Jewish ideology we must go one step deeper and portray the human personality in the light of our tradi tion.

Judaism's View of Human Nature

rplW O opposing opinions have been X prevalent among men of thought as to the basic nature of man. There are those who have maintained that man is basically good but is corrupted by circumstances. There are others who have held that man is basically lustful, selfish, and animal-like and only in time and under pressures of ne cessity adopted such principles which could be deemed moral or just. Judaism finds itself in strong dis agreement with both positions. Man is born neither solely good nor solely bad. Rather, Judaism holds, man is born with the equipment of either “be coming” good or “becoming” bad as a result of his choice of ways of life. Man’s equipment is body and soul. These terms sound a little archaic after the beating they have been taking by the critics of religion and by the cynical tongues and pens of its ene mies. Let us garb it in more modern terminology. We have two sources of energy and motivation of action in our system—one, the various bodily needs which we share with the animal world — our needs for food, shelter, and per petuation of the species. The other is the inner need for the more sublime things in life—our sense of justice, of right and wrong, of human brother hood, of the appreciation of the beau tiful things in life, the flicker in our 34

hearts which makes us yearn for G-d —in short, all the aspirations which Now, we cannot prove the dual exist ence of body and soul in the laboratory any more than we can prove the dual existence of G-d in the laboratory. But, something within us tells us that religious fervor and the appreciation of the better things in life are more than the sublimation of the sex drive, as Freud taught. Ultimately belief in the dual existence of body and soul is a matter of faith as is our belief in G-d. But somehow it makes a lot of sense too and certainly gives substance and significance to the things we want to think of as noble and holy. Now if the soul represents all the wonderful and noble things we have enumerated—which means that it must be “good”—does it follow that the body which wishes to eat and drink and procreate is evil? That was the position taken by some of the early Christian church fathers, who looked upon sex as intrinsically evil. It is the general consensus of the authoritative sources of our tradition that the body is not evil, for is it not the handiwork of the Almighty? The contrast between body and soul is not one of good or evil but rather between the good, which is the Divine purpose of man, and the necessary, which maintains him in the world in which his good must be JEWISH LIFF

achieved. The body is the edifice, the bricks and the mortar. The soul con ducts its services in it. “Worship” changes the bricks and mortar into a synagogue and the soul changes the body into a sanctuary. The body only becomes evil when it is transferred into an obsession, from a means to an end. AN has a number of powerful M tools in his personality. We have intellect and emotion; we have imagi nation which can recreate, exaggerate, and even invent incidents; we have mental skill and dexterity to scheme, to anticipate, and to analyze. We have the emotional power which makes us move into action. All these can be utilized in the service of the soul or of the body. It can carry us way up into the stratosphere of the spirit or hurl us into the abyss of depravity at the other end. In Rabbinic literature the tendency to want to fulfill the stirrings of the soul is called the Yetzer Tov, the Good Inclination, and the tendency towards the gratification of the bodily desires beyond the necessary, aesthetically ac ceptable, spiritually compatible, is called thé Yetzer Ra, the Evil Inclina tion. A central theme of all Torah pre scriptions is to make this sanctuary out of our bodies. The Mitzvoth, the commandments which regulate our life habits, whether pertaining to food, to drink, to clothes, and certainly to sex, are aimed at maintaining and utilizing our bodily capabilities and needs at a level and in a form necessary and beneficial for us from all points of view. The laws of Kashruth, for in stance, while undoubtedly wise in terms of health, are much more than that in the framework of authentically tradi tional Jewish life. They are a religious August, 1960

discipline which brings G-d into the picture of such an earthy and earthly human preoccupation—food! Kash ruth elevates the simple animal need for food which we share with other living organisms into a little fortress of spirituality. By abstaining from the foods which the Torah labels unclean, by being disciplined at every step from the purchasing of the food practically until digestion, eating becomes more than a wanton submission to a biologi cal urge. Rather, this biological mate rial helps build the human “synagogue” —a means to maintain our bodies as G-d bade us and furthermore to assist in the dedication of our lives to the spiritual values which are the ultimate purpose of our existence. Similarly, G-d has ordained an in stitution which sanctifies sex—also a central need of the human being— namely, marriage. Marriage in our tra ditional terminology is called Kiddushin, which is derived from the Hebrew word kodesh—holy. Marriage, accord ing to our philosophy, is not a con vention, a convenience, something practical invented to kill two birds with one stone—to give sex an outlet and protect the family. It is a G-dgiven and G-d-sanctified institution. G-d, the Grand Designer of human nature and of its relationship to biol ogy and society, has ordained along with the creation of man the institu tion of marriage as the only dignified, constructive, and elevating outlet of human sexual life. Just as by observing Kashruth we sanctify the bodily need for food, by observing the sex regula tions of the Torah we sanctify this vi tal bodily need. What; are the practical implications of all this? Sex activity outside of mar riage is ' not “Kosher.” Sex activity other tfyan in marriage is Yetzer Hora —the bad tendency which leads a pér ir

son from the body as a means, as a base for spirituality, towards body as an end in itself—from the Divine to wards the animalistic. It becomes ob vious, therefore, that the practices widely prevalent among the youth of our era, such as pre-marital “necking” and petting, cannot be condoned by our tradition. No amount of rationali zation and verbal defense can differen tiate in principle between “all the way” and lesser forms of actual sex indul

gence. Our traditional law has always understood what modern psychology has established beyond doubt: that these various activities may differ in degree but fundamentally are different sized branches of the same tree. Every relationship not sanctioned by Torah is forbidden all the way down the line, from its most extreme and obvious down to the seemingly more innocu ous forms.

Modesty and Religious Realism

E come now to another very im portant aspect of Torah sex regu lations which form the preventive cordon around this subject. These laws may be compiled under the general descriptive term Tz’niuth. This is usu ally translated either as modesty or chastity. Either word would do for lack of a better one, but neither one is accurate and neither one captures the true essence of the term in our reli gious law. Modesty implies shyness and diffi dence, a psychological trait of weak ness and lack of confidence rather than strength. Chastity might imply a certain repugnance of sex. It conveys the feeling that sex is something ugly, to be avoided, suppressed, at least hid den as much as possible. As indicated previously, Judaism’s evaluation of the human personality, its attitude towards the body and the manner with which our traditional literature treats the sub ject, refute these implications. Judaism faces this subject as it does every other, with propriety but at the same time with all the frankness and the detail necessary for the better understanding of its problems. What then is the true meaning of Tz’niuth? Let us draw an analogy and analyze from another bodily problem

which we struggle with in America: the problem of proper diet. It is the consensus of opinion of health experts that Americans eat too much food in general, and foods detrimental to over all health in particular—fatty foods, foods with high concentrations of carbohydrates, highly seasoned and spiced, etc. Why do people eat so much in America? There may be a number of reasons, but some of the more obvious ones are availability, ad vertising, and enticing display. This country is blessed not only with an abundance of food, in incomparable variety, but also with a standard of living which makes this food available in large quantities to a large number of people. Millions are spent annually to advertise and sell this overproduc tion of food to the consumer. It is a well known experience to people who are dieting that they must keep a dis tance from the refrigerator or else they may run the risk of succumbing to temptation. Sometimes the doctor will prescribe tablets that diminish the ap petite or hunger pangs in order to counteract the attractive and seductive savory flavors and odors which besiege the poor dieter. The psychological principle is a simple one. Human be ings, because they have all the faculJEWISH LIFE

ties which we spoke of before, may be stimulated into desire, may be induced artificially to want more than is good for them physically or spiritually. The whole advertising industry is based on this premise-—the induced stimulation of the appetite; the magnifying of ba sic needs into extravagant and lux urious needs. The over-all purpose of the laws of Tz’niuth is to reduce stimu lation and temptation in the area of sex. ET US look at some of these ten ets and observe how wisely cogni zant they are of human nature. For instance, our Halochah (religious law) does not recognize such a thing as the “innocent kiss” or the “harmless em brace.” Once again modem psychology comes to our aid and confirms that lurking under that so-called innocence and platonic love is a temporarily subdued instinct that may come to the fore. Pious Jews of old would not even shake hands with a woman, and there are still many of them today who don’t. Some modern authorities have relented somewhat on that stringency in view of the highly mechanical na ture of this type of greeting. Or take dancing as another instance: can it escape the obligations of Tz’niuth reg ulations? There are all sorts of ration alizations. It is art; it is relaxing; it is rhythmic. If that is so, why is danc ing done almost exclusively between the sexes? One rarely sees men and women dance with “their own kind” other than at “Chasidic” affairs. Can one honestly say that dancing has no sex overtones, that the thrills are purely aesthetic? The fact that mixed dancing is tolerated at times by some orthodox institutions does not give it the stamp of approval. Religious lead ership finds itself hard set to cope with the problem and must weigh carefully

August, 1960

the damage that may result from intransigence. But, the question may be asked with some justification, is this not a double standard of theory and prac tice? Isn’t Orthodoxy supposed to represent consistency in face of diffi culty? Don’t we insist on absolute standards of Sabbath and Kashruth? The answer, the way I see it, is an educational one. Kashruth and Sab bath are violated for the sake of con venience or due to indifference. The educational problems in regard to these laws are relatively uncompli cated — a straightforward approach demonstrating the spiritual benefits of these two observances. Basically, neither is opposed by, or antithetical to, any trait or feature of American civilization. Tz’niuth is different. The behavior patterns and the entire spirit of public morality on this continent are so different, the influences of literature, entertainment, advertising and other media of communications are so powerful and so different from ours. It must take more than just dis cussion, argumentation, and remonstration to counteract these forces. One must be able to transcend one’s cultural environment for a moment in order to permit oneself honestly to comprehend the soundness of our sex regulations. This is an arduous educational task which may often be thwarted rather than enhanced by radical prohibitions ere the subject is fully understood. Z’NIUTH embraces also another important area of erotic stimula tion—the visual. Tz’niuth laws pro hibit exposure of any part of the anatomy with erotic overtones or dressing in a manner calculated to accentuate the erotic characteristics of the human body. Simultaneously it

rules against viewing such exposures. Is this as prudish as it sounds to modem ears attuned to the ballads and odes sung of love between the sexes which depict passionate love as the only, or at best the most impor tant, pursuit of life? Only recently I read a revealing article by a doctor who describes some of the problems of modem youth on the basis of his experiences. A young lady came to him “in trouble.” He knew her to be of a very fine, respectable, and mor ally sound family. How could it hap pen to her? And, she told him the storyilfhow she and her “date” had seen an erotically exciting movie to gether which triggered them into ac tion. They were so carried away that there was no stopping. I do not sug gest that this happens all the time. I have just chosen it as a demonstra tion of the causal relationship between outside stimulation and inner desire.

The Torah makes us face reality and our biological and psychological make-up, and the fact that certain causes must have certain effects. The Torah also knows the potent power of the sex drive in the human per sonality and teaches us not to “throw oil on the fire.” Another Tz’niuth regulation which should receive mention is the law ot Yichud. Briefly, this enjoins avoidance of situations and circumstances which may lead to intimacy—the closeting together in a place inaccessible to other people—or activities which lead to prolonged or frequent and secluded contact between two of the opposite sex. As I have pointed out before, “circumstances” and “opportunity” play a great role in engendering the idea and the will. If necessity is the mother of invention, opportunity is the father of intention.

Facing A Different Culture

T THE risk of being repetitious, I must reemphasize that the major difficulty in accepting Judaism’s stand on sex cannot be found in its lack of logic, or realism, or under standing of human nature, but rather in the fact that our modern life is so far removed from Jewish principles. Instead of minimizing stimulation the entire mechanism of modem terminol ogy is employed to increase it. Many sociologists are beginning to realize that society is plagued by sex obses sion. Actresses are advertised not for their acting ability but for their “vital statistics.” If a paper is to sell, it must have a certain quota of photos of at tractive women in suggestive poses. The motion picture, television, popu lar music, and all other branches of the entertainment industry, literature, news reporting, and advertising—all 38

exploit the sex angle to the utmost. There is an old Yiddish saying: Es iz shver tzu zein a Yid. Often the difficulties may be economic ones. In the case of Tz’niuth in our era they are psychological, many times more trying than economic ones. Today we see many of the thoughtfiil and in telligent among our youth and young adults seeking a reexamination of modern life. We can be hopeful that they will seriously consider the prob lem of sex, which is beginning to affect the stability and internal secur ity of our social structure. The Jew of today is moving to a new apprecia tion of the profundities and the re ligious realism of our time-proven and glorious heritage. It is there that can be found the true and practicable way to face nature while striving for a higher and loftier existence. JEWISH LIFE

The Making of a Modern Siddur By M O RRIS MAX

HIS coming Tishri (September), Rabbi William Drazin, who was then T the Siddur prepared by the Rab president of the Rabbinical Council, binical Council of America is appointed a Siddur Commission, he scheduled to appear, after years of preparation. Entitled “The Traditional Prayer Book,” and containing the services for the .Sabbath and the Festi vals, it is the first Siddur to be issued in the United States under the sponsor ship of an orthodox rabbinic body and a congregational organization, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congrega tions of America. A commission of rabbis has been occupied with the preparation of this Siddur for more than a decade. It is important for the layman to know some of the problems that confronted the commission so that he may be able to evaluate this contribution to Jewish life in America. To publish a traditional prayer book— a Siddur—that will meet the needs of American Jewry is not an easy task, simply because there are so many different traditions about prayer and synagogue rituals that have ac cumulated in the numerous Jewish communities throughout the world. Jews in America have as many differ ent traditions about prayer as the number of Jewish communities from which they emigrated. When more than a decade ago August, 1960

charged the members with the task of publishing a Siddur that could become the standard prayer book for all or thodox synagogues in America and ultimately of the world. As a member of this commission I participated in almost all its deliberations. From the first sessions, which were devoted to a discussion of the scope of the Sid dur, it became evident that we would have to take into account primarily the needs of American orthodox syn agogues. Even when the scope of the Siddur was thus limited, there still remained numerous problems such as: Shall it be according to the Ashkenazic or Sephardic nusach? Shall it be a daily or Sabbath and Festivals prayer book? Shall we use the English translation of the Biblical portions of the prayers as it appears in the standard English translation of the Bible used by the Jews of America, or shall we make a translation of our own? Shall it be a literal translation or can we create a style of our own provided it is in accord with the Halochah? Shall we include explanatory notes to make the prayers more meaningful to average worshipper? After a survey was made of the 39

liturgies practiced by the congrega tions of the Rabbinical Council mem bers, it was decided that the Siddur should be according to the Ashkenazic nusach. At some later date, a Sephar dic edition could be published. T FIRST the Commission wanted A to include everything in the Sid dur so that it could be used through out the year. Assignments were made to the various rabbis to make surveys of the different prayer books in use today and to make their recommenda tions about what the new Siddur should encompass. After months of research they realized that to include everything the Siddur would have to contain about two thousand pages. The simple, practical problem of the weight of the book which the wor shipper must hold in his hand for several hours became a decisive fac tor. It was evident that what the Amer ican Jew needed was a prayer book that could be used conveniently by every worshipper in the synagogue and not one that must be relegated to the library shelf as a reference book only. Although a number of rabbis on the Commission preferred to publish a daily prayer book, it was decided that we should first serve the many worshippers who come to services on Sabbaths and Festivals. After a favor able reception to this Siddur, we could then proceed to satisfy the needs of the daily worshipper. HE MORE serious problem was that of the English translation of the Siddur. A careful survey of all the existing Siddurim revealed much that was lacking in this field. While it is true that we did not want a Siddur used primarily for its English trans-

lation, since a traditional service is conducted in Hebrew, we did want a translation that would help the wor shipper understand his Hebrew pray ers. It must be an accurate translation; otherwise it would not satisfy the Halachic requirements. At the same time it must be appealing in English. The Biblical style must be preserved; yet, if archaisms obscure the meaning they should be eliminated. We are fortunate in having as a member of our Commission Dr. David de Sola Pool, who had proven himself to be a master of English style in his translation of the Siddur (SpanishPortuguese rite) used by Sephardic Jews. Many a happy phrase that he employed reflected the spirit of the Bible and yet seemed so well attuned to modem usage. Dr. Pool was there fore chosen to be the translator and editor. Whenever questions arose about the exact translation of certain phrases, Rabbi Charles C. Chavel,1 ehairman of the Commission, was re quested to confer with the Halochah Commission of the Rabbinical Coun cil, headed by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, and a final decision was reached. Great care was taken in every in stance to arrive at the correct trans lation to convey the original thought of the Hebrew phrase. This becomes understandable when we are mindful of the Talmudic saying (Berachoth 40b), “He who changes the formula of benedictions which the Sages estab lished does not fulfill his obligation of prayer.” The blessings and prayers must be recited just as the Sages for mulated them. A translation, therefore, which is not in accord with the He brew words makes the prayer invalid and the individual must correct it. To obviate this necessity every word of the English translation was careJEWISH LIFE

fully considered and Halachically pondered. Another problem presented itself from a careful study of the Siddurim in use today. It became apparent that a few grammatical errors had crept into some of the prayers composed in more recent times. For example, in the introductory prayer before don ning the Talith and Tephillin or be fore taking the Lulov and Esrog there appears the sentence: “May the ob servance of this precept be regarded by the Holy One, blessed be He, as if I fulfilled it with all its details and particulars and the ‘Taryag Mitzvoth hatluyim bah’—the 613 precepts de pendent upon it.” The Hebrew word “mitzvoth,” being feminine, should be followed by the feminine verb “hatluyoth” instead of “hatluyim,” the masculine form. Yet heretofore no publisher ventured to correct that error. The question, therefore, debated at length was: Does the wrong use of this phrase for an extended period of time justify its continuous usage or shall we be consistent and correct the error? A few such changes were made. We expect some criticism from those worshippers who have become accus tomed to the earlier form. The Com mission, however, unanimously agreed that a correct Hebrew text is as vital and necessary as a good literary Eng lish translation. HE SIDDUR as it is composed offers a solution to another prob lem indigenous to American Jewish life. There are orthodox Jews who have learned to say their prayers by rote although they are not learned enough to translate every Hebrew phrase. Often they pray rapidly and pause in the middle of a phrase, thus distorting the meaning of the words. This failing becomes especially evi-

August, 1960

dent when a worshipper officiates as baal tefilah during the weekday service in observance of a Yahrzeit. This is offensive to those who pray with un derstanding and feeling. The rabbi who is deeply concerned about com municating the beauty of our timehonored prayers to all those who come into the synagogue will discreetly in dicate to the officiant the meaning of the prayers and where the pauses are to be made. It is on an occasion like this that the rabbi realizes the inade quacies of the Siddurim being used in the average orthodox synagogue today. He cannot suggest that the wor shipper look to the English translation of the Siddur at his leisure before he recites his prayers. Translations as they exist today make it difficult for the unlearned to match the English words with the Hebrew. The Commission exercised great care to publish a translation that would enable the worshipper to derive pro found inspiration from the recital of his prayers by offering a better under standing of the Hebrew text. Punctu ation marks are used more freely and the phrases are spaced in such a man ner that the worshipper will pause automatically at the proper place. What is even more important is that the translation on the English page matches the Hebrew prayer almost line for line and in most cases phrase for phrase. A glance from one page to the other by the worshipper who has some knowledge of Hebrew will enable him in the course of time to acquire a good understanding of the Hebrew prayers he recites. HERE HAS been a tendency in American Jewish life to compro mise with those Jews who did not re ceive an adequate Hebrew education by curtailing the service and substi-

tuting English prayers for the original Hebrew. The Commission has at tempted to offer a better solution— by preparing a Siddur that will enable anyone to learn the meaning of the Hebrew prayers and to participate in the service more intelligently. There are a number of other fea tures which will make this Siddur more attractive and useful. A special classic Hebrew type is used and the format of the page makes the reading pleasant. The carefully worded rubrics to guide the worshipper through the various section of the service will be of great help to those who wish to con form with the congregation throughout the service. Every service is continu ous so that there is no need to turn the pages backward or forward. As a result the book contains close to 900 pages. Yet, the special thin paper used has reduced the weight considerably. The Jewish service is a relatively long one, especially on Sabbaths and Festivals. It is composed of several sections possessing unique functions. They contain praises of G-d, Israel, the Torah, and the Land of Israel. There are blessings, thanksgiving psalms, petitions, historical accounts, and Biblical and Talmudic excerpts introduced before each section to clarify the essential characteristics of the forthcoming prayers, and to make the reader more intelligently aware of their uniqueness. The following is a sample of the reverent approach em ployed by Dr. Pool: Kabbalath Shabbath— Welcoming the Sabbath.

“Truly has it been said that far more than the Jew has preserved the Sabbath, it is the Sabbath which has preserved the Jew. The Sabbath is felt as a gladdening influence through all the six working days leading up to the weekly day of rest. From ancient times devotional preparations for welcoming 42

the Sabbath have been made before sunset gives birth to the Sabbath day. As we learn in the Talmud: Rabbi Hanina used to put on his best clothes and say, ‘Come, let us go forth and greet the Sabbath queen’. In this spirit of preparation it is customary to read the Biblical Song of Songs (page 637) in praise of the coming of Israel’s bride, the Sabbath. Lehu Nerannenah.

“ ‘Come let us sing praises to the Lord’ is the opening call of Psalms 95 to 99 and Psalm 29, six Psalms re garded as symbolizing the six working days of the week. In the sixth Psalm, the sevenfold repetition of the phrase ‘the voice of the Lord’ was regarded as recalling the seventh day Sabbath and was associated with the seven benedictions of the Sabbath Amidah. The climax of that Psalm, ‘the Lord will bless His people with peace,’ is indeed a fitting introduction to the Sabbath with the blessing of peace which the Sabbath brings.” This prayer book can also be used on the three pilgrimage festivals— Passover, Shovuoth, and Sukkoth. In cluded in it are the special piyutim— “Tal” for Passover; “Akdomoth” for Shovuoth; “Hoshanoth” for Sukkoth; “Geshem” for Shemini Atzereth; “Hakofoth” for Simchath Torah; and all the Torah readings and Haftoroth for the Festivals. As an aid to those worshippers who would like to broaden their perspec tive of Torah-true Judaism, a special section has been added containing selected readings from Biblical and Rabbinic sources on Charity, Free dom, Joy and Thanskgiving, G-d, Torah, Israel, etc. These can be used as inspirational readings for various occasions during the year. In most orthodox synagogues con gregational singing of a few Hebrew prayers has become the accepted prac tice. To assist those worshippers who are not yet well versed in Hebrew, JEWISH LIFE

several of these prayers have been translated in English. The prophet Jeremiah said (29:1213) And ye shall call upon Me and go and pray unto Me, and I will hearken unto you. And ye shall seek Me and find Me when ye shall search for Me with all your heart. To attain com munion with G-d one must seek Him. Mere recitation of words can not ac complish that goal. To find G-d one must search for Him with “all your heart.” That search must be sincere and steadfast. The Talmudic Sages said: “If one says, T have labored and have found,’ believe him; T have not labored and found, do not believe him.” The effectiveness of the prayers in

the Siddur has been proven during the past two millenia. It has survived all the trials and vicissitudes of our people, the dark ages and the era of emancipation. The Siddur can survive our push-button age of speed and con venience, provided that it will continue to guide the worshipper in his search for G-d and His way of life. The members of the Siddur Com mission of the Rabbinical Council will feel adequately rewarded for their labors and efforts of more than a decade if our people will use this oldnew prayer book to think more pro foundly about their Hebrew prayers and to experience that religious ecstasy which comes from seeking and finding G-d. Then indeed will they worship G-d in the “Beauty of Holiness.”

N ow a v a ila b le

T H E UOJCA POCKET CALENDAR-DIARY for the year 1 960-61 , 572 1 C o m b in e s a w ealth of J e w ish infor m ation of every d a y u se fu ln e ss. C o n ta in s th e Je w ish an d s e c u la r ca le n d ars, a full d a ily d ia ry se ctio n, e x p la n a tio n s of the h olid a ys, c a n d le -lig h tin g tim es, w eekly T orah a n d H a ftorah re adin gs, Y ah rtze it d ate record, T efillath H aderech, Je w ish p o p u la tio n s of the m ajor c it ie s of the U n ite d S t a t e s an d C anad a, in fo rm a tion on th e program of the U n io n of O rthod ox Je w ish C o n g re g a tio n s of A m erica.

I l

FITS INTO POCKET OR P U R SE H A N D SO M E L Y BO UN D IN D U R A B LE LEATH ERETTE

70«! PER COPY

O rd e r from :

U O J C A , 8 4 F I F T H A V E N U E , N E W Y O R K 1 1, N, Y. August, I960

Rabbi K o o k Consecrator of Jewish Nationhood By ARYEH NEWMAN

T IS twenty-five years since Avrohom Yitzchok Hakohen Kook, the first Chief Rabbi of the modern Jewish community in the Holy Land, died. During his lifetime he made an in delible impression on all circles of Jewry and his name is still mentioned with reverence by all who have some acquaintance with the course of Jew ish history in the last half century. Like all the great scholar saints of our history, he combined a fervent and scrupulous piety with a broad humanity, exacting in his demands on himself and tolerant in his judgment of others. He was bom at a time when the winds of Jewish resettlement in the Holy Land were beginning to blow, laden with the prophetic frag rance of rebirth and renewal. But it was also an age of storm and stress, deep cleavage in Jewry, increasing sections of which were foundering on the quicksands of an illusory emanci pation and enlightenment. From childhood he moved among circles of Lithuanian Talmudic scholars and rabbis, a prodigy of learning and piety, tasting the spiritual delights of the historic Volozhin Yeshivah. But it was only with the greatest of difficulty that he was pre vailed upon by the Chofetz Chayim to accept his first rabbinic post. From

the beginning he was distinguished for strength of purpose, uncompro mising adherence to religious principle tempered by understanding. Ironically, in view of his later career when he was attacked for his toler;ance by the religious extremists of Jerusalem, the more “enlightened,” maskil elements of Bobruisk—his major rabbinic position in Lithuania—opposed his candidature because of his reputation for fanatical piety which was reflected in his con stant wearing of tallith and tefillin. He himself personally supervised the early Sabbath eve closing of shops in his community wherever reluctance was displayed and publicly forbade participation in a social evening of the “modem elements” because of a dance that was to accompany it. But he pri vately informed them that he himself wished to attend their social. Naturally the evening was held without the dance and with the participation of the saintly rabbi. UT the real life work of Rabbi Kook began with his call to the B Jaffa rabbinate in the early summer of 1904. In spite of the higher in ducements offered him to stay in the Diaspora, and of the pioneering con ditions in the Palestinian Jewish com munity, there was never any doubt JEWISH LIFE

in his mind but that his duty and mission lay in the Holy Land. As he worded it in one of his many phil osophic-poetic effusions that were to become the classics of the religious national rebirth, “Diaspora Judaism depends solely on the intbnsity of its link with the Holy Land; the hope of salvation constitutes the elixir of life for Diaspora Judaism, and the Judaism of Eretz Israel is salvation itself.” He found the Jewish community in Eretz Israel apparently irrevocably divided into two camps, sacred and secular. On the one side there were the strictly observant, many of whom spent their lives in contemplative prayer and study but a gradually in creasing number of whom were em ployed in the practical redemption of the land, tending their vineyards and orchards in the newly planted settle ments. On the other side, there were the secular pioneers of the national rebirth, inspired by high humanitarian and social ideals but apparently di vorced from all that was sacred in Jewish tradition—except of course their devotion to the soil of the home land and their people’s return to it. Mutual distrust and condemnation existed between the two camps. No one had attempted to bridge the gap. Rabbi Kook turned his endeavors to strengthening the community on all fronts, which to him meant conse crating every aspect of Jewish life in the Holy Land, the sacred and secular, encouraging anything that savored of a positive identification with the people and the land. On the one hand, he fortified the observance of the age-old mitzvoth connected with the soil, the tithes, and all the other Biblical regu lations applying to the Jewish farmer in his own land. He insisted on the preeminence of Eretz Israel products, August, 1960

the wine and the ethrog, but when it came to the issue of Shemitah, placed himself on the side of those who found a hetter to permit farm work, so as not to jeopardize the growth of the struggling Jewish settlements. His rea sons were as soundly based on Jewish law as they were inspired by love for the land and people. Controversy raged. The famous sage of Safed, the Ridbaz (Rabbi Jacob David of Slutzk) opposed him, but as another of his renowned contemporaries (Rabbi Isaac Yerucham Diskin) put it, “Both these sages are saintly and compassionate. But whereas the Ridbaz clings to the Divine attribute of ‘being merciful to the Land,) Rabbi Kook clings to the attribute of, ‘being merciful to man kind’.” N THE other hand, Rabbi Kook O “consecrated” the non-observant chalutzim, visiting them in their vil lages and settlements, urging them to respect what was sacrosanct in Jewish life, and paying tribute to their con tribution to the cause of Jewish re demption. “We need a healthy body. We have been too much preoccupied with spirituality; we have forgotten the holiness of the body, neglected health and bodily vigor. We have for gotten that we have ‘holy flesh’ (besar hakodesh) no less than ‘holy spirit’ (ruach hakodesh). We have forsaken practical life and all that is associated with material reality out of a twofold fear, for lack of faith in the sanctity of the land. We shall only achieve a spiritual return if it is accompanied by a material one, creating healthy blood, healthy flesh, well built and strong bodies . . .” There was no current in Jewish life —pietist, humanitarian, or nationalist —which was alien to the Divine plan for redemption. All had their part to 45

play—but in particular it was the chalutz, the rebuilder of Jewish na tional life, who held the key. He had no fears for their impiety. Their pioneer training, their devotion to labor, complemented the meditations of the pious. No redemption of Israel was conceivable without the material basis. The impiety, the impurity was but a necessary passing phase. Draw ing on mystic lore and the esoteric dicta of the rabbinic Sages in the Talmud, he maintained that the good life could not be achieved, perfection could not be attained, before the base of Jewish living had been broadened to take in all the grossest forms of existence. Only then could they be consecrated. Throughout the exile Israel had been a disembodied ghost. It had to rebuild the body, reconstruct the flesh, and then be reconsecrated. In such a pre-redemptive era; “The soul of the transgressors of Israel in the footsteps of the Messiah who are devoted to the cause of the Jewish people as a whole, to Eretz Israel, and the national renascence is in a greater state of perfection than the soul of the faithful who lack the advantage of that devotedness to the common weal and the building of the nation and the land.” What the Messianic age would bring would be the merging of the theory of the latter with the practice of the former. The pious would become national and publicspirited, the nationalists religiousminded. There would be a mutual influence. ABBI KOOK observed: “The natural spirit of nationhood has not to be regretted at all. Its weak nesses are destined to be rectified.” In that spirit Rabbi Kook identified himself with every activity in the Palestine Jewish community that he 46

was convinced would blossom into statehood in the not distant future. He left Jaffa on the eve of the First World War to attend the Knessiah Gedolah of the newly formed world Agudah movement, intending to har ness1it to the cause of Zion. But the World War broke out and he was stranded in Europe. The Machzike Hadass community of London invited him to occupy their rabbinate, a post he accepted on condition he could re turn to Eretz Israel as soon as con ditions would make it possible. He soon discovered a personal meaning in this new phase of his life which fitted in with his mission to rebuild the land and pave the way for the Messiah. The war would bring the redemption yet a step further. The Balfour Declaration constituted the materialization of this dream and while in London, he published a declaration condemning the AngloJewish notables who disassociated themselves from its contents out of an exaggerated and misplaced sense of loyalty to their adopted country. They were guilty of “national trea* son.” Foreseeing a new and grander phase for the movement for national rebirth, he harbored new plans for its consecration, approaching the Zionist leaders, the Mizrachi, and Agudah, to join forces in a religious renewal. Since his program cut across all party lines he launched his spiritual movement of Degel Yerushalayim (The Standard of Jerusalem) to unite all traditionalists to further sacred matters pertaining to Eretz Israel. All could enter the movement but it would be bound to no party. Unfortunately, in spite of the tireless efforts he made to publicize his program and the set ting up of a few branches, it failed to attract any large numbers and reJEWISH LIFE

mained little more than a devout wish, though Mizrachi and Agudah adher ents were no doubt influenced by his ideals and prompted to more intensive constructive work for Eretz Israel within their own exclusive frame works. After the war, Rabbi Kook returned to his beloved land—his arrival turned into a triumphal progress and a con test between Jaffa and Jerusalem for his spiritual leadership. Jerusalem the Holy City won, and at the beginning of 1920 he began his career as Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, followed by the organization of Jewish self-governing institutions under the Mandatory au thorities. Against the bitter opposition of the pietist elements of the Old Yishuv who feared the inroads of secularism, the Knesseth Israel was constituted, and Rabbi Kook was in stalled as Chief Rabbi of the Holy Land and head of its religious court. Those irreconcilably opposed to Zion ism maintained their own religious community and refused to accept his authority, losing no opportunity to besmirch his name and accuse him of undue tolerance of the vices of the “Zionist transgressors.” AINED as he was by their activi ties, the Chief Rabbi did not let this for one moment deflect him from his course, deciding each issue on its merits. He founded a yeshivah de signed as a center of Jewish scholar ship for the world, “Mercaz Harav,T and continued his support of religious schools which would combine secular training with “fear of Heaven.” His attitude toward secular learning is best epitomized in his attitude toward the founding of the Hebrew University, at whose opening he spoke. Provided the yeshivoth continued to be the strongholds of Jewish life and the

August, 1960

university “hallowed the name of heaven” there was nothing to fear but everything to gain. He lost no opportunity of cham pioning the cause of Jewish rights in Eretz Israel before the Mandatory and international authorities. In par ticular his stand on the Jewish right to pray at the Wailing Wall (Kothel Maaravi) at a time when all the lead ers of the Yishuv were absent is to be remembered. He awakened Jewish and non-Jewish leaders to the violation of sacred Jewish historical rights and refused to be browbeaten either by the British High Commissioner or the compromising Jewish leaders to con cede one jot of what he considered Jewish ownership of that holy place. “The Jewish people has authorized no one to give up its rights to the Wall. If we, G-d forbid, give up the Wall, the Almighty Himself will not want to restore it to us!” Where his inner convictions were involved, nothing could move him, certainly no political considerations. In 1934 there occurred the notorious Arlosoroff murder and the apprehen sion of Stavsky as the murderer. This case divided the community no less than the Dreyfus case had France. Arlosoroff was a Labor Zionist leader and the Labor parties were sure that he had been murdered by a Revisionist —it was a matter of faith to believe it. But Rabbi Kook could not believe that a Jew was capable of murdering a fellow Jew and he refused to be lieve it. Stavsky was found guilty and condemned to death, with one judge dissenting. On that fateful Friday Rabbi Kook, who had been visited by the family of the condemned man, issued a short announcement that justice would assuredly be done. A month later, after he had painstak ingly examined all aspects of the case, 47

he proclaimed that “we can testify who asked him how he could possibly out of a clear conscience before G-d love the transgressors of Israeli and man that he is completely inno N THE last five years of his life cent.” Again the Labor leaders, those he spent much time in compiling same chalutzim whose cause he had championed, whose affection he had a gigantic Halachic gloss to the Tal striven to obtain, strove to change his mud, Halochah Berurah, to enable the mind, insisted he was an old gullible student to see at a glance the final dotard, carried away by emotions, ruling emerging from the Talmudic when reason dictated that Stavsky text. This was all part of his devotion must have done it. But he was un to the practical realization of his deterred and he campaigned on all vision. He was convinced he lived in levels, in all countries, to save Stavsky an era of preparation for redemption. from the noose. On the eve of the He compared himself to the pioneers appeal, he called on the public to of the soil who had left university pray for a just verdict. Stavsky was chairs to till the earth of the Holy freed; the evidence was inconclusive, Land. The hour demanded simple though many Labor leaders and rank practical labor. Rabbi Avrohom Yitzckok Hakohen and file continued to believe that he was guilty. Today it is known that Kook died a victim of a malignant growth in the summer of 1935 at the Arlosoroff was murdered by Arabs age of seventy, after serving his people and that party animus had almost for forty-seven years, twenty-one in succeeded in making Jews commit the Diaspora and twenty-six in Eretz judicial murder against a fellow Jew Israel. But he left many disciples, because he was a member of the other immeasurably strengthened the links party. between religious Jewry and Eretz One of Rabbi Kook’s characteristic Israel, raised the prestige of Torah dicta was, “Better be guilty of ground among all sections of the Yishuv, and less love (ahavath chinom) than ground provided a philosophy of religious less hate (sinath chinom) ” This was peoplehood which continues to inspire the answer he gave to those pietists thinking Jews everywhere.

G olfs

HAVE YOU M O V E D ? Send us your new address and your old address clipped from

KOSHER HORSERADISH

your Jewish Life envelope

Am erica’s Largest Selling

JEWISH LIFE

B ook

Jewish Law, Jewish State By EMANUEL RACKMAN

THE CASE FOR JEW ISH CIVIL LAW IN THE JEW ISH STATE, by K. Kahana. Soncino Press, London, 1960; 113 pages, plus index, $2.75. HROUGHOUT their millenial his tory Jews have been consistently creative in the twin fields of law and ethics. In such areas as literature, art, and music their contributions have been sporadic and ra re ly superior. In law and ethics, however, Jews have been without peers. Yet it is paradoxical that the civil law of the modern state of Israel is not based on that jurisprudence which is the ancestral heritage of the Jewish peo ple. The language of the Bible has been revived to strengthen the na tionalist sentiment but the law of the Bible still begs for champions. Professor K. Kahana is such a cham pion in his important volume, “The Case for Jewish Civil Law in the Jewish State.” Heretofore the cause was espoused principally by the reli gious Zionist parties in Israel. Shragai and W ahrhaftig have written feelingly and spoken passionately in its behalf. The World Academy of

RABBI E M A N U E L R A C K M A N is the spiritual leader of the Congregation Shaaray Tefila, Far Rockaway, N , Y ., and is immediate past presi dent of the Rabbinical Council of America.

August, 1960

Jerusalem has undertaken the prep aration of codes which could be adopted when and if the Israeli par liament seeks them. But no one thus far, like Dr. Kahana, has drafted a lawyer’s brief for the court of uni versal Jewish public opinion in sup port of the position that Jewish civil law, as contained in the Bible, Tal mud, Responsa, and Codes, should be “received” by the state of Israel as its basic jurisprudence. Indeed, he is to be congratulated for his study and the Soncino Press merits our thanks not only for its publication of the volume but for its usually fine quality printing. The volume purports to be an intro duction to a much larger work which will apply Jewish law to the require ments of a modern state. The intro duction itself argues that Jewish civil law—unlike ritual law—is altogether rational. Moreover, it is viable in every age because of its inherent ra tionality. Changes there have been, but these are not correctly described as legislative in character. They are rather the fulfillment of old rules in new situations. The new applications are, in essence, the mere unfolding of the rationality inherent in the system from its earliest promulgation. Last 49

but not least, Jewish civil law is superior to every legal system in the western world. No one concurs more whole-heartedly than this reviewer in the author’s general objective. And no one could give a warmer welcome to a treatise which glorifies Jewish law. However, in several important places the author’s argument requires either correction or additional devel opment. IRST, one over generalizes when one alleges that Jewish civil law is based exclusively on the dictates of “right reason.” Many of the rules and concepts are supra-rational and are based on “Gezerath-Ha-kothuv.” For example, some torts are not actionable for no reason other than the mandate of the Written or Oral Law. True, in monetary matters there are almost no limitations on a duly constituted BethDin to legislate and change the rules of liability. But if Jewish civil law is altogether denied its theocentricity, and the sole criterion for justice is what appears reasonable to man in every age, then what is the unique ness of Jewish law? And why shouldn’t the state of Israel go to Harvard Law School—as it does—instead of to an cient sources in order to obtain drafts of new codes? That Jewish law is su perior to other systems is due to its theocentricity and Professor Kahana’s volume would shift the focus from G-d to man. Needless to say, he does this because he wants to appeal to secularists who will shy away from reference to Him Who is the Ultimate Judge. But with Him removed from the system, the system loses the one feature that makes it different from j u s t i c e a - l a - M a r x or j u s t i c e by majority will.

Second, one of the arguments most frequently directed against the re ception of Jewish civil law by the state of Israel is that the secularists in Israel cannot tolerate a law in whose development only ordained rabbis will participate rather than p o p u l a r l y e le c te d j u d g e s and legislators, who may even be atheists and non-Jews. The secularists do not object to Jewish law because it is Jewish. The objection is rather that not all Jews will have an equal voice in its reinterpretations, amendment, and repeal. Unless this argument is met the case for Jewish civil law in a Jewish state is incomplete. Yet, if the rabbis will abdicate their role as custodians of thé Jewish civil law in favor of the majority will, then is this any longer Halochah? And if rabbis shall remain the custodians, will the irreligious be content? Or is there per haps the possibility of saving the theocentric character of Halochah with the participation of those who deny G-d? I believe there is such a possibility but Professor Kahana must deal with the problem or fail to make a case. Despite these problems the volume is a truly exciting one. One may differ with the author here and there—-as in the case of his contention that there is never a conflict in Jewish law between the interests of an in dividual and the interests of the state or “authority”—but from beginning to end Professor Kahana quotes inter esting and relevant legal, ethical, and philosophical sources which reveal not only his own extensive learning but the enormous possibility for further studies by all who regard Torah as “life and the length of days” for Jews and Jewry.

JEWISH LIFE

C r e a t i o n ,Copy, and Counterfeit By WARD MOORE

THE JEW IN THE LITERATURE OF ENGLAND, by Montagu Frank Modder. Meridian Books & The Jew ish Publication Society; 435-xii pp., paper, $1.65. HIS REPRINT of a volume which first appeared in 1939 would be a useful reference work if the ground covered were wider and the index broader and less arbitrary. (Some authors are listed by both given and pen names, others by one or the other alone; titles of books appear only under their writers.) But within its limits most of the material is here, from the inevitable discussion of Shylock down to instant synopses of minor novels unremarked by their contemporaries and long since mer cifully forgotten. This is literary history, not criti cism, and so may make unwarned readers unhappy till they realize that Modder has not only supplied detailed sources for criticism but, in relating, no m atter how ingenuously or super ficially—even scantily at times—the depiction of Jewish characters and, less frequently, the use of Jewish themes to the historic scene and the cultural, social, and economic condi tions prevailing at the time of com-

W A R D MOORE is a novelist and critic whose works have appeared in five languages in ten countries, and who has contributed extensively to the Anglo-Jewish press.

August, 1960

position, he constructed a frame of reference in which criticism can work. It is true that a Jew is a Jew, and there are aspects of personality we recognize as Jewish under all cir cumstances, but we cannot expect dramatization of a David Levinsky’s conflicts revealed by a writer in Chaucer’s period or the military out look of a Bar Kochba treated by Fielding. Modder was no stickler for pre cision. His book is mistitled, for he wrote England where he meant Great Britain and his frequent misuse of the word “race” is a mark of careless ness. He stopped, or tried to, at the year 1900, thus depriving himself of any reference to Leopold Bloom, al most unquestionably the most impor tant, most carefully drawn Jewish character in English letters. This is too bad, not merely for the historical survey but for the balance—whether Modder was inclined to weigh them or not—between Shylock and Bloom. For, from the viewpoint of Jewish interest the comparison is extraordi narily pertinent. Both creations are fully rounded, subtle, complex human beings as Fagin and Riah are not, both are undeniably Jewish and not merely so labelled as Daniel Deronda is. They exist apart from their roles in the? unfolding of events. Even with out the information supplied by 51

Shakespeare and Joyce readers know they have antecedents, that they were not born of the exigencies of plot, and that when the play or novel is con cluded they will not throw off masks to reveal gears and transistors, but remain—as Lewisohn tried to sh o w subject to the vicissitudes of life. A proof of this is found, since no artistic creation exists without an audience, in the reaction of those who have looked at them with totally dif ferent eyes. Generations of Antisemites have accepted Shylock as butt and buffoon while hundreds of thou sands of Jews and non-Jews have been moved by his plea for justice. Both Eliot and Pound were close to Joyce; neither protested his treatment of Bloom, evidently satisfied that what they found contemptible in Bloom overhere the humility, suffering, and love visible to others. It seems obvious in both cases that these characters transcended the usual limitations of pen and paper to take on attributes of palpable flesh-and-blood. Crea tures of lesser writers beguile us by flattering our image or infuriate us with caricature, but Shylock and Bloom can be viewed from any angle, and each angle will produce a differ ent view.

A S TO the old question of whether J \ . Shakespeare was personally sym pathetic toward Shylock—Modder in clines toward the negative—my opin ion, for what it’s worth, is that he was. This I base on no theories of possible Jewish ancestry nor on the famous passionate speeches on justice, equality, toleration, but on one simple, poignant remark made on discovering his birdbrained child has made off with a cherished ring evidently grown too small for his aging fingers and bartered it for a monkey: “It was my 52

turquoise: I had it of Leah when I was a bachelor: I would not have given it for a wilderness of monkeys.” Quite likely Shakespeare’s facts were wrong, as were a number of Joyce’s; whether betrothal gifts were ex changed among XVI Century Vene tian Jews is no more pertinent than the anachronistic game of billiards in Anthony and Cleopatra. We know Shylock was grasping and tough, em bittered—his wife was dead, his daughter had betrayed her father, her people, her G-d—and so it was logical for him to lament the turquoise. But even then it was only semiprecious, yet he would not have given it for a “wilderness of monkeys” at a time when such a cargo would have fetched a fortune. What is lost is a link with memory: “I had it of Leah when I was a bachelor.” Shakespeare was compassionate, especially toward men like Shylock and Falstaff. He gave Falstaff a handkerchief-dampening funeral oration which would have done Hollywood proud but he never put into the fat knight’s mouth such words of utter, sincere, bewildered anguish as these. Of course no critique or even literary history can spend its whole appropriation on the Jew of Venice and the Jew of Dublin. We must turn, riot to the base counterfeits of low comedy and lurid melodrama—-which take up much space in this book— but to those figures copied from life, no matter how poorly. It is disappoint ing to find Thackeray examined with fa r less diligence than Mrs. Edgeworth, Fanny Burney, or Charles Reside. Modder surprisingly limits himself to mentioning a silly jingle on Rothschild, a rather nasty parody of Disraeli’s Coning shy (but then all of Thackeray’s parodies were nasty), and that astonishing display of critiJEWISH LIFE

cal virtuosity, Rebecca and- Rowena, in which Thackeray gave Sir, Walter Scott his lumps—a sacrilege compre hensible today by the analogy of some angry young man a few years hence kicking the bones of Hemingway and Faulkner—to show the bayonet not only a less competent craftsman but a poorer judge of the public taste. Thackeray, who had many prejudices —his Antisemitism was positively benevolent compared to his disdain of the Irish—completely subordinated his distaste for the Jews to his out rage at Scotty literary and emotional blunder and for a brief moment placed himself simultaneously at the head of both the romantic and realis tic schools.

of speech therapy probably accounted for more, but the lisp is not a par ticularly Jewish characteristic. Pos sibly Thackeray encountered a junkdealer, peddler, or pawnbroker with this impediment and projected it on the whole people. This hypothesis can not be rejected though there are valid if long and tedious arguments against it. Exclusion of Henry James from Modder’s canon (“. . . The Literature of England” should certainly include James as ineluctably as the music of England includes Handel) leaves a gap, not merely historically—without James there would have been no Eliot—but definitively for James’ Jews (“Hebrews”) were on a higher social level than Dickens’ or Thackeray’s HERE one expects the most of and not inflated by the sentimentality Modder’s method it yields the of George Eliot and Disraeli. They least. Thackeray’s novels contain a were “real” superficially, for James number of minor Jewish characters, had an aristocratic revulsion from many so minor indeed that they have clumsy lies, but his bias was manifest. no name beyond “the Jew.” With other This is too bad, for though James was authors Modder has eagerly groped incapable of drawing a Bloom, he to dredge up hitherto unconsidered had a more penetrating eye than trifles; here, where readers recall only Proust. the vaguest impression, we are de Instead of Thackeray and James, prived of the benefit of his encyclo Modder gives us the vulgarities of paedic tabulation. In the case of the ephemeral bestsellers and the Thackeray this deprivation matters, pratfalls of the music-halls. These for he was the first, or if not the fictitious Jews have a place, for the first, the most active to spread the measuring of psycopathic attitudes if notion that Jews lisp in English. He nothing else, but they are so fa r re spread it so vigorously that even to moved from their prototypes that the day minor provincial writers of label applied is as puzzling as with shoddy detective stories occasionally the alleged musical instrument called still crib this bit of stage-business. a jews-harp or the trailing vine called Since there seems to be no recorded wandering-jew. They have become tradition of the alleged lisp and stock, standard, rigidly stylized coun Thackeray’s methods of work rule out terfeits. invention from whole cloth, the lisp Because of his self-imposed limita could only have come from observa tions the author is very little happier tion or deduction. There are lisping in dealing with Jewish writers. Even Jews today; in the period 1830-1860 if we could overlook Disraeli’s con malformations at birth and absence version to Christianity just prior to

August, 1960

what would have been his bar mitzvah and count him in, we still, without America and Twentieth Century Britain, have little to brag about. Disraeli, Zangwill, and a handful of forgotten hacks—Mendoza the heavy weight champion, barely noticed by Modder, wrote better than any of them—there isn't even a numerus clausus here.

Someday perhaps a genuine critic will come along to puzzle over this largely negative picture of Jewish characters ill-drawn, of Jewish themes neglected or distorted, of Jewish writ ers producing fourth-class work. Until then The Jew in the Literature of England will have to remain as a use ful compilation, reasonably well put together; and completely unexciting.

The Molding of a Biased Record of Jewish Life By SAMUEL I. COHEN

AMERICAN JEWISH YEARBOOK —1960, Edited by Morris Fine and Milton Himmelfarb. American Jewish Committee, New York, and the Jewish Publication Society of America, Phila delphia. EVIEWERS of lengthy antholo gies and yearbooks often make their tasks easy by directing their critical analyses to the authors' over all pattern and effect, leaving tbe content, style, and perspective of the volume's individual selections to the tastes of the more ambitious who do not content themselves with reviews. More than often the authors of in dividual essays within such volumes escape public attention and critique and their presentations go unnoticed or unchallenged. The over-all editors, of course, satisfied with the diversity and comprehensive character of their monumental works, rest easy with the

RA BBI SA M U EL I. COHEN, a musmach of M esivta Rabbi Chaim Berlin, is executive direc tor of the Long Island Zionist Y outh Commission.

knowledge that every interest, every element, and every faction has been catered to within the volume's many pages. Since it is indeed the rare anthology or yearbook that is a money-maker, publishers of such vol umes are showered with but praise and tributes for their service to the community. These generalizations unfortunately have particular application to the latest edition, the sixty-first volume, of the “American Jewish Yearbook," heralded as “the standard, authori tative record of events and significant trends in American and world Jewish life." ', 1 Anyone taking even the most cur sory glance at this important volume will immediately be impressed with a pattern aimed at scope, and feel the effect of a truly educational experi ence; for its pages do indeed give the most comprehensive survey of Jewish life available in any printed form. Anyone seeking demographic data, information on the civic and JEWISH LIFE

political status of Jews in this coun try, statistics on Jewish communal affairs, progress reports on foreign Jewish communities, lists and direc tories of national Jewish organiza tions, Federations and Welfare Funds, Community Councils, periodicals, and even an American Jewish Bibliog raphy, will find the Yearbook to be an ideal source-book. To the great credit of the American Jewish Com mittee, the Yearbook’s sponsors, once again people who want and need such information have available an excel lently prepared and skillfully edited reference.

ish life has been catered to within the pages of this truly comprehensive work. On the contrary, the role, status, and progress of “Jewish life” as understood by the broad realm of orthodox Jewry is too often under played, minimized, and even periodi cally, by implication, derogated. Both contemporary readers and future historians will find a biased picture of Jewish life presented in the Yearbook; and for this the editors must be taken to task. Although one must accept at face value the statistical information pre sented (e.g. communities with Jewish populations of 100 or more; the Jew RITTEN as it is for both con ish population in each of the states; temporary usage and posterity’s Jewish immigration to the United record, the Yearbook assumes a role States in 1958 and distribution in the and function of unparalleled dimen various states) by Alvin Chenkin and sion. Its pages reflect and mold the Ilya Dijour; and likewise the factual understanding, recording, and subse civil rights report by Theodore Leskes quent reviewing of modern Jewish (covering in detail the status of deshistory. As such its responsibilities egration in the South, “Massive Re are great; and its pitfalls, many. As sistance,” Little Rock, Housing, Em the most prestigious and comprehen ployment, and pending legislation), sive document of contemporary Jew the lengthier essays that attempt to ish history in the making, this work interpret as well as record contem aims to portray the accurate picture porary Jewish life cannot go unchal of Jewish life; and it will be accepted lenged. as such by people who don’t (or have no reason to) know otherwise and by HESE interpretive essays contain future students and historians who three basic limitations that con have no better (or other) records sequently bias the picture of Jewish available. life presented. First, the areas in Precisely because of its vital his which Orthodoxy in general, and or toric role, important service, and com thodox Jewish institutions and organi prehensive character this reviewer is zations in particular, have made not content with superficial appraisal dynamic contributions and strides of of the structure and pattern of the progress, go unmentioned—or at most volume; nor does he wish to allow the receive only passing reference. Sec authors of the individual essays to ondly, the implicit contrasts between escape public attention, critique, and the treatment given Orthodoxy and challenge. His contention and argu that given other movements in Jew ment here is that the Yearbook’s over ish life are so marked and imbalanced all editors cannot rest easy with the that the reader cannot but conclude knowledge that every segment of Jew- that orthodox Jewish communal and

August, 1960

The Rabbinical Council of America w

a ed to - A n n o u n c e th e P u l> die a tio n on

September 27, 1960/ Tishri 6, 5721 of its

THE TRADITIONAL PRAYER BOOK FOR SABBATHS AND FESTIVALS A N e w Translation By Dr. David de Sola Pool

A Project of the Joint Publications Commission of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America Please address all inquiries to

RABBINICAL COUNCIL OF AMERICA 84 FIFTH A V E N U E N E W Y O R K 11, N. Y.

JEWISH LIFE

religious activity is fragmentary and minute as compared with that of the others. Thirdly, one must dispute the implications contained in the article on Jewish Education, by Uriah Z. Engelman, and the National Jewish Cultural Study, by David Zeff, as being unfair, incorrect, and certainly misleading on the vital subject of traditional religious educational en deavor and achievement. The first limitation is obvious in several important sections of the vol ume. In the section on Religion by Jacob Neusner, the part headed “ Union of Orthodox Jewish Congre gations of America—Rabbinical Coun cil of America,” confines its summation of the Union’s year of activity solely to a brief sentence quoting comment by Moses I. Feuerstein on the estab lishment of the R.C.A. Beth Din and two sentences noting the conferring of an award by UOJCA on the Chief of Army Chaplains. No mention is made of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the U. S. and Canada (Agudas Harabonim), which is headed by lead ing Rabbinic and Torah authorities, or of the Rabbinical Alliance of Ameri ca (Igud Harabonim), Young Israel, Mizrachi, Agudath Israel, Poalei Agudath Israel, or of their activities and progress. In this section although mention is made of Yeshiva Univer sity (equal space with the Hebrew Union College and the Jewish Theo logical Seminary), not a word is said about the Mesivta Rabbi Chaim Ber lin, Mesivta Torah Vodaath, the Mirrer Yeshivah, Telz, Netzach Yisroel, the Chofetz Chaim Yeshivah, Mesivta Tifereth Jerusalem, the Lubavitcher Yeshivoth, and their vast num ber of students and graduates who today play such an important role in American Jewish life. It may be true th at the Reform and Conserva August, 1960

tive movements have but one seminary each, but it certainly isn’t true that Orthodoxy’s only bastion of advanced learning is Yeshiva University. N THIS same article on Religion, both the Reform and Conservative movements are given credit for the publishing of various volumes and booklets, but nowhere is there any mention of the array of publications published and distributed annually by the Union of Orthodox Jewish Con gregations of America and other or thodox bodies, except for a passing reference to the Rabbinical Council of America’s journal “Tradition.” It is to be noted that this article incorrectly states that: “The national organizations claim 660 Conservative, 575 Reform, and 1,500 Orthodox syna gogues.” The fact is well known that American Jewish Orthodoxy comprises over 3,000 congregations. The New York Board of Rabbis is mentioned briefly but no reference is made to the heated controversy sur rounding its presently challenged au thority in the Chaplaincy, Milah, and civic fields; nor is any comment made on the heated debate on the subject of orthodox membership in the Board. Readers of this volume must assume that everything in this connection is smooth and uncomplicated. In Philip Jacobson’s review of the Church^State Issues (covering with great clarity the present status of Christmas Observance in the Schools, Released Time, Use of School Prem ises by Religious Groups, Tax Funds for Parochial Schools, Sunday Clos ing Laws, Humane Slaughter Legisla tion, Religious Symbols on Public Property, Mixed Seating in the Syn agogue—the Mount Clemens Case, and Church Attendance as Condition of Parole), although the facts pre-

Announcing A New Publication

“ TORAH AS OUR GUIDE” by W alte r Orenstein a n d Hertz Frankel

P rice $ 2 . 5 0 in a beautifully designed jacket

G^rTioRAH As Our Guide” is a text book molded to the needs of the Jewish 1 child. While it is based on the “Schulchan Aruch” it is not an Encyclopedia of Jewish law. Rather it is a guide to traditional living. Topics were chosen that are basic knowledge for every Jewish child. _ Written in lucid English, the authors, Rabbis Orenstein and Hertz, from their experience as teachers, bring many “firsts” to this provocative book not found in other text books of this kind. One of the “firsts” is the inclusion of short stories that illustrate very effectively the central idea of every chapter. Available at all Bookstores

HEBREW PUBLISHING CO.

•

79 DELANCEY STREET

•

NEW YORK 2, N. Y.

D E L U X E G E F IL T E F I S H Be among the first to serve this royal new dish! Made exclu sively by m o t h e r s , of whitefish only.. .the precious luxury fish PAREVE prized for its exquisitely delicate flavor, k o sh er Or choose Mother's “Old Fashioned99 (regular) gefilte fish. From the spotless kitchens of Mother’s Food Products, Inc. • Newark 5, N .J. 58

JEWISH LIFE

sented are certainly comprehensive, not the slightest mention is made of the impassioned and dedicated efforts of orthodox organizations and indi viduals in connection with many of these issues. If a more accurate sum mation of contemporary Jewish life were to be written space would have to be devoted to the heroic Baruch Litvin; to the pioneering work of Lubavitch in behalf of Released Time; to the countless and tireless efforts of the Union of Orthodox Jew ish Congregations of America, the Rabbinical Council of America, and the Agudas Harabonim to combat anti-Shechitah legislation cloaked as “Humane Slaughter,” and to the in defatigable activity of Dr. Isaac Lewin in this battle; to these organi zations’ role in the protection of Sabbath observers against discrimina tory Sunday closing laws; and to the numerous briefs, delegations, and ac tions to secure and protect the civil rights of observant Jews issued by the several national orthodox groups as part and parcel of their regular routine. It would be fair to assume that in many of the instances where issues concerning the rights of observant Jews were raised, it was done so at the initiative of traditionally oriented individuals and groups: the ones who, after all, care and are concerned most. Another fair assumption is that when reporting these incidents and issues in the Yearbook, the author (and subsequently the editors) show little if any concern for the role or |sentiments of orthodox Jewry.

that appeared in the Journal of Jew ish Communal Service (Summer-1960, Vol. XXXVII, No. 4), written by a leading Jewish communal worker, Morris Zelditch, the director of the Social Planning Department, Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds,. In the official forum of professional Jewish social workers, Mr. Zelditch w rites: “This has somewhat limited value for Jewish workers, particularly social workers, in the local communities in the United States. The reason for this lies in the gaps in the book rather than in the content . . . These lacks are several, but they consist mainly of the omission of material on many fields of Jewish communal activity . . . This reviewer’s point of view is obvi ously slanted. But the slant rests on the assumption that a year book for communal workers should be desig nated to serve the interests of Jewish communal workers, from all major fields, and in many ways this book does not.” Mr. Zelditch’s reservations about the volume, mind you, are despite articles of the most comprehensive nature on Jewish Communal Services, by S. P. Goldberg, and on Jewish Community Centers, by Herbert Milman ; two elaborate essays by two prominent and competent professional Jewish communal workers. This is the sentiment of a professional not iden tified with any one segment of Jewish life but rather with a national co ordinating agency that aims to serve the entire broad Jewish community. If such criticisms are presented in behalf of the over-all Jewish community, then EST th is review er be charged certainly there is justification for J with the usual accusations of complaint specifically in behalf of supersensitivity, or of magnifying Orthodoxy. Certainly, from our view certain issues out of proportion, let point there are lacks and omissions. me cite another review of this work Obviously, we too cannot accept the

August, 1960

JU ST OFF THE PRESS D R . P H ILIP B IR N B M J M 'S

HIGH HOLIDAY PRAYER BOOK D?»n Tuna In Two Volumes

This two volume set of the Mahzor-Ha-Shalem is concise, accurate and pleasing to the eye. The Hebrew prayers and piyyutim are superbly translated and annotated. Like the two-volume Sephardic edition of MahzorHa-Shalem, our Ashkenazic edition, now made available in two volumes, contains a wide variety of responsive readings in English. The Mahzor was in need of interpretation, expert translation and dignified presentation. The need has now been filled. Even a cursory examination reveals the expert hand of Mahzor’s editor. At all bookstores, $5.00 a set.

Mahzor-Ha-Shalem in one volume, $2.75. HEBREW PUBLISHING COMPANY, v>

delancey

st re e t ,

new

york

2, n. y.

Tel. G R anite 4-9671 - 9552 N Eptune 4-4244

I America's original and oldest I calorie-free liquid sweetener

¡S W E E T E R T H A N S U G A R — YET J N O FOOD VALUE

W ASHINGTON HOTEL A Year-Round Resort

Newly Renovated & Air-Conditioned Catering for A ll Occasions

Doctors recommend S U G A R I N E

for diabetics, overweights, low calorie diets PURE • HARMLESS

Supervised and Endorsed by Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations

• ECONOMICAL

4 Oz. bottle Only 75c

LEVINE

MANAGEMENT

124-05 ROCKAWAY BOULEVARD SU G A R IN E is Kosher and is Approved by The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations.

ROCKAWAY PARK, N. Y.

JEWISH LIFE

volume as the “standard and authori tative^ record of Jewish life.

serious implications. After examining the findings, conclusions, and perspec tives of that study’s authors from an URS is certainly a legitimate pro educator’s professional vantage point, test when we voice our indigna Dr. William W. Brickman stated that: tion at the patently ¡biased report on “There seems to be a plentitude of Jewish Education (abridged from proof that this study of American “The Study of Jewish Education in Jewish Education is prejudiced against the U. S.” by Alexander Dushkin and the orthodox Day School movement Uriah Z. Engelman, published and . . . It is a matter of profound regret Sponsored by the American Associa that it is not a historic record of the most valuable aspects of contemporary tion for Jewish Education). In an otherwise thorough evalua Jewish education in the United States tion of the enrollment, curriculum, %-the orthodox Jewish Day School status, and dilemma of Jewish educa movement.” (“The State of the Jew tion in this country, the author, Dr. ish School in America”, J ewish Life, Engelman, here somehow manages to December, 1959.) completely ignore the Yeshivah and HE YEARBOOK’S other major Day School movement. Considerable report that blatantly ignores and comment is made on the statistical distribution of enrollments in the vari offends orthodox sensibility is the ous types of schools, to the attitudes article by David Zeff on the muchof students to these schools, and to publicized National Jewish Cultural the variety of problems that plague Study, sponsored in 1957 by the Coun school administrators (i.e. operating cil of Jewish Federations and Welfare costs, transportation, parents and Funds. Explaining that the study’s staff). Each is given thoughtful primary focus was on “archives, analysis. Each is given considerable scholarship, research and publication, space. But no comment whatever is with a side glance at Jewish studies made about the most dynamic feature in secular institutions of higher learn of contemporary Jewish education, ing,” Mr. Zeff, the Council’s Senior and no mention is made of the Day Regional Director, offers a factual School’s vibrant impact on Jewish life and interesting report on the study’s findings and recoihmendations in each in this country. In the future, readers of this I960 of the areas. But again the report is volume will not know that in 1959 more significant for its omissions and (the year of the study on Jewish edu gaps than for what it presents. The facilities of the three major cation) there were 236 yeshivahschools in 80 cities in 24 states. Nor Jewish archival agencies in this coun will they know of the great success try, the American Jewish Historical enjoyed by Torah Umesorah, the Society, the American Jewish Archives Mizrachi National Education Com (Hebrew Union College), and the mittee (Vaad Hachinuch Hatorani), American Jewish History Center and the United Lubavitcher Yeshi- (Jewish Theological Seminary) are voth, in the establishment of many limited although progressing; and new day schools throughout the ten long-range solutions were recom mended. country. Scholarship and research seem to This serious omission has even more

August, 1960

REFRESHING, FLAVORFUL

...DELICIOUS!

FALLSBURG, N. Y. Air-Conditioned Accommodations N E W THEATER and C O C K T A IL L O U N G E C atering to tots, teen-agers a n d in-betweens

BRyant 9-3854 ICE CREAM ®

Supervision and Endorsement

FOR FINEST QUALITY

JEWISH LIFE

fare better because no recommen dations are offered. Although ac knowledging th at “any estimate of contemporary Jewish scholarship should logically begin with the semi naries of the three major American Jewish religious groupings,” the au thor explains that Jewish scholarship is centered in the Hebrew Union College, the Jewish Theological Semi nary, and Yeshiva University (given only five lines here). But does the author of the article, and the editor of the study, truly believe that Jewish scholarship and the training of Jew ish scholars are limited to these three institutions? Do not the numerous advanced yeshivoth and kollelim de serve even passing mention? Or is it simply that Torah Lishmah is not considered by some as scholarship? Or is it that Torah learning does not come within the purview of Jewish culture? The implications are many, all dis tasteful. There is a significance to these omissions th at bespeaks a sorry commentary on the attitudes of the non-orthodox groups and writers. Certainly we have a right and a responsibility to ask why there exist these editorial discriminations against orthodox Jewish endeavor and achieve ment. Certainly we must ask, for ex

August, 1960

ample, why on the study’s findings on the subject of Jewish cultural pub lications not the slightest mention is made of the many hundreds of S’forim that are published annually by orthodox Jewish circles. Reference is made to the Jewish Reconstruc tionist Foundation and its Recon structionist Press with “approximately 25 titles, besides prayer books.” But not one word is said about the many publications sponsored by American orthodox Jewry. HERE IS a temptation to assume that the Yearbook’s articles on thirty-two foreign Jewish communi ties follow this same trend and ignore or minimize Orthodoxy’s role and con tribution. But in fairness to the edi tors, this reviewer would not attempt such generalizations because of his limited knowledge of the status of traditional communal activity in those countries. But this general criticism stands firm when applied to the Yearbook’s featured evaluations of Jewish life of this country. Firm also is the convic tion that Orthodoxy’s leadership must rise in unanimous protest of the Year book’s biased presentation of contem porary Jewish history; if not for our sake, at least for the sake of posterity.

THE ONLY PREFABRICATED

PACKAGED SUKKAH T h e L if e t im e E a & y -T o -A s s e m b le P o r t a b le S u k k a h d e s ig n e d

by Sp ero

F o u n d a t io n W A L L S : M ade o f yellow D U R A - H U E DUCK. W eight 10 oz. per square yard. Mil dew - R esistant and Water-Repellent. DECORATIONS are silk screened on up per four w alls in maroon color, w ill not fade. LIGHT: W e furnish an e le c t r ic f ix t u r e com plete w ith 25 ft. w a te r p r o o f w ir e , s o c k e t , p lu g a n d plastic shade. ROOF: W e furnish th r e e w o o d e n or bamboo strips across th e top to, hold F ix ture and S'chach.

SIZ E : 7%' long, 5 wide, and 7*4' high. W ill accom modate up to 10 persons. FRAM E and FIT TIN G S: Made o f an alloy o f alum inum and m agne sium , three-quarter inch diam eter pipe w hich w ill not rust or corrode. N o tools necessary w ith our patented fittings to ass e m b le or d is m a n t le , other than one sm all wrench w hich w e fu r nish. PACKING

ONLY

W e pack and ship entire Suk kah in a heavy corrugated car ton w hich is 8 feet long by 8 inches square and th is carton is used for storing your Sukkah.

F.O.B. N . Y. Check W ith Order

ASSEM BLIES W ith each purchase w e furnish you a very detailed assembly instruction sheet, w hich makes it very sim ple to put th e Sukkah together.

Sukkah on display at 33 W est 42nd Street, N .Y.C. Room 642

We also have plastic Sukkah decorations for your own home built Sukkah Write for brochure. S'C H A C H : W e w ill also supply you w ith 75 bam boo sticks 1*4 inches in diam eter by 6 feet long to cover entire Sukkah. ADDITIONAL $18.0« COMMUNITY SIZE 14% FT. LONG — 10 FT. W IDE— 7*4 FEET HIGH W ILL ACCOMMODATE U P TO 24 PE R SO N S PRICE $212.00 F.O.B. N .Y . Bamboo S ’chach for above. ADD ITIO N AL $36.00 A l l otlxer above.

fe a tu re s

A ll orders for commu n ity size m ust be re ceived before A ugust 31.

U nion o f Orthodox Jew ish C ongregations of America 84 F ifth A venue N ew York 11, N . Y. A

G entlem en: □ P lease ship m e one Packaged Sukkah designed by the Spero Foundation. Cheek for the am ount of $102 is enclosed. □ I also w a n t 75 bamboo sticks, w hich w ill cover entire Sukkah, and I am enclosing an additional $18.00. □ P lease send brochure on Sukkah decorations. N a m e ................ A ddress........... City and State,

JEWISH LIFE

WOMEN’S BRANCH of?the

Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America H m

-Announced its

3 7 th A n n u a l C o n v e n t io n N O V E M B E R 1 4 -1 6 , 1 9 6 0 C H E S H V A N 2 4 -2 6 , 5721 CHELSEA HOTEL Atlantic City, New Jersey

Convention Chairmen

Program Chairman

Mrs. N athan G reenspan Mrs. Arthur H. Federman

Mrs. Solom on Freilich _ .

Program Co-Chairman

Mrs. M eyer Karlin

President Mrs. Allen I. Edles

This Heinz symbol of quality and this © *seal of appear on the tastiest of all vegetarian beans. . . on seven savory soups. ..o n the world*s best liked Ketchup—and on a great variety of pure and nourishing strained and junior foods for babies.

*the (Q) is the seal of The Union Of Orthodox Jewish Congregations Of America youx guarantee that these Heinz Varieties are strictly kosher.